<?page no="0"?> Paul Among the Gentiles: A ‘Radical’ Reading of Romans Jacob P. B. Mortensen 28 <?page no="1"?> Paul Among the Gentiles: A ‘Radical’ Reading of Romans <?page no="2"?> Neutestamentliche Entwürfe zur Theologie Band 28 • 2018 Herausgegeben von Eve-Marie Becker, Jens Herzer, Friedrich W. Horn, Oda Wischmeyer und Hanna Zapp <?page no="3"?> Jacob P. B. Mortensen Paul Among the Gentiles: A ‘Radical’ Reading of Romans <?page no="4"?> © 2018 · Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG Dischingerweg 5 · D-72070 Tübingen Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Internet: www.francke.de E-Mail: info@francke.de Printed in Germany ISSN 1865-2666 ISBN 978-3-7720-8656-4 Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http: / / dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. <?page no="5"?> 12 14 16 21 21 21 23 28 37 40 44 44 45 47 48 49 52 53 55 55 56 58 61 61 63 Contents Geleitwort aus dem Kreis der Herausgeberinnen und Herausgeber . . . . . . . . . . Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The State of the Research - the radical new perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . History of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scholarly predecessors to the radical perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The ‘actual’ radicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Critical evaluation of the radical perspective: T.L. Donaldson and A. Wedderburn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation and task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Terminology: Jews, Gentiles, Christians, or something else? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caroline Johnson Hodge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joshua Garroway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paula Fredriksen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark D. Nanos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul’s (and Peter’s) identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding remarks and evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Introductory Questions - Gentile addressees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A real letter (epistolography) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The integrity of the letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 14-, 15-, or 16-chapter version of Romans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Place of writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Addressees, audience, recipients: external versus internal evidence . A Gentile audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <?page no="6"?> 66 68 71 72 79 79 81 85 90 92 92 93 94 100 101 108 113 114 114 118 121 123 131 133 135 135 138 141 145 148 151 Some Jews after all…? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Gentile identity of ‘the strong’ and ‘the weak’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jews in chapter 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The occasion and purpose of Romans - some preliminary insights . 4 A fictive Gentile interlocutor - προσωποποιία . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul’s educational background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Προσωποποιία . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Προσωποποιία continued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The significance of προσωποποιία - literature and life, or rhetoric and realism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Romans 1: 18-32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethnic Stereotypes - a modern perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stereotyping in Antiquity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stereotyping in Paul’s practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘Us’ - the Jews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘Them’ - the Gentiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Continuity from chapter 1 to chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Romans 2: 1-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 2: 1-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judgement and justification - justice and mercy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Linguistic, stylistic, structural, and grammatical continuity in 2: 1-16 Romans 2: 17-24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rom 2: 25-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Continuity from chapter 2 to chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Romans 3: 1-31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rhetorical strategy of chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 3: 1-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 3: 9-20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 3: 21-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 3: 27-31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Continuity from chapter 3 to chapter 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contents 6 <?page no="7"?> 153 153 158 160 160 161 166 170 172 176 182 184 191 198 201 206 209 211 212 214 214 215 216 218 221 225 225 229 232 233 235 8 Romans 4: 1-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 4: 1-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 4: 13-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Romans 5: 1-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adam, but not anthropology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 5: 1-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The qal wa-chomer reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Continuity between 5: 1-11 and 5: 12-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Genesis 2-3 in Old Testament exegesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Second Temple parallels: Adam’s actions are not considered in a negative way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sin and evil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sin and Gentiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First probing - the limitations of the analogy: Romans 5: 12-14 . . . . The perception of Adam in Second Temple Jewish literature is specifically positive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . God’s benevolence is greater than his punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 5: 14c-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adam and Christ compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 5: 12-21 in a broader perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Continuity between Romans 5 and 6-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Romans 6: 1-7: 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gentiles in chapter 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Already walking in the newness of life, but also not yet . . . . . . . . . . The question, meaning, and function of baptism in 6: 1-14 . . . . . . . . Romans 6: 1-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 6: 15-7: 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Romans 7: 7-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 7: 7-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sin, the (Mosaic) law, and another law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 2 and 7 - an inversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recapitulating the interpretation of 7: 7-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Continuity between chapter 7 and chapter 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contents 7 <?page no="8"?> 236 236 241 244 246 254 260 261 263 274 275 277 277 280 282 284 289 290 294 294 296 299 302 303 307 313 314 317 317 318 320 12 Romans 8: 1-39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 8: 1-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roman socio-legal practices concerning adoption (of ex-slaves) . . . . Adrogatio and adoptio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social distinctions and status-consciousness within the Roman family and society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The adoption metaphor in Romans 8: 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The relation of υἱοθεσία in 8: 15 to υἱοθεσία in 9: 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The relation of 8: 12-17 to 8: 18-30 and the question of continuity . . Romans 8: 18-30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 8: 31-39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Continuity from chapters 6-8 to 9-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Romans 9-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rhetorical strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Authorial voice and the ‘I’ of chapters 9-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 9: 6-29 - God has not rejected Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 9: 30-10: 21 - Christ is the goal of the law for Gentiles . . . . . . Works-righteousness or a righteous law - the problem of νόμος δικαιοσύνης . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The stumbling stone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christ as τέλος of the law for Gentiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christ fulfils the law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 11: 1-10 - God’s unbroken fidelity to Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 11: 11-24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 11: 17-24 - the olive tree metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 11: 25-32 - the ‘mystery’ and the Sonderweg interpretation in 11: 25-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The problem of οὕτως . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 11: 25-32 resumed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Romans 12-15 and the relationship between theology and paraenesis . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 12: 1-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 12: 3-21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contents 8 <?page no="9"?> 321 323 325 326 327 329 331 334 338 338 341 346 346 347 Romans 13: 1-7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 13: 8-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ in 14: 1-15: 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The (Mosaic) law in 14: 1-15: 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A perspective on the (Mosaic) law from inside and outside the covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Could ‘the strong’ and ‘the weak’ be proselytes and/ or God-fearers? Why does Paul’s position vacillate with regard to the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 15: 7-13 - Christ as servant of the circumcision to the Gentiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recapitulation of interpretative findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The achievements and limitations of my interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secondary Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contents 9 <?page no="11"?> For Sofie <?page no="12"?> Geleitwort aus dem Kreis der Herausgeberinnen und Herausgeber Die Reihe ‘Neutestamentliche Entwürfe zur Theologie’ (kurz: NET) wurde zu Beginn des neuen Jahrtausends durch François Vouga, Oda Wischmeyer und Hanna Zapp begründet. Die beiden ersten Bände wurden 2001 publiziert. Im Laufe der etwa 17-jährigen Geschichte der Reihe, in der etwa 25 Bände er‐ schienen sind, wurde der Kreis der Herausgeberinnen und Herausgeber erwei‐ tert und verändert - er besteht nun aus: Eve-Marie Becker (Aarhus), Jens Herzer (Leipzig), Friedrich Wilhelm Horn (Mainz), Oda Wischmeyer (Erlangen) und Hanna Zapp (Darmstadt). In der Reihe NET sind bisher vor allem Monographien - teils auf Disserta‐ tionen zurückgehend - und Anthologien - teils auf Tagungen basierend - er‐ schienen. Die Reihe steht laut Verlagsbeschreibung u. a. ‘für den Dialog zwi‐ schen neutestamentlicher Wissenschaft und theologischer Dogmatik, Ethik und praktischer Theologie’ sowie ‘für den Brückenschlag zur Text-, Literatur- und Sprachwissenschaft’. Gerade die Reflexion der interdisziplinären Aufgaben und Qualitäten neutestamentlicher Exegese für die Theologie, aber auch benach‐ barte geisteswissenschaftliche Disziplinen, prägt das Reihenprofil von NET 1 bis in die Gegenwart. Wir freuen uns, dass der Reihe NET gleichsam zum Erreichen ihrer Volljäh‐ rigkeit, also zum bevorstehenden 18. Geburtstag, eine weitere Brückenfunktion zukommen kann: So gewinnt sie mit der ersten in englischer Sprache verfassten Monographie von Jacob P. B. Mortensen (Aarhus) eine internationale Profi‐ lierung hinzu. Der Brückenschlag von deutschsprachiger zu anglo-amerikanisch geprägter Exegese kann aber nicht allein sprachlich gelingen, sondern erfordert auch intellektuelle Vermittlungsarbeit. Mortensens Arbeit zum Römerbrief: ‘Paul Among the Gentiles: A ‘Radical‘ Reading of Romans’ zeigt schon in ihrem Titel an, dass hinter der exegetischen Analyse des Römerbriefs eine konzise These, ein Forschungsdiskurs steht, der zunächst weitgehend anglo-amerikanisch gen‐ eriert ist. Mortensens Monographie verleugnet ihre Prägung durch die ‘radical perspective on Paul’ nicht, geht aber sprachlich und sachlich weitere, ihre ei‐ genen Schritte: So wird die ‘radical perspective’ immer auch in den Grenzen ihrer Interpretationsspielräume beschrieben - dazu verhilft nicht zuletzt der produktive Verweis auf deutschsprachige Forschungstradition und -literatur. <?page no="13"?> Weitere englischsprachige Arbeiten für NET sind derzeit in Planung. Wir danken dem Verlag für die Öffnung der Sprachgrenzen und dem ersten Autor - sowie den dann folgenden Autorinnen und Autoren - dafür, ihre Arbeiten der Reihe ‘Neutestamentliche Entwürfe zur Theologie’ im Wissen um die großen Anstrengungen und Chancen, die jeder Brückenschlag erfordert und bietet, an‐ zuvertrauen. Eve-Marie Becker Jerusalem und Aarhus im Dezember 2017 Geleitwort aus dem Kreis der Herausgeberinnen und Herausgeber 13 <?page no="14"?> Preface This study began life as a doctoral thesis at Aarhus University in 2011. The present reorganized and rewritten product was part of my dissertation of 2014, ‘Paul, Paulitics and προσωποποιία.’ In the meantime, parts of the dissertation were expanded, and other parts entirely omitted, for example, the analysis of Giorgio Agamben’s interpretation of Romans. In my time as a doctoral student, the Department of Biblical Studies at Aarhus University gave me a home and an eminently congenial place to work. My col‐ leagues provided stimulus, discussion, criticism, and sympathy. I was outstand‐ ingly fortunate to have Professor Eve-Marie Becker and Professor Svend An‐ dersen as my doctoral supervisors. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to them both for giving me the opportunity to realize this project. I also wish to express my gratitude to Professor Hermut Löhr (Münster), Dr. Ward Blanton (Kent), and Associate Professor Kasper Bro Larsen (Aarhus) who were my ex‐ aminers. They honoured me with the care and attentiveness they gave to my dissertation. Their suggestions were welcome improvements that are reflected in the present work. Their enthusiasm for my work was deeply gratifying. I would like to thank the editors of the NET (‘Neutestamentliche Entwürfe zur Theologie’) for accepting my manuscript for the series, and the Narr Francke Attempto Verlag, especially Isabel Johe and Valeska Lembke, and Vanessa Weih‐ gold for helping me through the publication process. I also want to thank Aarhus University Research Foundation (AUFF) for finansial aid in the publication process. I also want to thank Michaela Scioscia for proofreading the manuscript. It goes without saying that a project such as the one whose fruits are repre‐ sented here requires the energy and commitment of more than just one person. I am indebted and grateful to the following people without whom this work would not have materialized: Mom, Dad, Julie, Markus, Frederik, Kristin, Rasmus, Malene, Silas, Henning, Rie, Caro, Lotte, Lars Nørgaard, Kristian Mejrup, Hans Christiansen and Mads Dambæk. I also want to thank everyone who read parts of, or the entire manuscript, and helped improve it: Jon Stewart, Tyler Smith, Silas Mortensen, Lars Östman, Lone Fatum, Dale Martin and Eve-Marie Becker. I especially wish to thank Eve-Marie Becker for her mentorship, counsel, and for her intellectual grit and creativity. Her competence as a scholar and super‐ visor are exceeded only by her generosity as a friend. She supported me and <?page no="15"?> believed in this project from its tiny inception to the final refinements. I will continue to learn from her for years to come. Lastly and most importantly, I wish to thank my family for their love and sup‐ port. Jonathan and Sarah, I love you. Sofie, this book is in many ways yours as much as it is mine. I dedicate it to you, since I could not have done this without you, and I would not want it in any other way. I love you. Jacob P. B. Mortensen Frederiksberg, December, 2017 Preface 15 <?page no="16"?> Introduction This book is the record of an encounter with one of the most remarkable texts in the canon of Western literature, Paul’s letter to the Romans. From the early beginnings of Christian exegesis, Paul’s letter to the Romans was regarded as the defining element for an understanding of Paul as a person, his work, and his theology. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) took Romans as the point of depar‐ ture for his personal experience of conversion, and established the conversion story of Romans 7 as a paradigm for all believers to imitate. Martin Luther (1483- 1546) looked to Romans (and Galatians) as a bulwark against the Catholic Church, with his proclamation of justification by faith. The post-World War II New Testament scholar, Günther Bornkamm (1905-1990), argued that Romans represents Paul’s spiritual testament. In present-day New Testament exegesis, Romans stands as the heart and highlight of the Pauline letters - the prime gem in the Pauline canon. Despite the value ascribed to Paul’s letter to the Romans, there have been major differences in the perceptions and interpretations of the text. For many years, the core of the text was thought to be 3: 21-26, with its message of justi‐ fication by faith, for all humanity, Jews and Gentiles alike. Also, many scholars focused on chapters 1 to 8, and perceived these chapters as concerned with justification (1-4) and sanctification (5-8). However, especially beginning with the work initiated by Johannes Munck (1904-1965) and Krister Stendahl (1921- 2008), there followed a concern with the incorporation of chapters 9 to 11 into the overall understanding of Romans. With the advent of the ‘New Perspective’ on Paul - in the wake of scholars such as E.P. Sanders (* 1937), James Dunn (* 1939), Gerd Theissen (* 1943), Hans Dieter Betz (* 1931) and Heikki Räisänen (* 1941) - attention was broadened to the paraenetic part of the letter (chapters 12-15). The latest development in the interpretation of the letter comes from the ‘Radical New Perspective’ on Paul or ‘Paul within Judaism’, and includes scholars such as John Gager (* 1937), Mark D. Nanos (* 1954), Paula Fredriksen (* 1951), Magnus Zetterholm (*1958), Caroline Johnson Hodge, and Pamela Ei‐ senbaum. Despite the fact that this group of scholars disagrees on several spe‐ cific issues concerning the letter, they agree on Paul’s position as being ‘within Judaism’, and on his focus being exclusively on Gentiles. In 1977 (and again in 1991), Karl P. Donfried edited a collection of essays under the title of The Romans Debate. This collection of essays proved to be seminal, <?page no="17"?> 1 Donfried 1991a, lxix because it gathered the most important contributions by some of the most in‐ fluential scholars concerning the background, situation, and purpose of Romans. The scholars represented by the collection of essays provide various interpre‐ tations of the situation in the Roman assembly, and the purpose and meaning of the letter. Despite the differences in opinion about almost everything related to the letter, a consensus still seemed to grow from the first to the second edition of the book. In the introduction to the second edition, Karl Donfried explained the kind of consensus, from this point of view, that had been reached: Romans was addressed to the Christian community in Rome, and this community found itself in a particular historical situation, which influenced the perception of the letter. 1 However, another and more important question also emerged from the discussion: How did the various parts of the letter contribute to the perception of the situation behind the letter, and the overall purpose of the letter - in short: What was the meaning of Romans, when all the parts were taken into account? Scholars have struggled to answer the foregoing questions ever since, and there are often as many answers as there are scholars. Frequently, scholars work more concentratedly on the parts of the letter that they find most interesting, and touch on the question of the letter’s overall meaning and coherence only in passing. This approach may seem more manageable, since Romans has many profound and difficult passages. Nevertheless, in this monograph I wish to present my own interpretation of the entire letter. I suggest solutions to various problems that have emerged from readings by proponents of both the new and the radical new perspectives on Paul. As will become clear, my interpretation is inspired from the radical new perspective on Paul, but I do not consider my views to be part of the radical new perspective, as such. I take a rather simple premise as my starting point: As should most ancient letters and books, Paul’s letter should be read from beginning to end. This as‐ sumption may seem self-evident, but it certainly is not. Several scholars have suggested reading Romans either from behind or from some hidden inner logic. If, as I propose here, we read Romans from beginning to end, we must be able to explain and evaluate the significance of every part of the letter to the pro‐ gression and development of the discourse, and for its contribution to the meaning and purpose of the entire letter. Hence, the various parts build up to a climactic ending in the body of the letter. In this book, I argue that such a con‐ secutive, successive, or straightforward reading of Romans - indeed, a coherent reading - is not only sensible and consistent with Paul’s situation, but also pro‐ vides a logical, scholarly approach. Introduction 17 <?page no="18"?> I argue that the first of the main parts of the letter (chapters 2-11) is the staging of a conversation between two persons, Paul and an interlocutor. If the introduction and staging of the interlocutor are to be perceived as parts of an ongoing dialogue, the epistolary persona should be relevant to the purpose of the letter. Hence, the two persons conversing must discuss something relevant to a) the interlocutor b) the group the person represents among the addressees and c) the purpose of the letter. Thus, the dialogue represents the historical situation in which it seeks to intervene, and it has indispensable value in terms of the purpose of the letter. From such a reading it follows that the final part of the letter should be seen as the natural and logical climax of the discourse and, hence, the most significant part for determining its purpose. Such a reading contrasts with interpretations of Romans that take 3: 21-26 as the heart of the letter, and give less weight to the following 13 chapters. As a minor qualification to the above-stated approach, it may not be necessary to look for a single purpose of the letter. Scholars have not been slow to realize that Paul presents himself more comprehensively in Romans than in his other letters. This has to do with the fact that he is addressing an assembly that he had not founded himself, and that was largely unknown to him personally (cf. Rom 15: 20). Therefore, Paul’s self-presentation is considered one purpose of the letter. However, the specific and topical material in the final part of the letter, directed to the addressees in Rome, suggests that this could be the main purpose of the letter. With such an understanding of Romans, Paul may have wanted to intervene in Roman affairs, while introducing himself as apostle to the Gentiles, even if he had not founded the assembly himself. This would make Romans a real letter, which intervenes in an actual historical situation with an actual his‐ torical purpose, instead of being conceived as a theological will or tractate. Despite the numerous suggested purposes of Romans, considering the various parts as contributing elements of a logical whole, and as equally important to the development of the argument or rhetorical strategy of the text, is crucial to an understanding of this letter. Therefore, I emphasize the overall purpose of the letter as defining the meaning of the letter. Hence, the preceding parts of the letter must be understood in such a way that they support the conclusion. One of the main questions that must be answered to reach this understanding con‐ cerns the identity of the interlocutor from chapter 2 onwards, and his relation to the circumstances behind the letter. With regard to these points, I combine two approaches: First, I rigorously address the text-internal information Paul provides about the interlocutor, the addressees, and Paul’s self-perception as apostle to the Gentiles. I will address these matters, first, in the introductory chapters on author and addressees, and also in the chapter on προσωποποιία. Introduction 18 <?page no="19"?> Secondly, I try to calibrate the text-internal findings to the general outlook of the radical new perspective’s emphasis on Gentiles as the exclusive objects of Paul’s missionary endeavour. What follows from this is that the conflict between the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ in the Roman assembly must be read against the background of a conflict between two Gentile groups. I intend to demonstrate that this is indeed how we should understand the situation described by Paul. Hence, I provide a reading of Romans from a general outlook (inspired by the radical new perspective) on Paul’s missionary activity as exclusively directed towards Gentiles, and combine this with the text-internal information of the letter concerning the interlocutor, addressees, and author. An important disclosure must be made and emphasized in the current delicate discussion of positions and viewpoints. I am not attempting a specific historical reconstruction of the Roman assembly. I do not go into detail about the possible presence of Jews in Rome at the time of the letter, or the effect of Claudius’s edict. I am concerned simply with the text-internal information of the letter, and combine this with a reading of Romans, set against the background of the new perspective and the radical new perspective on Paul. This book intends to offer an interpretation of the unity, coherence, and pro‐ gression of the epistolary discourse on the surface level of the letter. Many scholars have provided impressive and intriguing interpretations of Romans, but few have managed to link together all the separate parts of Romans as a coherent whole. Two important examples of such work, by which I have been very influenced, deserve mention here. One is Troels Engberg-Pedersen’s Paul and the Stoics (2000). Throughout the chapters on Romans, Engberg-Pedersen strives to incorporate all the different parts of Romans into one coherent and unified whole. However, he succeeds only by assuming that the letter has an internal logic. Hence, Engberg-Pedersen’s interpretation does not unfold, from the beginning to the end of the letter, as a natural and logical development of the rhetorical strategy of the letter. Stanley Stowers’ work (A Rereading of Ro‐ mans, 1994) does accomplish this. However, Stowers wavers on the identity of the interlocutor in chapter 2 of Romans, and finds two separate interlocutors in chapter 2. Hence, Stowers does proceed on the surface level of the letter from beginning to end, but switches the identity of the interlocutor from chapter to chapter, making the dialogue in the letter somewhat difficult to follow. In this book, I have tried to provide a simpler and more consistent interpretation, which proceeds from beginning to end, sticks to one interlocutor throughout chapters 2 to 11, and attempts to incorporate all the different parts of Romans into one coherent and unified whole. I hope and intend that the reading of Romans pro‐ Introduction 19 <?page no="20"?> posed here will be useful, and prompt fruitful, scholarly debates within Pauline circles. Introduction 20 <?page no="21"?> 1 Some may argue that I should include the scholarly work of John Barclay and N.T. Wright. However, I have chosen to not include their work, as I do not believe it to push ‘beyond’ the new perspective. Instead, I consider their work to be firmly situated within (perhaps even mainstream) new perspective interpretations of Paul. 2 In 2000, John Gager wrote about ‘a new paradigm’ within Pauline studies (Gager 2000, 145). However - to my knowledge - the first scholars who spoke of ‘a radical new perspective’ are Caroline Johnson Hodge (2007, 153), Pamela Eisenbaum (2009, 250), and Magnus Zetterholm (2009, 161). 3 Cf. Gager 2000, 145; Nanos 2015, 1-2; Eisenbaum 2009, 250 1 The State of the Research - the radical new perspective Introduction My intent with this chapter is to consider a few representative positions of scholars who either explicitly or implicitly have worked to push the new per‐ spective on Paul further. 1 It almost goes without saying that the ‘radical’ new perspective on Paul extends and further elaborates on the ‘new’ perspective on Paul. 2 However, as this ongoing process of refinement continues, the necessity of drawing further conclusions and mapping out new positions develop. Con‐ sequently, many of the scholars calling themselves ‘radicals’ find it necessary to bespeak the emergence of a new paradigm. 3 Although I find the defining of a new paradigm questionable at this point, this introductory chapter serves the purpose of mapping out those fundamental paths that may have the potential to make the new perspective on Paul implode, and dissolve into something ‘radically’ other. History of research To my knowledge, only two scholars have tried to explain the development from the new perspective to the radical new perspective. The first scholar is John Gager, with his book, Reinventing Paul (2000), the second is Magnus Zetterholm, with his book, Approaches to Paul (2009). Both scholars describe themselves as belonging to the newest development in Pauline studies. Gager presents himself as part of the ‘New Views of Paul’, as differentiated from ‘The Traditional View <?page no="22"?> 4 N.T. Wright’s critique of something similar to the radical perspective, concerning Paul’s identity, and whether he still considered himself a Jew following the (Mosaic) law, misses the point. Wright brings in Gal 2 (and Rom 7: 4-6,) and states that he can un‐ derstand people who are concerned with Christian-Jewish relations today, and people who try to explain the passage in Gal 2 by making it a rhetorical overstatement. But he cannot understand scholars making the argument that Paul was a Torah-observant Jew without mentioning Gal 2 as a major piece of counter-evidence (Wright 2013, 1430). Wright does not consider the possibility that Paul does not speak in a universalizing way, but specifically addresses issues relevant to his Gentile addresses, and, therefore frames his argument for this purpose. of Paul’ (Gager 2000, v). When Gager wrote his book, the new perspective was still thriving, and many scholars connected to the impetus from this kind of research. In the years following the publication of his book, the radical perspec‐ tive materialized more and more, and scholars began to distance themselves more specifically from the new perspective and, instead, to speak of a radical new perspective. So even if Gager fits best within the radical perspective, he ‘merely’ presents himself as a scholar holding the ‘New Views of Paul’. Gager and Zetterholm stage the history of research on Paul in the same way: They present the research on Paul as moving from a ‘traditional’ view to a ‘New Perspective’, or even ‘Beyond the New Perspective’. Gager labels the ‘old’ view from which he distances himself ‘The Traditional View’. He organizes his study thematically, under headings such as, ‘Paul Converted from Judaism to Chris‐ tianity’, ‘Paul Preached against the Law and Israel’, and ‘Generalizing and Uni‐ versalizing’. Hence, Gager mentions few scholars, and he describes the ‘tradi‐ tional’ view (i.e. all scholarship before his own) in broader terms, as though they all agreed on the points he presents. Zetterholm sets about his task slightly differently. He reviews the actual work of many different scholars and their specific books under three headings: ‘The Formation of the Standard View of Paul’, ‘Toward a New Perspective on Paul’, and ‘Beyond the New Perspective’. So the ways in which Gager and Zetterholm planned their presentations are similar: From something ‘old’, ‘traditional’, or ‘standard’, to something ‘new’ or ‘beyond the new’. But Gager approached this task from a thematic perspective, whereas Zetterholm approached it from the perspective of individual scholars. The one thing lacking in both Gager’s and Zetterholm’s presentations is a critical view of their own radical positions or perspectives. This may be too much to ask of a scholar deeply involved in developing a new position. However, some sort of critical evaluation still needs to be presented. The only one of which I am aware is Terence L. Donaldson’s, in a book edited by Mark Nanos and Magnus Zetterholm, Paul within Judaism (2015). 4 There is another critique, by Alexander Wedderburn, but this is more a critique of the new, rather than the 1 The State of the Research - the radical new perspective 22 <?page no="23"?> 5 Cf. Donaldson 2006; Jewett 2007, 702; Gager 2000, 146; Byrne 1996, 354-355 6 Cf. Moo 1996, 725 n. 61 7 Stendahl 1976, 4; Gager 1983; Gaston 1987, 147-150 radical new, perspective. However, I present some of the objections raised by Donaldson and Wedderburn, after a presentation of the ‘radicals’, and I also present some critical remarks of my own. Scholarly predecessors to the radical perspective Franz Mussner, Krister Stendahl, John Gager Franz Mussner was a Catholic New Testament scholar teaching at the University of Trier and Regensburg from 1952/ 53 to 1981. During the course of his teaching he came to the conclusion that a proper perception of Judaism was a key to understanding the New Testament texts. He also actively engaged in Jewish-Christian dialogues in the years following the Second World War. Franz Mussner is a predecessor to the radical perspective, arguing for a Sonderweg interpretation of Rom 11: 25-27. Some scholars argue that the Sonderweg inter‐ pretation may also be designated a ‘two covenant’ theology. 5 The reason for this is to be found in the emphasis on the continued legitimacy of Israel’s covenant with God after the coming of Christ, and, hence, a positive evaluation of Judaism. Rom 11: 25-27 states that ‘a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the fullness of Gentiles has come in, and then [or in that way] all Israel will be saved. As it is written: Out of Zion will come the deliverer’. The Sonderweg interpre‐ tation more specifically argues that Israel will not be saved until the Second Coming of Christ. When Israel observes the Messiah descending to earth and hears the gospel proclaimed, she will respond to Christ and be converted. Some scholars confuse the precise meaning of the Sonderweg by viewing the term as encompassing almost any distinction between the salvation of Israel and the salvation of believers in Christ. 6 But there are at least two approaches to God’s salvation of Israel. The ‘two covenant’ solution maintains that Israel’s salvation bypasses Christ altogether. Scholars such as Krister Stendahl, John Gager, and Lloyd Gaston may be said to adopt this position. 7 The other position works with a narrower definition of the Sonderweg solution, and argues that Jews will be saved through faith in Christ. However, this faith is engendered by the Second Coming of Christ, when he preaches the gospel to Israel on the final day. According to this interpretation, those who believe in Christ are saved in the ‘regular way’ (by believing in Christ), whereas Israel will be saved through a ‘special way’, a Sonderweg. Franz Mussner argues for this specific interpreta‐ Scholarly predecessors to the radical perspective 23 <?page no="24"?> 8 Mussner 1987, 48ff.; Mussner 1981, 211f 9 Stendahl 1995, 38; also cf. 1995, 40 tion. Mussner also argues from the ‘conversion’ of Paul as a parallel to the con‐ version of Israel: 8 Just as Paul became a Christian when Christ revealed himself to him on the road to Damascus, so all Israel will be saved when Christ reveals himself to Israel as the Messiah in his Second Coming on the final day. By ar‐ guing in this way, Mussner’s perception of Paul may be said to represent a ‘tra‐ ditional’ Christian (Catholic) perception of Paul, but he has incorporated into this perception a positive presentation of Judaism and the salvation of Israel. Additionally, his post-Holocaust interest in Jewish-Christian dialogue may be said to be present in his interpretation of Paul, since Israel holds a special posi‐ tion, and has its own path to salvation. His idea that Israel holds a special position with regard to salvation, in Rom 9 to 11, makes it a predecessor to the radical perspective. Although Krister Stendahl is often connected with the ‘two covenant’ solu‐ tion, and therefore may be considered a predecessor to the radical perspective, the scholarly evidence is rather meagre. However, his background story may confirm his proclivity for a ‘two covenant’ solution. He was ordained in the Church of Sweden in 1944 as a Lutheran minister, and served as a parish priest and chaplain in Uppsala. In 1954 he received a doctorate at Uppsala University, and in that same year he went to Harvard Divinity School as a professor of New Testament studies. He returned to Sweden to serve as the Bishop of Stockholm from 1984 to 1988, but in the early 1990s he was a professor at Brandeis Uni‐ versity. At Brandeis he helped to inaugurate a programme intended to enhance shared values among students of many religious backgrounds. From 1994 and onwards he became co-director of the Center for Religious Pluralism at the Shalom-Hartman Institute in Jerusalem. In his later years he did extensive work to promote interfaith relations, especially between Jews and Christians. In his Final Account (1995), Stendahl writes that Paul does not conceive of Israel’s salvation with reference to Christ; when Paul writes that ‘all Israel will be saved’, he does not say, ‘Israel will accept Jesus Christ’. 9 This point of Sten‐ dahl’s is rather convoluted, but it may be said to support a ‘two covenant’ in‐ terpretation. It may also be said to reflect a respect for Israel’s religio-ideological position, and their religious peculiarity. John Gager’s work is more outspoken 1 The State of the Research - the radical new perspective 24 <?page no="25"?> 10 Gager’s background does not seem to suggest a ‘two covenant’ solution in any religious way, such as interfaith relations. However, from a political or ideological perspective, his background fits a ‘two covenant’ solution very well. During his years of study, Gager was not particularly religious, but ‘observant in a casual way’ (http: / / www.princeton.e du/ pr/ pwb/ 99/ 0503/ gager.htm). He went on to divinity school, because divinity schools at that time were centres of intense intellectual and social activism. Working with the New Testament texts caught his interest in such a way that today he continues his efforts for social justice in the area of Jewish-Christian dialogue. 11 Sanders 1977, 75 12 Gager 2000, 146 13 Gaston 1987, 2 14 Gaston 1987, 3 in its support of a ‘two covenant’ solution. 10 Gager maintains that the Jews will continue to be the people of God after the coming of Christ, and that Christ is the saviour exclusively of the Gentiles, not the Jews. Israel stands in a covenant relationship with God and enjoys a right standing with God because of God’s covenant faithfulness to them, as promised by the (Mosaic) law. Gager endorses E.P. Sanders’ concept of ‘covenantal nomism’, 11 and he advocates an entirely positive picture of Judaism. This leads Gager to state that Paul never urged the Jews to accept Christ as their Messiah, nor did he condemn them for refusing to do so. And because Israel has been in a right standing with God since long before the Gentiles came into view, Gager reverses the meaning of the Sonderweg interpretation. According to Gager, Israel’s salvation was never in doubt. What Paul taught and preached was instead a ‘special way’ to salvation for Gentiles through Christ. 12 The ‘original’ way was Israel’s remaining within its covenant relationship with God. Lloyd Gaston Lloyd Gaston is a predecessor of the radical new perspective on hermeneutical and theological grounds, rather than on historical ones. In his book, Paul and the Torah (1987), he opens his introduction presenting his novel take on Paul’s letters. First, he explains that his writing is part of (but not only) a ‘theology after Auschwitz’. 13 According to Gaston, the insights from the Holocaust must result in a complete reversal of Christian theology, but not in a revision of the biblical texts. For one thing, this means that New Testament scholarship should expose underlying anti-Semitic currents, but it also means that New Testament scholarship may acquire new perspectives on Paul by being in contact with modern, post-Holocaust Judaism. By way of a ‘hermeneutic of experimenta‐ tion’, 14 Gaston invites scholars to address traditional problems of interpreting Paul from an entirely different angle than the usual one. Thus, instead of per‐ Scholarly predecessors to the radical perspective 25 <?page no="26"?> 15 Gaston 1987, 2 16 Gaston 1987, 4 17 Cf. e.g. Peterson 1997, 50 18 Stowers’ exegetical energy is devoted mainly to Romans 1-4. The discussion of this part of Romans occupies more than twice as much space as is given to the rest of the letter. ceiving Paul as having assailed the foundations of Judaism, Gaston finds in Paul various statements concerning God’s continual election of, and love for Israel. He explains about the beginning of his project on Paul, that he ‘expected to find anti-Judaism particularly in Paul’. 15 However, by way of his ‘hermeneutic of experimentation’, he realized that the Christian church did not replace Israel as God’s chosen people. To the contrary, Paul often identifies an ongoing covenant relationship between God and Israel: ‘Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law’ (Rom 3: 31). Paul makes a similar statement elsewhere: ‘I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! ’ (Rom 11: 1). There are two access points to Gaston’s ‘opposite’ conclusions. The first con‐ cerns his positioning of Paul within Second Temple Judaism. In this regard, Gaston continues the work of E.P. Sanders. He writes: ‘… I shall assume that Paul understood ’covenantal nomism” very well indeed and that he is to be interpreted within the context of early Judaism …’ 16 However, the other approach to Gaston’s conclusions about Paul concerns Paul’s audience. The reason that Paul did not write in an anti-Semitic vein was because he did not write about Judaism for Jews; he wrote about Judaism for Gentiles. Because Paul really understood the concepts of covenant and commandment from within Judaism he could present Judaism in a different way to outsiders of Judaism. When sum‐ marizing the conclusions of his book, Gaston provides six headings, four of which concern Gentiles. Hence, four of the conclusions of Gaston’s work may be summarized as ‘Gentiles as Addressees’, ‘The Gentile Predicament’, ‘Gentiles and the Law’, ‘Israel and the Gentiles’. Stanley Stowers Many scholars consider Stanley Stowers’ book on Romans, A Rereading of Ro‐ mans (1994), the most significant contribution to the discussion of Romans since E.P. Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977). 17 Indeed, Stowers embarks on a complete rereading of Romans, even if some parts of the letter receive more attention than others. 18 Stowers continuously positions his own reading in op‐ position or as a challenge to what he designates a ‘traditional’ (Augustinian- Lutheran-Christian) interpretation of Romans. He does that in order to present a more ‘correct’ historical understanding of Romans. According to Stowers, Paul 1 The State of the Research - the radical new perspective 26 <?page no="27"?> was not preoccupied with questions of human sinfulness and salvation, nor was the Judaism of his time. In this regard, Stowers’ rereading of Romans depends on, and further elaborates on, the new perspective on Paul and Krister Stendahl’s approach: He rejects Augustinian (and subsequent Western) readings of Paul; he emphasizes the ethnic rather than the individual aspects of Paul’s soteriology; and he conceives of the salvation of Jews and Gentiles as a ‘two covenant’ sol‐ ution. Additionally, much of what Stowers argues may be found in Lloyd Gas‐ ton’s interpretations, even though Stowers does not seem to buy into Gaston’s hermeneutical and theological agendas. A complete interpretation of Stowers is far too complex to summarize ade‐ quately. Nevertheless, almost every part of Stowers’ rereading is relevant to the radical perspective on Paul. In order to mediate this problem, I will highlight some key points that indicate how Stowers may be said to be a predecessor to the radical perspective. First, Stowers constructs the audience throughout the letter as Gentile. He meticulously distinguishes between the ‘implied audience’ and the ‘real audience’ of Romans. He claims that we cannot know anything about the ‘real’ audience’ of Romans. But it is obvious from the letter that Paul constructs the ‘implied audience’ as purely and distinctively Gentile. Hence, there is no ‘universal’ address in Paul’s gospel, but (merely) an address from a Jewish apostle to Gentiles interested in Judaism, about a Jewish way of living. Secondly, Stowers treats key passages of Romans as examples of the diatribe style or ‘speech-in-character’ (προσωποποιία). The obvious speech-in-char‐ acter passage is 7: 7-25, but Stowers also identifies the figure of προσωποποιία in 2: 1-16, where Paul addresses a boastful Gentile. Stowers also identifies speech-in-character in 2: 17-4: 21, but here it concerns Paul’s address to a Jewish teacher of Gentiles. It is important to Stowers that this teacher does not represent all Jews, but only a hypothetical Jewish teacher with whom Paul would compete for righteous Gentiles. Hence, there is no criticism of Judaism from Paul, merely a discussion with a(nother) teacher of Gentiles. Apart from the first-century-relevant rhetorical point concerning the use of προσωποποιία, Stowers notes the cultural ideal of ‘self-control’ (ἐγκράτεια) in this ancient society. According to Stowers, the ideal of self-control is crucial for understanding Romans. This aspect refers to the social background and status of the Gentiles Paul addressed, and their interest in his message. Jews at the time of Paul considered themselves a people characterized by an extraordinary degree of self-restraint, because they had the (Mosaic) law as a means of attaining this goal. And since self-control was such a widely distributed cultural ideal, non-Jews took an interest in Paul’s Jewish message. Thus, Stowers notes that Scholarly predecessors to the radical perspective 27 <?page no="28"?> 19 I am aware that the designation ‘historical-ethnic Jews’ may seem redundant. However, the reason for using this designation concerns the highly debated issue of what it meant to be Jewish, and whether historal affiliation, ethnicity or circumcision was ‘enough’ to define a person as Jewish. I use ‘historical-ethnic’ to point to those Jews who both ethnically and historically associated with Judaism. The designation helps clarifying the distinction between two kinds of Jews: ethnic Jews and non-ethnic Jews (that is, circumcised Gentiles wanting to be Jews). 20 The ‘radicals’ have presented themselves in the book, Paul within Judaism, and meet officially as an SBL subgroup called ‘Paul Within Judaism’. Also, Pamela Eisenbaum refers collectively to some of these scholars as ‘the Radicals’, to distinguish them from New Perspective scholars (Eisenbaum 2005, 232-233). Also cf. Magnus Zetterholm’s description of these scholars in a chapter entitled ‘Beyond the New Perspective’ (Zet‐ terholm 2009, 127-163), and Caroline Johnson Hodge’s reference to this ‘perspective’ ( Johnson Hodge 2007, 153). 21 This didactic point concerns the possibility of presenting a rather uniform ‘view’ or ‘perspective’ on Paul, rather than unrelated and arbitrary, individual scholarly positions. Gentiles may have found it opportune to achieve self-control by way of the (Mosaic) law, and in this way improve their upward social mobility. The third aspect of Stowers’ interpretation leads to the final key point. If Gentiles in Rome capitalized on the (Mosaic) law in order to boost their upward social mobility, they went too far in their dealings with historical-ethnic Jews. 19 According to Stowers, this is why Paul turns to the relationship between Israel and the Gentiles in Romans 9 to 11. Even if God showed mercy to the Gentiles, adopted them as sons, and grafted them onto the stock of Israel, they should not boast in front of their Jewish brothers. The gospel is to the Jew, first, and then also to the Gentile. God never abandoned his covenant with Israel, and that is why Jews and Gentiles have separate but related paths in God’s overall design. In short, Stowers follows Krister Stendahl and Lloyd Gaston with a ‘two cove‐ nant’ solution. The ‘actual’ radicals Even though I present the radical new perspective as a uniform perspective, such a presentation is misleading. This should be stated explicitly. There are, indeed, rather different scholarly views that aim to move beyond the new per‐ spective. Nevertheless, I find it appropriate to group together those whose scholarly views present themselves as radical and new. 20 Beyond their own dec‐ laration, there is a didactic point to presenting them together. 21 The scholars who ascribe to the radical perspective present considerable diversity with re‐ spect to particular details of the interpretation of Paul. However, because of the 1 The State of the Research - the radical new perspective 28 <?page no="29"?> 22 Cf. e.g. Fredriksen 2015 paradigmatic feature around which these scholars’ research converges, many of them ascribe to the ‘Paul within Judaism’ perspective. Hence, from a didactic and a content-oriented perspective, it makes sense to present them together under an umbrella term, such as ‘the radical perspective’. The reason for designating the perspective under discussion ‘the radical per‐ spective’ is because their scholarship is mainly indebted to the insights of scholars associated with the new perspective on Paul. These representatives include Krister Stendahl, E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, G.F. Moore, and W.D. Davies, to name just a few. But another inflow of inspiration follows from the Sonderweg or ‘two covenant’ solution as presented by Lloyd Gaston, John Gager, and possibly Stanley Stowers. However, not all the radicals advocate a ‘two covenant’ solution. Nevertheless, they all operate with a positive picture of Ju‐ daism. They all reject the ‘traditional’ Christian characterization of Judaism as ‘works-righteousness’. Furthermore, they all agree that Paul did not create a new religion (Christianity), because he found something fundamentally ‘wrong’ with Judaism. Paul did not create a new religion, and he did not become a ‘Law-free’ apostle. 22 Another point pertains to the observation that Paul (and the other apostles) endeavoured to engender a specifically Jewish ‘sect’ or ‘co‐ alition’ or ‘reform movement’. Paul and the other apostles managed minor sub‐ groups of Judaism living a Jewish way of life developed for and by Jews, despite the fact that those who joined these subgroups were, and remained, non-Jews. This meant a Jewish way of life (without being actually Jewish) for Gentiles. The fact that these members remained non-Jews concerns the point that Paul ad‐ dressed Gentiles, and told them to remain Gentiles. These Gentiles should follow the (Mosaic) law (evident in Paul’s admonitions throughout his letters), but they should not become Jews. That is, these Gentiles should not complete the rite of ethnic conversion signified by circumcision, but they should still somehow con‐ form to the (Mosaic) law and its principles. This point is worth dwelling on, because there is a major difference between upholding the behavioural guidelines operative within Jewish communities, and undergoing an ethnic identity trans‐ formation from non-Jew to Jew by way of circumcision. To compare: You may behave like a Catholic (or Jew) without actually being a Catholic (or Jew). And, acting like a Catholic (or Jew) does not actually make you a Catholic (or Jew), even if you present yourself as a ‘better’ Catholic (or Jew) than other Catholics (or Jews), and the whole point is to present the Catholic (or Jewish) way of life as the ‘right one’. The ‘actual’ radicals 29 <?page no="30"?> 23 Cf. especially Magnus Zetterholm’s critique (Zetterholm 2009, 33-126). However, the radical scholars’ point of departure may be said to be much more politically or ideo‐ logically correct in these days, even if they are not related to traditional Christian the‐ ologies. Hence, the radicals may be more politically correct in their renunciation of Christian theologies, but they may be said to be even more ideologically indebted to contemporary political correctness and, hence, just as ideologically biased as denomi‐ national scholars. 24 Nanos is a devout Jew, and he considers his emic understanding of Judaism an advantage in his work on Paul (cf. Nanos 1996, 3-20, and his webpage: http: / / www.marknanos.com/ ). 25 Nanos 1996, 85-165 26 Nanos 1996, 239-288 27 Nanos 1996, 289-336 A final point to iterate, concerning the radical new perspective, is the relation of the radical to the new perspective on Paul. According to the radicals, the new perspective is not new enough. The new perspective is still too beholden to traditional (Protestant) theological positions. According to the radicals, new questions regarding Paul should be asked, other courses should be pursued to answer these questions, and the consistency of the answers to these questions remain too related to traditional Christian theologies. 23 Hence, in search of a more appropriate paradigm for pursuing research about Paul, they radicalize the new perspective on Paul, in a search for a Paul within Judaism. Mark Nanos Mark Nanos’s work significantly challenges traditional scholarly work on Paul. I specify ‘traditional’, because Nanos did not receive formal doctoral training before writing his first book on Paul. Besides, he worked from an outspoken Jewish perspective, rather than from an ‘objective’ academic one. 24 This may mean that he sees things more clearly than traditionally trained scholars, but it may also mean that he misinterprets fundamental Pauline truisms. However, if Nanos’s analyses of Romans and Galatians are correct, his work demands a complete rethinking of these letters, and of our perception of Paul’s missionary work. In his book, The Mystery of Romans (1996), Nanos addresses three things (pri‐ marily): First, he discusses who the ‘weak’ and the ‘strong’ in Rome were (cf. Rom 14: 1-15: 6). 25 Second, he discusses what the ‘mystery’ of Rom 11: 25-27 was. 26 Third, he discusses who the governing authorities to which Paul refers in Rom 13: 1-7 were. 27 In each of the three cases, Nanos flips the traditional dis‐ cussion on its head, and surprises with innovative solutions. According to Nanos, the ‘weak’ of Rom 14: 1-15: 6 were not Christ-believing Jews. Nanos ar‐ gues that the ‘weak in faith’ is a respectful reference to the Jews in Rome who 1 The State of the Research - the radical new perspective 30 <?page no="31"?> 28 Nanos 1996, 155 29 Nanos 1996, 38-40 30 Dunn 2005, 207ff. did not believe that Christ was the Messiah. 28 Paul refers to them as ‘weak’ because they have not yet recognized Jesus as the Messiah, and they do not recognize righteous Gentiles to be co-participants in divine blessing. The mys‐ tery of Romans 11 does not concern God’s hidden plan of salvation, but concerns the jealousy of Jews observing Paul’s missionary success with the Gentiles. These non-Christ-believing Jews recognized the eschatological ingathering of the nations, and became jealous, because these other wanted to participate in Israel’s calling to be a light to the nations. Finally, the authorities who should be respected are not Roman imperial powers, but synagogue leaders (Rom 13: 1- 7). Nanos gathers together these conclusions in the major claim of his book: under the synagogue authority, Christian Gentiles in Rome developed a sub‐ group identity born of ethnic superiority and Christ-believing Gentile exclu‐ sivism. 29 Hence, the Jewish ethnocentrism that James Dunn argues is the object of Paul’s criticism of Judaism 30 is turned on its head by Nanos, and instead con‐ cerns Christ-believing Gentiles’ ethnocentrism and exclusive position, vis-à-vis the Jews before God. Nanos’s interpretation presents a Paul who worked within Jewish commun‐ ities as a law-observant Jew. Paul addressed his message to Gentiles, because of his commission to the Gentiles as apostle, because of God’s work through Christ. But Nanos holds that Paul did not break with the basic conceptions that char‐ acterized Judaism in the first century CE. Paul neither created a new religion nor became a law-free apostle. On the contrary, Paul firmly believed that the (Mosaic) law represents God’s gift to Israel, and that a Jew observes the law as a response to God’s mercy. Thus, Nanos’s thinking clearly converges with Sand‐ ers’ interpretation and presentation of ‘covenantal nomism’. Nanos also presents such a Jewish Paul that he rejects a ‘two covenant’ solution. Because Paul was so Jewish, and because Paul believed that Christ was the awaited Jewish Messiah, Jews and Gentiles come together in the Jewish salvation through the Messiah. However, Jews remain within the covenant relationship with God, which the Messiah comes to reaffirm. Gentiles do not become Jews, and they do not become part of Israel’s covenant, but they are still saved because of the Jewish Messiah. Hence, Mark Nanos’s interpretation presents a Paul who is thoroughly Jewish, and there is no sign in it of Christianity. The ‘actual’ radicals 31 <?page no="32"?> 31 Paula Fredriksen recently published a book on Paul (Paul: The Pagan’s Apostle, 2017). The book arrived too late for me to use it here. However, from a brief look at its table of contents, the book extends Fredriksen’s previous work on Paul, and several of the articles I introduce here appear in one way or another in her book. 32 Fredriksen 1988; 2000 33 Fredriksen 1982; 2010a 34 Fredriksen 2009a, 28-29 35 Cf. Fredriksen 2011, 2 36 Cf. Fredriksen 2003, 14 37 Fredriksen 1995, 23 38 At some point, Paula Fredriksen converted to Judaism (Fredriksen 2009a, 29). She is well aware of the fact that some scholars consider her ‘some kind of covert operative for making Jesus Jewish, claiming him for the Jewish side’ (Fredriksen 2009a, 29). However, from her perspective there is no direct correlation between ancient Judaism and various forms of modern Judaism. She argues that no twenty-first-century person can be like a first-century person. All scholars must respect that difference, or they will incorrectly understand and present history. She argues that a scholar of ancient history will be unable to see the first-century people ‘at all’ if she or he assumes a twenty-first-century sense of self and retroject it back to the time of Paul (Fredriksen 2009a, 29). Hence, even if Fredriksen’s work is charged with religio-ideological ulterior motives, she herself argues against such an understanding. Paula Fredriksen 31 Paula Fredriksen is primarily known for two things in her scholarly work: her work on the problem of the historical Jesus, 32 and her work on Augustine. 33 In her work on Augustine, she has given voice to a ‘softer’ and more ‘enlightened’ version of Augustine’s relationship to the Jews. 34 According to Fredriksen, Au‐ gustine was not anti-Judaistic, 35 but should be positioned cautiously within a proper and nuanced discussion between Christian theologians of the church, and his Manichean opponents. In her work on the historical Jesus, Fredriksen worked to contextualize Jesus in Second Temple Judaism as an apocalyptic prophet, 36 instead of framing him as a Christian saviour. In one of her articles, she states: ‘Jesus was a Jew of his time rather than a left-leaning liberal of ours’. 37 In Fredriksen’s work on both the historical Jesus and on Augustine, she has focused specifically on anti-Jewish elements and how to avoid those in contem‐ porary scholarship. 38 Even though the main aspect of her research does not concern Paul, Fredriksen has managed to calibrate her scholarly work about Jesus and Augustine to the field of Pauline studies, since it also concerns early or formative Christianity. The consequence of this is that the positions expressed in her work on the historical Jesus and Augustine also becomes valid in relation to ‘Paul the Jew’. Paul was and remained a Jew. He did not ‘create’ a new religion 1 The State of the Research - the radical new perspective 32 <?page no="33"?> 39 Fredriksen 1991, 544 (Christianity), and he did not criticize Judaism from a position ‘outside’ Judaism. In her article ‘Judaism, The Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2’, Fredriksen considers the Galatian contro‐ versy in the history of Pauline interpretation: Paul’s position in this controversy - that salvation in Christ is through ‘grace’ and not through ‘the works of the law’ - has served for centuries as the fundamental statement of the difference between Christianity and Judaism. … Our [theological] interpretive context for Galatians is the birth of Christianity; theirs [Paul and his Jewish co-workers] was scriptural - that is Jewish - hopes and expectations in the face of the approaching End of Days. Fredriksen’s intent is to work more historically than theologically: She wants to determine what Judaism was at the time of Jesus and Paul, so that she can understand Jesus and Paul from their background in Second Temple Judaism. One of the advantages of Fredriksen’s work for the radical perspective is her focus on the eschatological situation of Paul and his congregations. By drawing on the idiom of Jewish restoration theology concerning the return from Babylon and the experience of redemption from sin, evil, and exile, Fredriksen establishes a plausible social and religious context for Paul’s mission and work. The Jews at the time of Paul who participated in this restoration movement were ex‐ pecting the twelve tribes to be restored, the people to be gathered back to the Land, the Temple and Jerusalem to be restored and made splendid, the Davidic monarchy to be restored, and God’s kingdom to be established. 39 And in this splendid restoration, Fredriksen identifies a certain part to be played by the Gentiles. For one thing, the Gentile nations will be destroyed, defeated, or in some way subjugated to Israel. But another stream within the restoration thinking concerns the eschatological inclusion of Gentiles. Within this stream of restoration theology, the Gentiles participate in Israel’s redemption. They stream to Jerusalem and worship the God of Jacob together with Israel (cf. Isa 2: 2-4; Mic 4: 1ff.). On God’s mountain, the Gentiles will eat together with Israel (Isa 25: 6), and as the Jews leave the lands of their dispersion, Gentiles will ac‐ company them (Zech 8: 23). According to Fredriksen, it is crucial that these Gen‐ tiles remain Gentiles and do not undergo conversion and circumcision. They are to be saved as Gentiles, and do not, eschatologically, become Jews. These Gen‐ tiles, then, were the ones to whom Paul addressed his gospel, and who made up his eschatological congregations. The ‘actual’ radicals 33 <?page no="34"?> 40 Cf. e.g. Thorsteinsson 2003, 139; 143 41 Stowers 2005, 565 Runar Thorsteinsson Runar Thorsteinsson is an Icelandic scholar who earned his PhD in Sweden in 2003, and subsequently did scholarly work in Lund, Linköping, and Copenhagen. Thorsteinsson does not explicitly associate himself with the radical perspective. However, his contribution to the study of Romans reaches beyond his main thesis and central topic, Paul’s interlocutor in Romans 2. In many ways, Thor‐ steinsson’s book is a narrow study of a minor part of Romans. Nevertheless, Thorsteinsson manages to contextualize Paul’s letter within ancient epistolog‐ raphy, and draw valuable parallels, especially to Cicero and Seneca. 40 In exten‐ sion of the contextualization of Romans in ancient epistolography, Thor‐ steinsson focuses meticulously on the implied audience (as differentiated from the real audience) of Romans as Gentile. Thorsteinsson has no doubts that Paul envisaged the implied audience as Gentile, whether or not there were actually any Jews in the ‘real’ Roman congregation. The main thrust of Thorsteinsson’s argument revolves around the interpre‐ tation of Paul’s statement in 2: 17: ‘But if you call yourself a Jew’ (Εἰ δὲ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ἐπονομάζῃ). Thorsteinsson convincingly bridges between the identity of the interlocutor in 2: 1 and the stereotypical description of Gentiles in 1: 18- 32 by way of his discussion of Διὸ. But the major point he intends to prove is that the identity of the interlocutor remains the same from 1: 18 to 2: 16, and then further on, in 2: 17ff. He convincingly proves the progressive unity of 2: 1-16 as addressed to a Gentile, and the next step concerns the move to 2: 17ff., where the identity of the interlocutor must be attached to a Gentile who wants to, or has, converted to Judaism (a God-fearer or a proselyte). The possibility of this reading comes down to the interpretation of the expression ‘if you call yourself a Jew’, and the meaning of the verb ἐπονομάζῃ (2: 17). There is plenty of evidence for taking the verb to mean falsely calling oneself something which one is not. Thus, the deciding factor for or against this interpretation of the identity of the inter‐ locutor as a Jew or a Gentile must rest upon his characterization in the remaining discourse of Romans. Thorsteinsson provides a few pointers in this direction, but merely as an outlook or perspective. In a review of Thorsteinsson’s book, Stanley Stowers concludes with these words: ‘I admit that 2: 17 is ambiguous and there is an argument that should be entertained for a Gentile who wants to be a Jew’. 41 1 The State of the Research - the radical new perspective 34 <?page no="35"?> 42 Johnson Hodge 2007, 153 43 Johnson Hodge 2007, 5 44 Johnson Hodge 2007, 43 Caroline Johnson Hodge Caroline Johnson Hodge is a self-declared radical. In the conclusion of her book If Sons, Then Heirs (2007) she writes: Like others in the ‘radical’ new perspective, my reading of Paul insists on viewing him as a first-century Jew and thus opens the possibility that he had no critique of Judaism but remained fully faithful to the God of Israel and this God’s plan for the salvation of all peoples. Daniel Boyarin has characterized the Gaston/ Gager approach, which my interpretation largely supports… 42 What Johnson Hodge presents here is the positive evaluation of Judaism at the time of Paul, of Paul as a faithful Jew in service of the God of Israel, and of the ‘two covenant’ solution as proposed by Lloyd Gaston and John Gager. By con‐ firming these propositions she falls within the main area of the radical perspec‐ tive. However, her work does not seem to reveal any preoccupation with ideo‐ logical or interfaith interests. In her book, Johnson Hodge scrutinizes the perception of the identity of Paul’s addressees from ancient ideological and socio-historical perspectives. Her main hypothesis is that Paul uses the discourse of kinship and ethnicity to construct a myth of origins for Gentile followers of Christ. 43 In socio-historical terms, she presents the (possible) core ideology of Paul’s message concerning the new-found identity of his Gentile addressees: Paul relies on the logic of patri‐ lineal descent to create a new lineage for Gentiles as descendants of Abraham through Christ. The identity of the Gentiles relates to, but does not become one with, a Jewish identity. However, ‘being-in-Christ’ is not ethnically neutral, ac‐ cording to Johnson Hodge; it falls under the umbrella of Jewishness. But Gen‐ tiles-in-Christ do not become Jews, since Paul continuously calls them Gentiles throughout his letters. Consequently, Johnson Hodge argues that these Gen‐ tiles-in-Christ have a mixed or ‘hybrid’ identity, not completely other, but also not identical to their previous status. The reason for this not-ethnically-neutral identity is that Johnson Hodge believes that for Paul, ‘ethnic identity is inextri‐ cable from a people’s standing before God’. 44 Israel stood as a nation (a collective whole) before God, and so do the Gentiles. The merits of Johnson Hodge’s interpretation of Paul concern a major point in the reconstruction of Paul’s thought-world: a lucid description of the identity or self-understanding of Paul’s Gentile addressees. Furthermore, Johnson Hodge The ‘actual’ radicals 35 <?page no="36"?> 45 Cf. the introduction in Eisenbaum 2009, 1-4 and in the biographical passage of her profile at Iliff School of Theology (http: / / www.iliff.edu/ learn/ your-faculty/ pam-eisen‐ baum/ ). She also participates in work on ‘how to reclaim the Bible for progressives’ (http: / / www.huffingtonpost.com/ rev-chuck-currie/ westar-insti‐ tute-bible-seminar_b_1069775.html). 46 Eisenbaum 2009, 250; ix 47 Eisenbaum 2009, 251 provides the flip side of the coin - the ideology supporting Paul’s construction of this Gentile identity: the ideology of patrilineal descent. These two elements comprise the received and ascribed identity of Paul’s addressees. Johnson Hodge also provides valuable exegetical interpretations of core passages of Paul’s let‐ ters. Specifically, her interpretation of Romans 8, which also furnishes the title of her book, is splendid. Pamela Eisenbaum Pamela Eisenbaum presents herself as a Jewish New Testament scholar. 45 She studied Theology at Harvard Divinity School and obtained her PhD from Co‐ lumbia University. In her book, Paul was not a Christian (2009), she clearly de‐ clares her alignment with the radical new perspective, and she states her in‐ debtedness to the work of John Gager, Lloyd Gaston, Krister Stendahl, and Stanley Stowers. 46 In her book, she argues that Paul may be better understood from a Jewish perspective of covenant theology than from a later Christian per‐ spective. By stating this, she extends and further develops the work of E.P. Sanders and other new perspective scholars. Eisenbaum claims that Paul was not a Christian, because he did not found a new religion in opposition to Judaism. She repudiates the Reformation perception of Paul (justification by faith for all believers) and instead proposes a ‘two way’ solution in Paul. 47 Paul ‘lived and died a Jew’ (5), because he was ‘unambiguously Jewish - ethnically, culturally, religiously, morally, and theologically’ (9). Paul did not leave Judaism, but be‐ lieved that Israel or the Jews are God’s people, and are justified beforehand by living within the covenant relation with God. Israel does not need Christ, be‐ cause she is already justified by God. The God who justifies Israel called Paul to be apostle to the Gentiles. By being apostle to the Gentiles, Paul brings the Gen‐ tiles into the household or family of God, through Christ. Eisenbaum also em‐ phasizes this point: Paul’s mission was limited exclusively to Gentiles. The Torah works for the Jews, and atonement works well within the system of Judaism. But because Gentiles are not part of God’s covenant with Israel and, therefore, do not have the Torah, they need Christ, who expiated their sins for them. She 1 The State of the Research - the radical new perspective 36 <?page no="37"?> 48 Eisenbaum 2009, 243 49 Eisenbaum 2009, 244 50 Donaldson 20015, 287 states, ‘To put it boldly, Jesus saves, but he only saves Gentiles’. 48 And she further explains, ‘What the Torah does for Jews, Jesus does for Gentiles’. 49 Critical evaluation of the radical perspective: T.L. Donaldson and A. Wedderburn T.L. Donaldson is Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Tor‐ onto, and has written extensively on Paul from a ‘new perspective’ standpoint. In a 2015 article, ‘Paul within Judaism: A Critical Evaluation from a ’New Per‐ spective” Perspective’, Donaldson presented some critical remarks concerning the radical perspective. This article serves as the final outlook or perspective in a presentation of the radical perspective, or the ‘Paul within Judaism’ perspec‐ tive. Donaldson begins by stating that he actually considers the attempt to sit‐ uate Paul ‘within Judaism’ as correct. The picture of Paul as an apostle to the Gentiles fits quite well Donaldson’s perception of Paul as concerned with lo‐ cating his own Judaism within the wider world. And he also considers the ter‐ minological aspect important. It does make a difference if we call Paul’s addres‐ sees ‘Christians’ or ‘Christ-believing Gentiles’, and if we translate ἐκκλησία as ‘church’ instead of ‘assembly’. However, Donaldson also sees several difficulties with the ‘Paul within Judaism’ project. First, Donaldson addresses some prob‐ lems with perceiving Jewish eschatological expectations (restoration theology) as the framework of Paul’s mission. According to Donaldson, there was a wide‐ spread (albeit not universal) expectation that non-Jews would share in the ben‐ efits of Israel’s end-time redemption. However, these Gentile ‘end-time pilgrims’ were not necessarily expected to be categorically differentiated from Jews with respect to Torah observance. Donaldson points out that the contemporary ma‐ terial is ambiguous, and that it does not follow in a simple and straightforward way that, just because there were Jewish expectations of Gentiles joining Israel, that these would remain Gentiles, and not become circumcised and law-abiding Gentiles/ proselytes. 50 It is not unequivocally apparent that the ancient Jewish authors who wrote on these matters took any great interest in that specific topic. And Donaldson concludes on this observation that it seems odd - if the ancient authors’ attitude was indifferent - that they would infer that non-Jews who had Critical evaluation of the radical perspective: T.L. Donaldson and A. Wedderburn 37 <?page no="38"?> 51 Donaldson 20015, 290 turned to the God of Israel would be forbidden to learn God’s ways as set out in the Torah. Donaldson turns to another difficulty. This pertains to the question of the logic and sequence of the eschatological events of the end times. According to Donaldson, all material points in the direction of the restoration of Israel bringing about a change of heart among the Gentiles (e.g. Tob 14: 6; 1 En. 90: 30- 38; Zech 8: 20-23; Sib. Or. 3: 702-723; Philo Mos. 2.43-44). The inclusion of the Gentiles comes about as a result of the restoration of Israel. However, Donaldson briefly describes the sequence of events as presented by Paul in Rom 11. From this short presentation, it seems as though Paul reverses the logic of the escha‐ tological events in other contemporary Jewish literature: not until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in does the salvation of Israel occur. 51 If Donaldson is correct in this description of Paul’s presentation of the sequence of events in the end times, it goes against the logic and sequence presented in the traditional restoration theology at the time of Paul (e.g. Tobith, 1 Enoch, Zecharia, Sibylline Oracles and Philo). However, Donaldson also concedes that there are places where Paul seems to describe the blessings enjoyed by non-Jewish Christ-be‐ lievers as derived from blessings that belong, in the first instance, to Jewish Christ-believers (Rom 15: 25-27; Rom 11: 17-21; Gal 3: 13-14). And he also con‐ cedes that Paul sees the existence of a Jewish ‘remnant’ as an opportunity to derive his mission to the Gentiles from Jewish patterns of restoration thought. To this critique from Donaldson should be added an answer that Paul was not the first person involved in the Jesus movement. Peter and James were there before Paul. And they did not perceive the consequences of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ in any way having to do with the Gentiles. Paul was probably the first to see this. Consequently, there may be an implied Jewish answer to Donaldson’s criticism of the logic and sequence of events as presented in contemporary restoration theology and in Rom 11, and his criticism should not be considered severe. Donaldson points out a final difficulty with the radical perspective, which concerns the identity of the members of Paul’s assemblies. According to Do‐ naldson, the ‘radicals’ argue that the Christ-believing Gentiles should not be‐ come Jews by way of circumcision. But they are still considered Abraham’s seed (cf. Gal 3: 29; Rom 4: 13-18). According to Donaldson, these two identities are irreconcilable, since ‘seed’ was used specifically with reference to Jews, in con‐ 1 The State of the Research - the radical new perspective 38 <?page no="39"?> 52 LXX Gen 26: 4; Deut 10: 15; 1 Esd 8: 67; Ps. 105 (106): 27; Isa 61: 9; Wis 10: 15; Ps Sol 9: 9; perhaps also Jubilees 2: 2-21, 15: 11-14, 16: 16-18, 25-26, where ‘seed’ appears without an explicit contrast to the Gentiles: LXX Esther 9: 27; Ps 104 (105): 6; Isa 41: 8; Ezek 20: 5; 4 Macc 18: 1; Ps Sol 18: 3; also Jub 1: 7-8 53 Wedderburn 2004, 48 54 Wedderburn 2004, 54 trast to Gentiles. 52 Thus, Donaldson maintains a contrast between two mutually exclusive alternatives. And he further asks for evidence that argues that Paul would combine these two mutually exclusive alternatives. However, to this cri‐ tique from Donaldson should be added the answer that Paul actually made that exact argument in Gal 3 (by citation in v. 8) and, differently, in Romans 3 to 4. And Paul also argued that the Gentiles were the seed of Abraham because they were ‘in Christ’, who is ‘the seed’ of Abraham that was promised (Gal 3: 16; Gal 3: 1-4: 7, 28). So even if Donaldson’s criticism is worth considering, it does not really question the radical perspective. Alexander Wedderburn also criticizes the radical perspective’s proposals. In a 2004 article, Wedderburn asks whether we should start speaking of a ‘newer perspective on Paul’ (‘einer neueren Paulusperspektive’) led by John Gager (and others), as in certain works, Gager and his gang move beyond (‘hinaus geht’) what Sanders proposed in Paul and Palestinian Judaism. 53 Wedderburn explains that Gager (and others) present a two-covenant solution, with salvation for Jews through the ‘traditional’ covenant between God and Israel, and salvation for Gentiles in Christ. He also notes that Gager (and others) discount Paul’s criticism of the (Mosaic) law as relevant to Jews, and that Paul’s criticism of the law merely applies to Gentiles wanting to come under the law. In the article, Wedderburn sets out to identify difficulties in the new perspective, and how the ‘newer per‐ spective’ addresses these difficulties. Finally, he presents his own considerations concerning this constellation. Wedderburn turns to the radical perspective by explaining John Gager’s po‐ sition. Gager maintains that Paul still considered the Jews committed or obli‐ gated to the (Mosaic) law after the coming of Christ. Paul did not change his attitude to Israel’s (or his own) obligation to the law; he changed his perception of the Gentiles’ obligation to the (Mosaic) law. So Paul’s criticism of the (Mosaic) law did not concern Israel (and himself). It merely concerned the Gentiles’ re‐ lation to the (Mosaic) law. This also has consequences for justification: The Jews may safely stick to the Torah, whereas Gentiles are incorporated to Israel through faith in Christ. Both will end up the same place, they merely take dif‐ ferent roads. 54 Critical evaluation of the radical perspective: T.L. Donaldson and A. Wedderburn 39 <?page no="40"?> 55 Wedderburn 2004, 57 56 Wedderburn 2004, 59 57 Wedderburn 2004, 63 After outlining Gager’s position, Wedderburn turns to some critical remarks. First, he points out that Paul’s mission strategy (1 Cor 9: 19-23) of becoming all things to all people does not fit with being a loyal and law-abiding Jew. It is untrustworthy of Paul to claim to be a law-abiding Jew, if he can be all things to all people and, thereby, not follow the (Mosaic) law. If you abide by the law, you abide to the law, and do not change sides (like a chameleon). 55 This holds for Paul, and for all other Jews. And this brings Wedderburn to the next diffi‐ culty: Paul was not merely apostle to the Gentiles, since Aquila (Acts 18: 2), Crispus (1 Cor 1: 14) and several of the addressees in Rom 16 were Jews. And Wedderburn considers it unconvincing that Jews and Gentiles in the same as‐ sembly would live by different rules - some law-abiding, and some not. 56 Fur‐ thermore, if Jews and Gentiles lived different lives within the same assembly, they would have no concrete expression of faith in common. Wedderburn asks whether Paul spoke meaningfully, or merely gave hints about the (Mosaic) law, if he addressed his gospel exclusively to Gentiles. He asks whether Christ-believing Jews could obtain justification through the law. If Christ-believing Jews could obtain justification through the law, would it then imply that Christ died in vain (for Jews)? And if that was the case, why would Gentiles not also seek to obtain justification through the law as proselytes? And if proselytes could obtain justification through the law, then why does Paul state that no law could bring life (Gal 3: 21)? Wedderburn concludes that only because the law is inadequate for both Jews and Gentiles does Gal 3: 21 make sense. He further explains that there are both strengths and weaknesses in the traditional perspective, the new perspective, and the radical perspective. And in some cases, the arguments of the traditional perspective are stronger, and in other cases they are not. 57 Even though Wedderburn’s remarks are weighty, they may be fully countered by within the radical perspective. I will address them below, and in subsequent chapters. Evaluation and task Following the description outlined above, it is time for me to sketch out the contours of my own approach, and explain how it extends and differs from those of the abovementioned scholars. First, it must be stated that I am merely pre‐ senting a possible reading of Romans, albeit inspired by the radical perspective. 1 The State of the Research - the radical new perspective 40 <?page no="41"?> 58 Gaston 1987, 2; Eisenbaum 2009, 255 59 Fredriksen 1982; 1988; 2002; 2010; Gager 1985 This reading of mine merely searches out the possibilities and limits of such a radical reading. Hence, I will use insights from the radical perspective as a lens through which I focus my own interpretation of Romans. I have chosen this point of departure because of the cogency the radicals show, and the conse‐ quence with which they present their interpretation with regard to Paul’s Jewish background and his address to Gentiles. These are the two major driving forces behind my interpretation: 1) Paul was thoroughly Jewish (as in ‘not Christian’) and 2) he addressed his message exclusively to Gentiles. I develop my interpretation through a fruitful and productive conversation with the radical perspective, but in no way do I claim to subscribe to the overall view. I will allow weaknesses in my interpretation to appear as weaknesses, because I am not fanatical about my point of departure in the radical perspective. I have no stake in the radicals’ ‘Paul within Judaism’ project, and I have no intention of defending it as a religious claim. My project is simply histor‐ ical-critical and philological, and I do not enter into discussions of contemporary ideology. I wish to explore the mindset, values, and category formations of the ancients - how they understood the phenomena their world presented to them. My interpretation includes no ethical claim or evaluation concerning contem‐ porary ideological positions, as is found in the work of scholars such as Lloyd Gaston and Pamela Eisenbaum. 58 I offer no evaluation of Christian anti-Judaism or anti-Semitism, as is found in the work of Paula Fredriksen and John Gager. 59 I have no intention of arguing for a specific religious point (à la religious plu‐ ralism), and I am not engaged in any modern dialogue between Christianity and Judaism. In some of the radical scholars’ work, I can see and identify an idea of contemporary ‘religion’ as providing different but equally valid ‘paths to sal‐ vation’ which may also be identified in Paul. But I have no intention of unifying these two areas in my present interpretation of Romans. I intend to approach Paul from the perspective of historical-critical scholarship, since my aim is to better understand Paul from a historical and a philological perspective. This said, I wish to make a case for not being simplistic when dealing with interpretative and textual problems. A disagreement over the interpretation of one or two verses should not lead to objections, if the overall interpretation explains more than previous interpretations have done. Although the devil is in the details, we will never understand the parts if we do not understand the whole, and vice versa. Part and whole must complement each other, and in the end, the one interpretation that explains more, more comprehensively, is pref‐ Evaluation and task 41 <?page no="42"?> erable. There are problems with all interpretations, but they should be dealt with, and localized within the broader interpretive framework. Working my way forward from the radical perspective, I try to answer this question: Can we go beyond what has already (and repeatedly) been claimed by the contenders of the radical new perspective? I think we can. The primary contribution of my interpretation is to argue for a simpler and more coherent perception of Romans than has been previously developed. I will also argue from a comprehensive and exhaustive interpretation of Romans. I do not consider my interpretation to be a commentary on Romans, but I intend to work my way through all the parts of Romans. With this as my goal, I will try to meet the almost overwhelming task of commenting on all parts of Romans from the po‐ sition of a radical stance on Paul. Even though many of the radical scholars have commented on several parts of Romans, I am not aware of anyone who has worked with Romans in its entirety, from chapter 1 to chapter 16; herein lies my work’s primary contribution. Another contribution concerns the interpretation of parts of Romans not yet commented on by the radicals, or drawing conclu‐ sions other than those drawn by the radicals (e.g. Rom 5; 8; 9; 14-15). Another and more general contribution is the use of Romans - as read from my coherent, continuous, and comprehensive perspective - to evaluate the other Pauline let‐ ters. All scholars working with Romans are aware of the multiple possibilities presented by The Romans Debate (1991), concerning the addressees, dating, sit‐ uation, and purpose of Romans. I believe that my interpretation is simpler and more coherent than any previously presented. I came to this conclusion by way of a continuous and successive reading, from chapter 1 to chapter 16, in the framework of Paul’s Jewish background and his address to Gentiles. However, there will be objections to my interpretation, so I may as well present some of them here. There will be disagreement concerning the addressees. My perspective takes Paul at his word when he claims to be apostle to the Gentiles (εἰμι ἐγὼ ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος, Rom 11: 13), and when he states that he was appointed apostle to the Gentiles, and Peter was appointed apostle to the Jews (Gal 2: 7-9). From this basic supposition, I state that Paul addressed his gospel exclusively to Gentiles - also in Rome. This point of departure establishes my reading strategy. I find this supposition explicitly supported and substantiated in the first and fifteenth chapters of Romans, and in many of the chapters between them, and I find it challenged only in 2: 17. Extending Runar Thorsteinsson’s work on Romans 2, I argue that in 2: 17 Paul addresses a Gentile in the diatribe style, and that he continues to address a Gentile in the diatribe style all the way through to 11: 36. 1 The State of the Research - the radical new perspective 42 <?page no="43"?> Furthermore, I argue that Paul continuously addresses Gentiles in chapters 12 to 15 - also in chapters 14 and 15, concerning the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’. My fundamental claim of a simpler interpretation supports this: If Paul addressed his message exclusively to Gentiles, and if he addresses a fictive Gentile in the diatribe style in chapters 2 to 11, then he also (and exclusively) addresses Gentiles in the paraenesis of chapters 12 to 15. If this interpretation may be substantiated and proved, then this interpretation is the simplest, and, hence, is to be preferred. This interpretation is also more coherent than previous interpretations because of the actual and immediate continuity of the discourse, from the theological exposition (1-11) to the paraenetic (12-15). The relevance of the theological exposition to the paraenesis will also be more conspicuous than in previous interpretations. Essentially, the paraenesis may be said to be firmly embedded in the theological exposition of the possible position of a Gentile believer. Hence, the unity of Romans - from chapter 1 to chapter 16 - will be confirmed. Some will argue that there is a problem with certain ‘Jews’ in chapter 16, because Paul identifies them as kin or family (συγγενής). I will try to show that this argument has some weaknesses. Specifically, how are we to differentiate between Paul’s use of συγγενής in 9: 3 and in chapter 16, if he qualifies the use in 9: 3 with κατὰ σάρκα, but does not do so in chapter 16? Is there anything in chapter 16 that could indicate that Paul does not refer to historical-ethnic Jews in chapter 16 because he does not qualify them by way of κατὰ σάρκα, but uses συγγενής metaphorically to construct family ties with the assembly in Rome? I will try to show that there is. In conclusion, there will be disagreements with many of my interpretive points. However, my interpretation operates with the premise that the most simple, unified, sequential, and coherent interpretation is to be preferred. And I will try to show this by way of a continuous and successive exegesis. Evaluation and task 43 <?page no="44"?> 1 These scholars share the conviction that Paul addressed Gentiles exclusively in all his letters, including in Romans. 2 Cf. Trebilco 2012, 3 3 As is well-known, the first occurrence of the term χριστιανισμός (Christianity) is found in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, dated to the early second century, either during Trajan’s or Hadrian’s reign. Χριστιανούς (Christians) occurs only three times in the New Testament writings: twice in Acts (11: 26; 26: 28) and once in 1 Peter (4: 16); both texts postdate Paul. 2 Terminology: Jews, Gentiles, Christians, or something else? Introduction In this introductory or preliminary chapter, I wish to draw attention to the question of terminology with respect to the radical perspective on Paul. I will not explore actual historical circumstances or texts in this chapter, but I will examine what other radical scholars have proposed as suitable designations for Paul’s addressees. The uniting characteristic of all these scholars is their atten‐ tion to Paul’s addressees, and the firm conviction that Paul addressed non-Jews exclusively - the Gentiles. 1 Radical scholars claim that, in particular, this would be Paul’s way of proclaiming Judaism. But how do we conceptualize this group of people who obviously attended some kind of Jewish gathering, led and founded by a Christ-believing Jew, living out, or practising, very Jewish ways of life and thought, without being actual Jews? It seems as though scholars have always used the title of ‘Christians’ to iden‐ tify Paul’s addressees. 2 Sometimes, we even refer to the study of ‘Christian Ori‐ gins’ or ‘Early (Formative) Christianity’ as what Paul engaged in. But from the perspective of a radical reading of Romans, some of the traditional terminology should be reconsidered to avoid misleading scholars to draw anachronistic or otherwise erroneous conclusions. 3 The incentive to not draw anachronistic con‐ clusions also works from perspectives other than the radical. But we must con‐ sider whether any descriptions work from an intrinsic perspective, and if none do, how we may most suitably redefine some of the traditional terminology. These reconsidered words and expressions may help us to better grasp what was going on in the mid-first-century Mediterranean world. The obvious reason for doing this is that nowhere does Paul designate his addressees as Chris‐ <?page no="45"?> 4 Cf. Mason 2007, 476 5 Paul Trebilco argues that although scholars might want to emphasize the fact that they are not importing all the later associations of the term ‘Christian’ into the first century, ‘the simple use of the same term means there is some unavoidable ’spillage” back from later connotations into the first century’ (Trebilco 2012, 4). 6 Cf. the telling title of Pamela Eisenbaum’s book: Paul was not a Christian (2009). 7 Cf. Johnson Hodge 2007; 2005; 2015 tians; 4 neither does he designate any group as Jewish-Christian or Gentile- Christian. 5 Furthermore, he never speaks of himself as a Christian (χριστιανός). 6 Consequently, if we continue to use these designations in our efforts to under‐ stand Paul in his historical setting, we reuse (and reinforce) politically powerful terms that are anachronistic and misleading. If we do not identify and draw attention to this aspect of our scholarly work, we may end up using these des‐ ignations for contemporary needs in the formation of religious identities. Only by critically evaluating these designations can they help us to describe the Jewish and Greco-Roman society in which Paul moved. The radical perspective argues that it would be more historically accurate to try to reach an understanding of the kind of Judaism Paul was concerned with in his letters, based on ancient Jewish uses of ‘Jew’ and ‘Judaism’, than to de‐ scribe what he was doing with terms he never applied to himself or others. In extension of this, we should be aware of the fact that if Paul did not use a term that would distinguish his movement from Judaism, then he probably preached a form of Judaism, which included the incorporation of Gentiles qua non-Jews into Judaism. Thus, titles that would more fittingly describe the identities Paul navigates would be ‘Christ-believing Gentiles’ or ‘Gentiles-in-Christ’, even though the relation of these Gentiles to Judaism would be very vaguely illumi‐ nated by such a designation. The title, ‘Gentiles-in-Christ’ would also be an etic term, as differentiated from an emic one. Other and more nuanced possibilities have been proposed, especially by proponents of the radical perspective. I now turn to these. Essentially, the crucial task of determining terminology comes down to this: Which terms best describe the reality we try to grasp? Caroline Johnson Hodge Caroline Johnson Hodge has worked to determine how to understand the Gen‐ tiles in Paul, both from Paul’s own perspective, and from the Gentiles’ perspec‐ tive. 7 Even though Paul and the Gentiles undergo various transformations in identity in his letters, he never separates himself from Judaism, and he inten‐ Caroline Johnson Hodge 45 <?page no="46"?> 8 Johnson Hodge approaches the problem from a position situated contemporaneously with Paul. From the perspective of ‘Wirkungsgeschichte’ it would be legitimate to de‐ scribe believers in Christ as ‘Christians’. However, this is not Johnson Hodge’s per‐ spective, nor that of any other radical. 9 Johnson Hodge 2015, 154; 159 10 Johnson Hodge 2007, 18 tionally affiliates his Gentile assemblies with Israel, though not as full members. According to Johnson Hodge, the Gentiles are not Jews, and neither are they Christians. But neither are they Gentiles any longer, even though they somehow remain Gentiles. So they are Gentiles, but also not Gentiles. Paul calls them a number of things including ‘beloved’, ‘holy ones’, ‘faithful ones’, ‘brothers and sisters’, ‘heir’, and ‘a new creation’. But what Johnson Hodge struggles to de‐ termine is, what then have they become? What are the Gentiles-in-Christ? 8 According to Johnson Hodge, the Gentile addressees of Paul’s letters are Gentiles ‘in-between’, who occupy an ‘in-between space’. 9 From a historical perspective, as a group, the Gentiles affiliated with Judaism is not difficult to understand. Johnson Hodge explains that there are many examples of Gentile sympathizers with Judaism, as perceived by Jews in the Second Temple period. There is a wide variety of material (texts, inscriptions, etc.) in which Jews report that Gentile sympathizers adopted Jewish practices such as Sabbath observance, making offerings in the temple, attending synagogue services, and so on. But the Jews showed little interest in defining these Gentiles as a group, and neither did they consider the religious status of these Gentiles. According to Johnson Hodge, neither did Paul construct a stable identity for these Gentiles-in-Christ. This means that as a group, they resist classification - at least in an ancient or historical sense. The Gentiles-in-Christ hover around the borders of identities that they are not quite, and Paul’s definitions of them shift with his rhetoric. Consequently, Johnson Hodge offers a model of multiple identities 10 and hy‐ bridity as an alternative to the idea that ethnic identities are monolithic and one-dimensional. Individuals and groups may embody several ethnic or other identities, situationally emphasizing one while downplaying others. And from this etic perspective, Johnson Hodge manages to describe what the Gen‐ tiles-in-Christ are, and how Paul emphasizes different aspects of their ‘situa‐ tional identity’ in different situations - foregrounding some, while downplaying others, at rhetorically relevant points. 2 Terminology: Jews, Gentiles, Christians, or something else? 46 <?page no="47"?> 11 Garroway 2008, abstract. Joshua Garroway Joshua Garroway approaches the problem of the Gentiles in much the same way as Caroline Johnson Hodge. In his 2008 dissertation for Yale University, Gar‐ roway explains that he uses post-colonial theorists’ new perspectives on identity construction. 11 He uses the construct of hybridity as articulated by theorists such as Homi K. Bhabha (1949-) and Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975) to better under‐ stand texts that describe ambiguous Jewish identities in antiquity. Garroway analyses several examples of proselytes and Idumeans, groups long thought to have inhabited the border between Jew and Gentile in the ancient world. And from this background, he turns to Paul’s ‘Christians’. The hybrid space Gar‐ roway identifies in Paul’s construction of Gentile identities concerns the obser‐ vation that baptized Gentiles become Jews in the fullest sense of the word, while remaining Gentiles. The baptized Gentiles become Jews, but not really Jews. So Garroway constructs the neologism ‘Gentile-Jews’ in order to define the hybri‐ dized identity. The intention of Garroway’s neologism is to present an alternative to a certain kind of binary thinking. He wants to challenge the idea of ‘pure’ groups; he wants to challenge the idea that cultures or categories of identity - whether religious, ethnic, national, or otherwise - are neatly bounded. There is no such thing as an essence, and the world - prior to being described - is not naturally divided into classes, cultures, or religions. In other words, there is no such thing as a real Jew or a real Gentile. There is only a discursive production of culture and identity, and language is what creates distinctions among things, just as power is what shapes the role and importance of language in any discursive production. Consequently, the neologism ‘Gentile-Jew’ is created to point out that any binary opposition between Jew and Gentile is first linguistic, but also part of a power play in which the ‘Gentile-Jews’ conceptually refuse to be either one thing or the other, but something else, which contests the terms and terri‐ tories of both. By juxtaposing the terms of the dichotomy, Garroway identifies the hybrid space that defies classification. Joshua Garroway 47 <?page no="48"?> 12 E.g. Fredriksen 1991; 2005; 2014 13 Fredriksen 2010, 241ff. 14 Fredriksen 1991, 544ff. Paula Fredriksen In one of her several articles on Paul and his Gentile addressees, 12 Paula Fre‐ driksen approaches the problem of the Gentiles from the perspective of ancient Jewish apocalyptic beliefs. 13 Some of the ancient apocalyptic traditions directly addressed the fate of the non-Jews at the onset of Israel’s eschatological re‐ demption. These traditions were mixed, though. Some were adverse, some were favourable, and sometimes both adverse and favourable traditions appeared in the same text. 14 However, according to Fredriksen, what mattered to Paul and the early Jesus movement were the eschatological traditions that foretold the inclusion of the Gentiles (or the nations) with a reassembled Israel (e.g. Isa 2: 2- 4; 25: 6; Mic 4: 1ff.). In the traditions somehow informing Paul’s beliefs, this could be expressed thus: ‘In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying ’Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.”’ (Zech 8: 23) Or the Gentiles themselves might be described as carrying the Jews in exile back to Jerusalem (Ps. Sol. 7: 31-41). Or the Gentiles would be described as burying their idols because ‘all people shall direct their sight to the path of uprightness’ (1 Enoch 91: 14). It may be conceptually difficult to distinguish between the inclusive escha‐ tological traditions receiving Gentiles into the family of Israel, and the non-es‐ chatological Jewish practice of receiving Gentiles into diaspora synagogues. But Fredriksen argues for a crucial difference: From the point of view of Jewish synagogues, the proselytes (i.e. circumcised or converted Gentiles) were no longer Gentiles - they were Jews of a special kind (though not historical-ethnic Jews). But the synagogue’s God-fearers (or Judaizers) were still ‘active’ Gentiles (or pagans as Fredriksen prefers). From an inside, Jewish perspective, everyone who had not converted to Judaism - despite how sympathetic they might have been - was considered Gentile (or pagan). They might still worship their own native gods, even if they also worshiped the one God of Israel. The dividing line now is that when the Lord of the universe reveals himself in glory and the day of wrath arrives, as the eschatological traditions describe it, the nations (or Gentiles) will destroy their idols, repudiate their gods, and worship Israel’s God together with Israel. This means that in the eschatological texts of the Hebrew Bible, the category of an uncircumcised Gentile worshipping with Israel is a theoretical or hypothetical possibility in the last days. The Gentiles worshipping with Israel in these final days assume the position of ex-pagan pagans, or 2 Terminology: Jews, Gentiles, Christians, or something else? 48 <?page no="49"?> 15 Fredriksen 2010, 242 16 Nanos 2014, 26 n.1 17 For a discussion of this, cf. Cohen 2005 ex-pagan Gentiles. According to the apocalyptic texts, the destruction of their idols would not imply that these Gentiles converted to Judaism. The Gentiles do not convert, but they do turn (στρέφω). When, in the last days, God redeems Israel, the Gentiles (or the nations) will turn from the lesser gods - whose images they worship - and turn to the one God of Israel (cf. Isa 45: 22; Tob 14: 6). Fre‐ driksen takes this to be the background of Paul’s claims to his Gentile addressees, quintessentially expressed thus: ‘You turned to God from idols, to serve the true and living god’ (ἐπεστρέψατε, 1 Thess 1: 9). By describing the ‘turning’ Gentiles as ex-pagan pagans or ex-pagan Gentiles, Fredriksen makes a pun on the two English words for the single Greek ἔθνη. 15 The two English words have different connotations. ‘Gentile’ connotes ethnicity, and implies that the person in question is defined as a non-Jew. ‘Pagan’ connotes religious affiliation, and implies that the person in question is neither a Christian nor a Jew. However, Greek does not make this distinction, and in the time of Paul, a pagan would be a Gentile and a Gentile would be a pagan, with the exception of converted proselytes. Consequently, by putting ‘pagan’ and ‘Gen‐ tile’ next to each other in one word, and further adding ‘ex-’, Fredriksen iden‐ tifies the inadequacy of (any) translation of ἔθνη as either ‘pagan’ or ‘Gentile’, while noting the anachronism of any distinction between ethnicity and religion at the time of Paul. In ancient societies, ethnicity was religion, which makes it impossible for us, today, to distinguish between pagan and Gentile. Neverthe‐ less, Fredriksen chooses to emphasize the bond between cult and ethnicity by translating ἔθνη as ‘pagan’. But this only works in tandem with an explicit ‘dis‐ tinct-but-together’ relationship between Israel and the nations/ Gentiles/ pagans in the eschatological times. Mark D. Nanos Mark Nanos goes straight to the point when he declares, ‘Defining who is a Jew and who is not is both simple and complex…’ 16 It is quite simple to merely ask, Who is circumcised and who is not? But that merely settles the question of approximately half of the persons in question, the males. What about the female Jews? 17 Also, what if a person has a Gentile father, but was born to a mother who converted to Judaism? Or, if a person has a Jewish father, but was born by a Gentile mother? And what if this person was never circumcised - or indeed Mark D. Nanos 49 <?page no="50"?> 18 My use of ’historical-ethnic Jews’ is intended to point to these really ’real’ Jews. 19 Cf. Nanos 2014, 29 20 Horace, Sat. 1.9.68-70; Petronius, Sat. 102.14; Josephus, Contra Ap. 2.13.137; Epictetus, 12.2 was circumcised, or converted at a later stage in life? Indeed, what does it mean to be or become a Jew and/ or Jewish? Is it enough to be identified as a Jew (i.e. having a Jewish identity), or does behaviour also play a role (i.e. behaving like a Jew)? And does it matter whether it is a Jew or a Gentile who identifies one as Jewish? All these questions muddle the simple starting point of circumcision, and they also draw attention to the assumption that there may be Jews who are more ‘real’ Jews than other Jews, even if all are circumcised. 18 Nevertheless, these kinds of questions help Mark Nanos to navigate the difficult question of how to describe the members of Paul’s associations, and how to define their ethno-religious status. If we stick with the circumcised Jews, it is possible to distinguish - though not without overlap - between the ethnic identity of Jews as ‘Jewish people’ and behaviour that characterizes Jews (and is, thus, ethnic). The behaviour of these Jewish people may be called ‘Jewish’ (with an upper-case J). This means that they behave ‘Jewishly’, in a way characteristic of ‘Jewishness’, or they may be said to practise ‘Judaism’ (with an upper-case J). 19 But what about non-Jews - could they become Jews? According to some Jews holding to the ancient tradi‐ tion, only those circumcised on the eighth day qualified as ‘the sons of the cov‐ enant which the Lord made with Abraham’ ( Jubilees 15: 26). Consequently, by definition, the author(s) of Jubilees rules out the transformation of non-Jews into Jews. However, various ancient non-Jewish authors recognized that non-Jews could become Jews. 20 Paul also seems to have agreed that non-Jews could become Jews (Gal 2: 11-14; 5: 2-3; 6: 12-13), regardless of whether or not they actually should. And in texts from Paul’s time, Jews generally agreed that circumcision represents a decisive rite for a (male) non-Jew undertaking to be‐ come a proselyte, that is, a Jew by choice rather than birth. However, if (male) non-Jews wished to remain non-Jews but still somehow wanted to be affiliated with Judaism, Jewish behaviour, Jewish beliefs, and Jewish practices (i.e. a Jewish way of life), they would be recognized as ‘god-fearers’ (θεοσεβεῖς). These god-fearers may have behaved jewishly (with a lower-case j) and may even have been considered jewish (with a lower-case j), but they would generally have been considered non-Jews. Consequently, non-Jews could think and behave in ways described as ‘jewish’, and they could do it without being or becoming Jews, just as Jews could choose to not think or behave in these ways. 2 Terminology: Jews, Gentiles, Christians, or something else? 50 <?page no="51"?> 21 Cf. e.g. Dunn 1999 22 Nanos 2014, 32 23 Cf. Wright 2013, 1432-1436 With the foregoing conceptual distinctions in place, Nanos then turns to the question of Paul’s associations, in order to test and apply the distinctions: What if a group composed of non-Jews, with some Jews as leaders, behaves jewishly? What if a group of non-Jews was founded or advised by Jews, and it functions independent of any Jews, yet bases its thinking and behaviour on Jewish Scrip‐ tures, traditions, and ways of life? How would such a group be identified - and should we use the lower-case j or the upper-case J to describe it? And what happens when Paul writes to non-Jews to dissuade them from becoming Jews (i.e. undergoing circumcision), yet argues that these uncircumcised non-Jews were full and equal members of the family of God alongside Jewish members, indeed, equally children of Abraham and co-heirs of the promises made to him and his seed, and not simply welcome guests (Rom 4; Gal 3: 6-4: 7)? That Paul argues thus has led many scholars to conclude that Paul also abandoned his own identity as a Jew, or that he remained a Jew ethnically, even if he no longer ascribed any value to that identity. 21 These scholars often claim that Paul aban‐ doned the practice of Judaism - that he no longer behaved Jewishly - or that he remained Jewish ethnically, but not religiously. But according to Mark Nanos, lacking from this description are distinctions and qualifications: To ‘become a Jew’ and to ‘become jewish’ (i.e. practise Judaism) are not interchangeable. There is a huge difference between dissuading Christ-believing non-Jews from ‘be‐ coming Jews’ (i.e. undergoing circumcision), and dissuading non-Jews from thinking or behaving jewishly, or practising Judaism. 22 And it is probably an even greater ironic twist, when scholars who neglect such differentiation main‐ tain that these non-Jews then becomes ‘spiritual’ or ‘true’ Jews, usually by ap‐ pealing to Rom 2: 25-29. 23 I consider Paul’s own identity below. According to Mark Nanos, what Paul does is to oppose Gentiles undertaking proselyte conversion (i.e. circumcision) in order to become Jews ethnically (cir‐ cumcision signifying the completion of the ‘conversion’ rite). Instead, Paul urges Gentiles to observe Judaism and to behave jewishly, so they become jewish Gentiles, or perhaps even jewishish Gentiles. Thus, Mark Nanos tries to con‐ ceptualize the behaviour and identity of Paul’s addressees by designating these Gentiles as ‘jewishish Gentiles’, as jewish non-Jews, as judaizing non-Jews (ju‐ daizers), or as jewish-like non-Jews. All these titles indicate that they were non-circumcised Gentiles affiliated with Judaism. They remained Gentiles, even though they were somehow affiliated with Judaism. Another identity to under‐ stand is the one Paul addresses in Galatians - the Jewish Gentiles. These would Mark D. Nanos 51 <?page no="52"?> 24 E.g. Dunn 1999 be circumcised Gentiles, and therefore proselytes (i.e. Jews, but not histor‐ ical-ethnic Jews). But the important point to keep in mind is that Paul does not see this as a valid option for Gentiles after the Christ-event. There would have been other identities such as Jewish Jews (i.e. practising historical-ethnic Jews), and non-Jewish Jews or un-Jewish-like Jews (i.e. non-practising, apostate Jews), but these are less relevant in connection with Paul, even though they occupy a space in Paul’s conceptual world. Nevertheless, all these titles and neologisms that Mark Nanos has provided are valuable descriptive tools for exploring Paul’s letters. Paul’s (and Peter’s) identity If Paul tried to make Gentiles behave jewishly because of their adherence to his mission, what did he himself do, because of his belief in Christ? Galatians 2: 11- 14 may offer some clues. Paul and Peter are Jews, but Paul asks Peter why he ‘lives like a Gentile’ (ἐθνικῶς) and not ‘like a Jew’ (Ἰουδαϊκῶς), even though he is a Jew (Ἰουδαῖος). And since this is what he does, why then does he convince Gentiles to Judaize (ἰουδαΐζειν)? This minor exchange makes it appear as though Paul presents two possible options for a Jew: A Jew may live either ἐθνικῶς or Ἰουδαϊκῶς. What he does by presenting this choice to Peter is to transform the nouns into adverbs - words describing the way something is done. This makes it appear as though Paul and Peter had to choose the way they wanted to live, whether they wanted to live Ἰουδαϊκῶς (‘Jewishly’, with an upper-case J, since they are in fact ethnic Jews) or ἐθνικῶς (gentilishly with a lower-case g, as they are in fact not ethnically Gentiles). From the foregoing minor exchange we must realize that Paul does not speak to Peter of becoming a Gentile. Paul speaks of the possibility of living or acting like a Gentile. Paul chose to live his own life gentilishly for pedagogical and theological purposes (to win more people, 1 Cor 9: 19-22). But he criticizes Peter for not being consistent with one choice. First, Peter chose to live gentilishly, like Paul; but when ‘those from James’ arrived (Gal 2: 12), he withdrew and sep‐ arated himself from the Gentiles, in order to appear Jewishly (Ἰουδαϊκῶς). In Gal 2: 19, Paul explains his own choice: ‘For through the Law I died to the Law, in order that I might live to God’. Many commentators take this verse to indicate that Paul left Judaism and a life under the (Mosaic) law, 24 but this may not be what he actually intended. Gal 2: 19 may state that Paul exchanged the 2 Terminology: Jews, Gentiles, Christians, or something else? 52 <?page no="53"?> 25 Cf. Johnson Hodge 2007, 122 elements of his Jewish identity to gain access to Gentile communities; Gal 2: 19 may state that Paul adjusted his Jewish observances so he could eat and live gentilishly, with Gentiles, without asking them to observe the (Mosaic) law. 25 Thus, Paul’s strategy of constructing his own identity would mirror, albeit in‐ versely, the one he applies to the Gentiles: He does not ask the Gentiles to become Jews and to live like a Ἰουδαῖος by following the law (ἰουδαΐζειν). Instead, he himself starts to live gentilishly (ἐθνικῶς) when he is around Gentiles, because he considers himself to be ‘apostle to the Gentiles’ (ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος, Rom 11: 13). His vocation as ‘apostle to the Gentiles’ requires this shift in priorities, but not in order to start a new religion or ‘go beyond’ Judaism. On the contrary, he adapted to the sinful, unrighteous, and unjust Gentiles so that the God of Israel might reward him on the day of judgement (cf. similarly Phil 2: 5-11), and that God’s plan of extending his mercy to the Gentiles, so they will ‘rejoice with his people (Israel)’ (Rom 15: 10), might be fulfilled as soon as possible. Conse‐ quently, Paul may not have compromised his faithful practice of the (Mosaic) law. What he did was to behave like a Gentile and act gentilishly (ἐθνικῶς) when he lived among Gentiles. And whatever this adaptation meant, Paul did not perceive it as compromising his faithfulness to Israel, to God, or to the (Mosaic) law. Concluding remarks and evaluation The foregoing presentation makes it seem that radical scholars conclude that Paul addressed his gospel about a Jewish Messiah to Gentiles. The ‘radicals’ claim that Paul did not ask these Gentiles to become Jews, or to become some‐ thing new, such as ‘Christians’, or to remain what they used to be (pagan Gen‐ tiles). Instead, the ‘radicals’ claim that Paul sought out ways for these Gentiles to be affiliated to Judaism and to behave jewishly without becoming actual Jews. This request from Paul to his Gentile addressees may be described in a variety of ways each of which highlights different aspects of the identity-construction of his addressees. Caroline Johnson Hodge and Joshua Garroway primarily use etic designations. They reach their conclusions through a theoretical discussion of identity formation and group-belonging. Paula Fredriksen and Mark Nanos primarily work with ancient and emic descriptions of ‘Gentiles affiliated with Judaism’. Fredriksen and Nanos furnish their description with a theoretical Concluding remarks and evaluation 53 <?page no="54"?> 26 Paul Trebilco and Steve Mason support this point, cf. Trebilco 2012, 3-5; Mason 2007, 468-471. Even though N.T. Wright argues that his own position supports the point, I am not convinced, cf. Wright 2013, 804-815 awareness of the impossibility and inadequacy of trying to understand outlooks that existed thousands of years ago. I consider it unnecessary to choose among the above-presented types of ter‐ minology, or to go beyond what the radical scholars have proposed. There is not yet any consensus among radical scholars concerning how to describe these ‘in-between’ or ‘border’ identities. Consequently, I will not confine myself to only one of the above-presented alternatives, nor will I develop any other terms for describing these ‘in-between’ Gentiles. Instead, I will use the various alter‐ natives provided by the radical scholars as they seem to fit my analysis, because my model reading of Romans proceeds from the radical perspective. My point of departure rests on the assumption formulated by radical scholars, that Paul addressed his message only and exclusively to Gentiles. I work with these de‐ scriptions of Paul’s addressees as jewishish Gentiles. In the following chapters and in the actual exegesis I will support and substantiate the claim that Paul only and exclusively addressed his message to Gentiles, but for now I will stick to the terminological discussion. The key insight to bring along in the following exegesis - as different as it is from many New Perspective scholars in terms of terminology - is that Paul did not try to make anyone Christian. Neither did he create a new religion called Christianity. Some, but definitely not all New Perspective scholars, agree on this point. 26 What Paul did was to try to incorporate Gentiles behaving jewishly into Judaism as holy ones, faithful ones, brothers and sisters, heirs of Abraham, wild olive shoots engrafted unto a cultivated tree, freed slaves adopted as sons, and a new creation. He did not create any ‘Christian churches’. He organized as‐ semblies (ἐκκλησίαι) of former pagan Gentiles behaving jewishly, and he made sure these assemblies were connected to and affiliated with Judaism. 2 Terminology: Jews, Gentiles, Christians, or something else? 54 <?page no="55"?> 1 Even though both terms (letter, epistle) are widely used today, neither is an ancient Greek term, because the ancient Greeks avoided such a distinction. The distinction did not seem obvious or important to them (just as the difference between real author, pseudepigraphic author, or copyist did not seem obvious or important). Adolf Deissmann introduced the distinction between letter and epistle when he spoke of a ‘real, non-literary’ letter (‘Brief ’) and an ‘artistic, literary’ one (‘Epistel’) (Deissmann 1923, 116-119). 2 I consider Song’s proposal rather speculative (cf. Song 2004). Song proposes that Paul wrote Rom 1: 16-11: 36 as a classroom diatribe. At a later point, when he needed it, he simply added the Roman recipients to the opening and a rather general paraenesis at the end. 3 Thorsteinsson 2003, 73 4 Barclay states that more than anything else in the letter, 14: 1-15: 6 bears witness to specific concerns of the Roman congregation, and therefore confirms that the letter is a real letter (Barclay 1996, 288). 5 Melanchton 1944, 69; Melanchton 1955-1983, 2.1.7 3 Introductory Questions - Gentile addressees A real letter (epistolography) 1 Paul’s letter to the Romans is a real letter. 2 Even though Paul incorporates and combines various rhetorical styles or types (diatribe, protreptic), literary fea‐ tures (epistolary opening and closing), literary devices and formulas (quotes and hymns), Romans still appears to be a genuine letter with a sender (Paul, 1: 1) and a recipient (‘all God’s beloved in Rome’ (πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ), 1: 7). Romans fits a fairly regular and consistent macrostructural epistolary pattern, and there are plenty of conventional epistolary elements to define it as a ‘real’ letter. 3 There is an opening (1: 1-7), a body (1: 8-15: 33), and a closing (16: 1-24). But Romans also demonstrates close resemblances to stylistic features of ‘literary’ letters (e.g. Seneca and Epictetus). Paul’s letters display - as does Romans - familiarity with private letters, official letters, and philosophical (lit‐ erary) letters. The paraenetic part of the letter (chapters 12-15) bears witness to the specific situation of the letter, in which Paul intends to intervene. In particular, chapters 14 to 15 concerning ‘the weak’ and ‘the strong’ support the identification of the letter as a real letter. 4 The letter addresses a specific situation in Rome, and should be considered neither a ‘theological compendium’ (Melanchthon) 5 nor <?page no="56"?> 6 Bornkamm 1991, 16; also cf. Nygren 1949, 7 7 In the upcoming exposition of the introductory questions concerning Romans, I follow the outline of Das 2007, 10ff. Paul’s ‘last will and testament’ (Bornkamm). 6 In order for the letter to be read as a real letter, the ‘theological’ part of the letter (1-11) must be perceived as laying the foundation upon which the specific exhortations may be effectively made, just as in Galatians. But for that strategy to be effective, the letter as a whole must present itself as a continuously developing argument. Consequently, there must be some unifying features throughout that hold the letter together as a continuous and developing argument. I will turn to this specific element in the following chapter. However, it is precisely this combination of the paraenetic part and the theological part - and the coherence and development from one part to the other - which has presented the greatest problems for scholars. Scholars have wondered how the description of the ungodly in 1: 18ff. may be said to lead naturally into the apostrophe in chapter 2, which continues with the proclamation of justification by faith in chapter 3, which leads to the dis‐ cussion of Abraham and Adam in chapters 4 and 5; and what about the confes‐ sions of the ‘I’ in chapter 7, and the question of Israel and the remnant in chapters 9 to 11, and the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ in chapters 14 to 15, and all the names in chapter 16? Unless we identify the correct point of departure, we will inevi‐ tably become lost in the fascinating world of Romans, and lose sight of the spe‐ cific historical occasion and purpose of the letter. Before moving forward, I must explicitly state that I do not begin this chapter from the position of the radical perspective, which identifies Paul’s addressees as Gentiles. My logic is reverse: I first analyse the literary, intertextual, and historical situation of Romans, without any prejudice or bias. My aim is pri‐ marily historical and philological. Through my analysis of the introductory questions, I conclude that Paul addressed his letter exclusively to Gentiles. With this conclusion firmly stated, I find inspiration and further support in the work of the radical perspective concerning interpretations of specific passages of the letter. But my point of departure is purely historical and philological. The integrity of the letter In the history of interpretations of Romans, some scholars have concluded that the current form of the letter is a composite of two, three, or more letters. 7 If that was actually the case, it would be futile to search for a single occasion and purpose behind the letter, because the situation behind one strand might be 3 Introductory Questions - Gentile addressees 56 <?page no="57"?> 8 Hays 1995, 76 entirely dissimilar from the situation behind another. Consequently, before we can determine the situation(s), occasion(s), and purpose(s) underlying Romans, we need to consider the partition theories. Walter Schmithals argued, in a 1975 monograph and again in his 1988 com‐ mentary, that Romans is a composite of two originally separate letters to Rome, and of other fragments of Pauline and non-Pauline origin. Paul wrote Letter A (Rom 1: 1-4: 25; 5: 12-11: 36; 15: 8-13) in Ephesus earlier in his ministry, prior to the problems in Corinth, and later he wrote Letter B (Rom 12: 1-21; 13: 8-10; 14: 1-15: 4a, 5f., 7, 14-32; 16: 21-23; 15: 33) in Cenchreae, since Rom 16: 1-20 com‐ mends Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae. Schmithals argues from apparent contradictions in the framework of the letter. In 15: 20, Paul writes that he does not wish to build on someone else’s foundations, but in 1: 13 he envisions producing some fruit in Rome. In 15: 24, he plans to visit Rome in order to gain support for his trip to Spain, but in chapter 1 he desires to visit the recipients for their own sake. In 1: 10 and 13, Paul claims that his visit to Rome was hindered, but in 15: 22-25 the hindrance seems to be in the past, and Paul is sure that he will succeed in visiting Rome. These conflicting statements led Schmithals to conclude that Romans was composed (primarily) of two separate letters. In a 1979 article (reprinted in The Romans Debate), Alexander J.M. Wedder‐ burn responded to Schmithals’ position. Wedderburn noted that the hindrance in 1: 13 had already been removed (‘up until now’) in chapter 1, so the travel plans in chapter 15 were clear throughout. Concerning Paul’s statement about not wanting to build on someone else’s foundations, positing two separate let‐ ters would not resolve this contradiction. Wedderburn also noted the different contexts of 1: 15 and 15: 20: In chapter 1, Paul addresses believers, whereas in chapter 15 he speaks of preliminary missionary work. In chapter 1, Paul ma‐ noeuvres a situation with a group he has not yet visited, whereas the general principle of 15: 20 does not necessarily rule out Paul’s preaching among other believers, but merely mentions his reluctance to do so. Finally, the extant textual evidence includes no signs that support the hypothesis of separate strands un‐ derlying Romans. Therefore, Richard Hays stated his aversion to such ‘wildly speculative hypotheses’, and claimed that such ‘theories belong in a museum of exegetical curiosities rather than a serious discussion of the theological coher‐ ence of Romans’. 8 Partition theories suffer from the complete lack of evidence in the manuscript tradition, and cannot satisfactorily explain how and why later redactors of Romans would weave together the fragments into its current form. The integrity of the letter 57 <?page no="58"?> 9 Cf. Kümmel 1975, 315; Gamble 1977, 23f.; Das 2007, 13-23; Dochhorn 2015, 296-305 10 Gamble 1977, 16ff. 11 Gamble 1977, 19f.; Dochhorn 2015, 298 12 Gamble 1977, 99 13 Gamble 1977, 115ff. A 14-, 15-, or 16-chapter version of Romans Whereas the manuscript tradition of Romans constitutes a serious weakness for the partition theories, it also raises a new set of questions, because Romans presents several textual problems. Do Rom 1: 7 and 1: 15 belong to the original letter, or are they products of later scribal editors? The manuscript tradition is undecided. Were chapters 15 and 16 original parts of the letter? One or both may be questioned, based on the extant textual evidence. Is the doxology (16: 25-27) original, and does it belong at the end of the letter? In some manuscripts the doxology is placed at the end of chapter 14, in others at the end of chapter 15, and in yet others, at the end of chapter 16. 9 Some manuscripts support a fourteen-chapter version of Romans by inserting the doxology after 14: 23. In other manuscripts, the doxology follows both 14: 23 and 16: 24. 10 Marcion’s prologue claims that Romans was written in Athens, even though Rom 15 to 16 suggests a Corinthian origin. This means that Marcion’s version must have been based on a version without chapters 15 to 16. 11 Although forteen-chapter versions of Romans exist, this is probably not the original form, because it cannot account for the development of the old Latin manuscripts that end with chapter 15. And scholars commonly agree that 15: 1-16: 16 (maybe even 16: 24) are Pauline in content and style. Also, Paul’s admonition to the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ does not end until 15: 6 or 15: 13. And no one has been able to convincingly argue why 15: 1-6 (or 15: 1-13) would have been subsequently added to a fourteen-chapter version of the letter. Consequently, no one has been able to explain why a later addition to the letter would have continued a dis‐ cussion that belonged with the original situation. 12 The most likely explanation is that an original, longer, letter was abbreviated to a fourteen-chapter version, even though the rationale behind such a revision is difficult to determine. Hypotheses include that the revisionists found the con‐ tent offensive, that the fourteen-chapter version was used for liturgical pur‐ poses, or that Romans was shortened into a more general form to appeal to a broader audience. Harry Gamble noted that a few manuscripts omit ἐν Ῥώμῃ in 1: 7, and τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ in 1: 15, and that these omissions coincide with the four‐ teen-chapter version attested to in the Western bilingual versions. 13 Together, 1: 7, 15, and chapters 15 to 16 specify the addressees. This suggests that Romans 3 Introductory Questions - Gentile addressees 58 <?page no="59"?> 14 Cf. Kümmel 1975, 318 n45 15 Manson’s 1962 article is reprinted in The Romans Debate, cf. Manson 1991, 7ff. 16 Lampe 1991, 217 17 Cf. 1 Cor 16: 10-11 where Paul appends a commendation of Timothy to the Corinthians (cf. also Phil 2: 25-30). 18 Gamble 1977, 47f.; Lampe 1991, 219f. 19 Cf. Acts 18: 2; Suetonius Claud. 25; Cassius Dio 60.6.6-7 20 Gamble 1977, 51 was deliberately shortened. With regard to the fourteen-chapter version, it may be stated that no one has been able to provide a satisfactory account of the origins of this version of Romans. Thus, the only relative certainty is that the fourteen-chapter version is not the original form. In 1829, David Schulz argued that Paul wrote Rom 1-15 to the congregation in Rome, and then added chapter 16 for the church at Ephesus. 14 In 1962, T.W. Manson advanced Schulz’s original hypothesis, specifically by arguing from the strongest textual evidence (p 46 ), which uniquely positions 16: 26-27 after chapter 15. 15 However, most scholars have not found Manson’s case compelling, mainly because the textual evidence overwhelmingly favours the inclusion of chapter 16. Even in p 46 , 16: 1-23 immediately follows the doxology. 16 Only Miniscule 1506 presents chapter 15 without 16: 1-23, but there is a blank half page between chapter 15 and 16: 25-27, which suggests that the copyist knew of Rom 16. Ad‐ ditionally, the δέ in 16: 1 presupposes a preceding text, and confirms that chapter 16 did not stand on its own. The simplest explanation is that Rom 16 naturally follows Rom 15, thus making it improbable that Rom 16 was a separate letter of commendation and greetings. After all, such a letter would be unparalleled in the Pauline corpus. A letter of recommendation for Phoebe is unnecessary, when Paul typically includes subforms of various genres in his letters. 17 The greetings in Rom 16 work much better in a Roman than in an Ephesian context. Although Paul reveals personal knowledge of only nine of the people on his list, the rest may have been well-known individuals in the Roman con‐ gregation. 18 It should not be considered odd that Paul knew of twenty-six people in Rome, when his close companions (Prisca and Aquila) were in Rome, and could have informed him of the people living there - especially in view of his plans to visit Rome. Prisca and Aquila may have travelled back and forth be‐ tween Rome and the Aegean region several times, because of the Edict of Clau‐ dius 19 and business in Ephesus. And the names in Rom 16 are otherwise attested in Rome through ancient inscriptions. 20 Identifying Epaenetus as the first con‐ vert in Asia (16: 5) also makes little sense if chapter 16 was originally addressed to Ephesus, because the Asian Ephesians would already know Epaenetus. On the other hand, the Romans may have been unfamiliar with Epaenetus’s signif‐ A 14-, 15-, or 16-chapter version of Romans 59 <?page no="60"?> 21 Weima 1994, 362 22 Cf. Wischmeyer 2012, 2455ff.; Theobald 2013, 213ff. 23 Gamble 1977, 84-95; Das 2007, 22 24 Donfried 1991a, lxx icance. Besides, would it not make more sense that the Ephesians already knew Prisca and Aquila, Paul’s co-workers, since they would have known that Timothy was his co-worker (16: 21)? And does not the number of people greeted in Romans actually argue against an Ephesian destination, since in no other letter does Paul attach such an extensive list of greetings to a church with which he was familiar? In Ephesus, Paul would surely have known more than twenty-six persons, and he might have risked offending Ephesians who were not specifically mentioned. And if he had continued the practice begun in the other letters, he would have referred to his experiences and future plans with the Ephesians. Consequently, a Roman destination makes more sense. By listing all these names and greetings at the end of the letter, Paul was establishing his authority and commending his ministry by means of his associations with re‐ spected persons in Rome who could serve as character references. 21 In greeting and highlighting his contacts in Rome, he was laying the foundation for his future work and new ministry in the West in Spain. 22 The concluding elements of Rom 16 are typical of a Pauline letter closing: greetings (16: 3-15), kiss of peace (16: 16), admonition (16: 17-20), and grace ben‐ ediction (16: 20). 23 If Rom 16 were intended for Ephesus, 15: 33 would be the con‐ clusion of the letter, with its wish for peace. But Paul does not conclude any of his other letters with a wish for peace. Elsewhere in Paul, such wishes for peace precede the greetings, as in Rom 16 (cf. Phil 4: 9; 2 Cor 13: 11; 1 Thess 5: 23; Gal 6: 16 (also, cf. 2 Thess 3: 16; Eph 6: 23)). Besides, the grace benediction in 16: 20b, 24 is exactly what we would expect in a Pauline ending. Thus, Karl P. Donfried’s words concerning the place of Rom 16 in Paul’s original letter to the Romans is worth repeating: ‘An especially significant shift has occurred with regard to the understanding of Romans 16, which is now viewed by the majority [of scholars] as being an integral part of Paul’s original letter’. 24 Any reconstruction of the 3 Introductory Questions - Gentile addressees 60 <?page no="61"?> 25 Concerning Rom 16: 25-27 cf. Kümmel 1975, 316. Against the authenticity of 16: 25-27: Collins 2002. In defence of the authenticity of 16: 25-27: Schreiner 1998, 810ff.; Marshall 1999, 170ff.; Borse 1994, 173ff. 26 From the work of Stanley Stowers and John White concerning ancient epistolary theory we also know that from the reign of Augustus onward, letter writers began ‘to extend greetings to or from a third party (or parties) in the letter closing’ (White 1986, 202). Stowers agrees that ancient letters ‘frequently send salutations to individuals who are not the encoded readers’ (Stowers 1994, 33). Thus, the greetings in 16: 3-15 suggest that the persons meant to be greeted should not be counted among those to whom Paul wrote the letter. As Thorsteinsson concludes: ‘[T]he greetings in Romans 16 say nothing conclusive about the identity of Paul’s implied audience’ (Thorsteinsson 2003, 99). 27 For a comprehensive listing up to 2002 cf. Thorsteinsson 2003, 88 n5, and Christof‐ fersson 1990, 24-28. Since 2002, others have claimed that Romans was also intended for Jews: Jewett 2007, 150; Jervis 2012, 139 n1; Johnson 2012, 158 situation in the Roman congregation must employ the full sixteen chapters. 25 Therefore, I take chapter 16 to be an original part of Romans. 26 Place of writing Paul probably wrote this letter from Cenchreae (the port of Corinth), since he commends Phoebe, a deacon of that city (16: 1-2), to the recipients of Romans. He also sends greetings from Gaius, who is the host of the church from which Paul writes, and we know from Rom 16: 23 and 1 Cor 1: 14 that there was a prominent Gaius at Corinth. In chapter 15, Paul reveals his plan to bring a col‐ lection to Jerusalem (15: 26-33). Thus, scholars widely agree that Paul spend the winter of 57/ 58 (or 55/ 56) in Corinth, and afterwards returned through Mace‐ donia, Asia, and Caesarea to Jerusalem, where he was arrested. If Romans is a real letter, given the diatribal or other literary and rhetorical features, there must be a real audience. This audience is crucial for determining the purpose (and argument) of Romans, so we must ask, what we can know about this audience? Addressees, audience, recipients: external versus internal evidence The majority of scholars contend that Romans was intended for both Jews and Gentiles, albeit primarily for Jews. 27 This is based on external and internal evi‐ dence from the letter. The external factors concern the possible (but speculative and hypothetical) ethnic composition of Roman believers in Christ at the time Place of writing 61 <?page no="62"?> 28 Cf. Christoffersson 1990, 27; Das 2007, 24-25; Thorsteinsson 2003, 91 29 Over the years, a minority of scholars have suggested a Gentile audience (cf. e.g. Munck 1959, 200-209), but a detailed challenge to the consensus concerning a Jewish constit‐ uency in the Roman congregation did not present itself until the 1990s, specifically, the work of Stanley Stowers (1994). 30 Stowers 1994; Thorsteinsson 2003. Also cf. Garroway 2012; Johnson Hodge 2007, 10. 31 Stowers 1994, 22; Thorsteinsson 2003, 87 n2. 32 Cf. Das 2007, 149ff.; Jewett 2007, 55ff.; Rutgers 1995; Nanos 1996, 41ff.; Watson 2007, 167ff. of Paul. However, we have no evidence with which to reconstruct the Christ-be‐ lieving community/ communities in Rome prior to Paul’s letter. 28 Romans pro‐ vides the earliest evidence of any Christ-believing people in Rome. Regardless of how many - if any - Jews or Christ-believing Gentiles Claudius expelled from Rome in 49 AD, that event can have no bearing on our understanding of the audience of the letter. On the other hand, the internal factors relate to Paul’s explicit mention of the identity of the interlocutor in Rom 2-4, the strong and the weak (14-15), the greetings at the end of the letter, and various other aspects of the letter (1-11). The majority of scholars take these factors to imply an at least partly Jewish audience. Stanley Stowers and Runar Thorsteinsson suggest speaking of the encoded audience/ reader, rather than the real, historical, or actual audience, to avoid speculation concerning the ethnic composition of the actual (historical) Roman congregation. 29 The encoded reader/ audience is the manifest audience in the text, and it constitutes a strategy within the text; this is the reader the author himself constructs, for example, when Paul writes to ‘all the Gentiles, including yourselves‘ (1: 5) or when he writes ‘I am speaking to you Gentiles’ (11: 13). 30 Thus, the encoded reader/ audience is the reader explicitly inscribed in the text, and a feature of the text itself. According to Stowers and Thorsteinsson, the encoded/ intended reader was not necessarily identical to the actual readers of the letter when it arrived in Rome. We can never know who the actual or em‐ pirical readers were; they remain in the sphere of a historical reconstruction that may easily become speculation. 31 And even though from a historical point of view we may be certain that there were Jews in Rome, 32 it simply does not follow that the letter was addressed to them. To reveal the purpose of Paul’s letter, it is crucial to determine the identity of the encoded/ implied reader or audience. Hence, the starting point for an analysis of the audience of Romans follows from the text-internal evidence, which re‐ veals the encoded or intended audience. The audience of Romans may be con‐ firmed only by the letter itself. However, and here we may be moving beyond what Stowers and Thorsteinsson (and others) have suggested: if the literary 3 Introductory Questions - Gentile addressees 62 <?page no="63"?> 33 Even though I follow Stowers and Thorsteinsson in speaking of the encoded audience/ reader/ addressees, I also wish to push this topic further. The reason Stowers and Thor‐ steinsson ‘only’ argued for a Gentile identity of the encoded audience/ reader was be‐ cause in their scholarly context it seemed impossible to imagine a real (historical) con‐ gregation made up of Gentiles only. Thus, Stowers and Thorsteinsson took a ‘literary’ or ‘rhetorical’ short-cut, and spoke merely of the ‘encoded reader’ as a strategy within the text. However, if the encoded reader/ audience in the text may be established as purely Gentile, and this identity and strategy may be coupled with questions concerning the actual problems of the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ in chapters 14-15, then it may be possible to move beyond positing a purely ‘literary’ or ‘rhetorical’ identity of the en‐ coded reader/ audience. 34 So argues Cranfield (1975, 67). function of the letter’s encoded reader/ audience turns out to have a bearing on the purpose of the letter (primarily the paraenetic part of the letter), these two - in combination - may also constitute a weighty argument concerning the (actual, historical) addressees of the letter. 33 Consequently, if we can argue for the unity and continuity of the letter from chapter 1 to chapter 16, the unity, continuity, and sequence of the letter may establish a firmer point from which to draw conclusions about the actual and historical addressees in the Roman congregation. A Gentile audience The recipients/ audience of Paul’s letter are identifiable by certain explicit in‐ ternal factors. These appear in 1: 5-7; 1: 13-15; 11: 13; and 15: 15-16. According to ancient epistolary practices, the recipient of a letter is addressed in the dative case. In 1: 7 Paul addresses ‘all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints’ (πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις), in the dative case. Thus, Paul identifies the religious and social affiliation of the addressees, but not their ethnicity. However, he does that in the preceding verses (1: 5-6). The readers (who are God’s beloved and saints) already know that they should count themselves among ‘all the Gentiles’ (ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν), because Paul writes ἐν οἷς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς (among whom also you are). All God’s beloved in Rome, including themselves, are among the Gentiles (to whom Paul was appointed apostle). Thus, right from the outset, Paul is explicit about the ethnic identity of the encoded audience and addressees. The relative clause in 1: 6 (ἐν οἷς...) is not parenthetical, 34 but programmatic. Paul was appointed apostle to the Gentiles (1: 5). That is why they were subject to Paul’s apostleship, also in Rome. The Gentiles were the object of Paul’s mis‐ A Gentile audience 63 <?page no="64"?> 35 Cf. Das 2007, 65 which gives the references. 36 Cf. Engberg-Pedersen 2000, 185f. and Thorsteinsson 2003, 121 for a similar conclusion. 37 Stowers 1994, 288 38 Cf. Thorsteinsson 2003, 110, italics in original. sionary work, a fact he does not omit in the opening, and to which he returns in 1: 13-15. Paul declares the explicitly stated purpose of the letter to be the specific obligation ‘to proclaim the gospel to you also who are in Rome’ (1: 15). Preceding this proposition is 1: 13, where Paul declares that he often intended to come to them (but was thus far prevented) to reap some harvest among them ‘as well as among the rest of the Gentiles’ (καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν). Here, Paul directly addresses the encoded audience as Gentiles. He addresses them as Gentiles, because as appointed apostle to the Gentiles, Paul also has some au‐ thority over the Roman church. Additionally, in 15: 15ff. Paul states that he has been bold in writing to the Roman Gentiles because of his calling as Christ’s minister to the Gentiles (εἰς τὸ εἶναί με λειτουργὸν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, 15: 16); 15: 15-16 follows shortly after the direct address to the audience in 15: 10, where the Gentiles are encouraged to rejoice in the Lord together with his people (εὐφράνθητε, ἔθνη, μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ). Several scholars have observed that 1: 5-15 constitute an inclusio, together with 15: 14-32. 35 This supports the observation that the encoded audience was Gentile, because these two sections constitute the framework of the letter. Paul grounds his relationship to the Roman congregation in the fact that he is apostle to the Gentiles, and this claim serves as the virtual parenthesis bracketing the entire discourse. Thus, 15: 15-16 must be interpreted in a parallel fashion to 1: 5- 6, 13-15: If Paul is grounding his relations with the Romans in his apostolic commission to the Gentiles in chapter 1, he is most likely doing the same in chapter 15. In both instances, Paul mentions the Roman Gentiles in the context of his apostolic mission to the Gentiles. Hence, Romans is addressed exclusively to Gentiles, because Paul was commissioned as apostle to the Gentiles. In 11: 13, Paul addresses his audience directly. He emphasizes his calling as apostle to the Gentiles (ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος): ‘But to you Gentiles I say…’ (ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). The only time Paul uses the phrase ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος in any of his letters is here, in Romans. If there were Jews in the audience - which we do not know - these were not those Paul addressed or identified as the encoded audience; the Gentiles were. 36 In these verses, Paul does not shift his address from Jews to Gentiles, as some scholars have suggested. As Stanley Stowers points out, the Greek does not justify the idea of ‘now at this point in the dis‐ course’, 37 that is, ‘earlier on I spoke to the Jews, but now I say to you Gentiles’. 38 In 11: 13, Paul shifts from the third person to the second, and the stress is on 3 Introductory Questions - Gentile addressees 64 <?page no="65"?> ὑμῖν, not δὲ. The third-person address Paul initiates in 9: 1 concerns the Jews who do not believe in Christ. In 11: 13, Paul turns directly to the encoded audi‐ ence, and explains their relation to these non-Christ-believing Jews. He ad‐ dresses them as Gentiles, because as ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος, they are subordinate to him, and because he wants them to be cautious about their position towards God’s chosen people (the historical-ethnic Jews). The purpose of Paul’s address to the Gentiles in 11: 13 is to reaffirm his authority as apostle to the Gentiles, and to situate them specifically as Gentiles within the narrative of Israel, where the Jews have centre stage. The identification of the audience of the letter as Gentiles is the most distinct identification of the encoded audience in any of Paul’s letters. Therefore, it bears on the identification of the encoded reader/ audience, but it should also bear on the identification of the actual, historical addressees. Throughout Paul’s letter there is additional evidence that supports the pro‐ visional conclusion concerning the identity of the audience as Gentile. I will note a few instances: In 5: 1-10, Paul uses three designations that imply that he addresses Gentiles, and specifically not Jews: In 5: 6, he speaks to those who were ungodly (ἀσεβῶν) before Christ died for them; in 5: 8 he speaks to those who were sinners (ἁμαρτωλῶν) before Christ died for them; and in 5: 10 he speaks to those who were enemies of God (ἐχθροί) before they were reconciled with God through his son. These designations do not match a Jewish perception of Jews at the time of Paul; on the contrary, they specifically match a Jewish perception of Gentiles at the time of Paul. This is clearly described in 1: 18-32 and in con‐ temporary Jewish literature. I will return to this point below. In 6: 19, Paul also describes the encoded audience in language more appro‐ priate to Gentiles than to Jews. ‘For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity (δοῦλα τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ καὶ τῇ ἀνομίᾳ εἰς τὴν ἀνομίαν), so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification’. The reasoning seems obvious: Once, the audi‐ ence lived an impious life as seen from a Jewish perspective, but now that the Jewish Messiah has come, they should live a life according to that truth. This sort of reasoning perfectly matches a Jewish perception of Gentiles living im‐ piously - because they do not live in a Jewish way - but it does not match a Jewish perception of Jews living impiously within the covenant. Hence, it makes more sense to understand Paul as addressing Gentiles, rather than Jews. In 13: 11-14, Paul exhorts his audience to ‘lay aside the works of darkness’ that formerly characterized them, and to instead put on an armour of light. Paul explains that to live honourably as in the day entails avoiding revelry (κώμοις), drunkenness (μέθαις), sexual excess (κοίταις), licentiousness (ἀσελγείαις), quar‐ relling (ἔριδι), and jealousy (ζήλῳ). This list of vices is reminiscent of the list in A Gentile audience 65 <?page no="66"?> 39 Cf. Lampe 1987 Rom 1: 18-32, which typifies a stock Jewish polemic against Gentiles. Even though only one of the vices in 13: 11-14 overlaps the list in 1: 18-32 (ἔρις), both are lists of vices, and, insofar as the passages parallel each other, Rom 13: 11-14 may offer some evidence that the audience is Gentile. Finally, 5: 1-10, 6: 19, and 13: 11-14 do not exhaust the evidence of a Gentile audience. In 8: 15, Paul claims that his readers have received the ‘spirit of adop‐ tion’ (πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας). Such a designation better befits a Gentile audience than a Jewish one. The Jews had already received that privilege centuries before (9: 4). Thus, it makes more sense to assume that this privilege had now been extended to include the Gentiles, rather than argue that Paul grants fellow Jews the spirit of adoption that had been a Jewish privilege for centuries. Other evi‐ dence may be produced, but for now it suffices to state that cumulatively, all these instances suggest the direct identification of the audience as Gentile re‐ cipients of Paul’s gospel, with the explicit address to the audience as Gentiles in the framework of the letter. Consequently, the strength of the evidence for an exclusively Gentile audience demands more attention than it previously has been given. Some Jews after all…? There are two reasons why scholars (mainly new perspective scholars) still contend that Paul wrote to Jews as well as Gentiles. The first concerns the his‐ torical circumstances: We know that Jews lived in Rome at the time of the letter. 39 The second concerns the thematic content of Romans. The letter seems to revolve specifically around Jewish issues. Concerning the first reason, even if we argue that Jews probably lived in Rome at the time of the letter (even though Jews were expelled from Rome because of Claudius’s edict only after Claudius’s death in 54 CE to return to Rome), it does not necessarily follow that there were any Jews in the assembly Paul addressed. Neither does it follow that Paul addressed these Jews. Furthermore, even if we can argue that Jews lived in Rome at the time of the letter, we must ask, do we accept that as the point of departure for our perception of the situation under‐ lying Romans, or do we follow Paul’s simple and straightforward statement in his letters that he considered himself to be apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 11: 13), since God had entrusted him with the gospel for the uncircumcised, and Peter with the gospel for the Jews (Gal 2: 7ff.)? From my point of view, supported by 3 Introductory Questions - Gentile addressees 66 <?page no="67"?> 40 In 7: 1, Paul addresses ‘those who know the law’. This statement does not imply a priori that the addressees were Jews. All that follows from this statement is that the addressees were acquainted with the Jewish (Mosaic) law. To apply the logic of close mirror-reading, in Galatians, we might conclude that there were problems between men and women, because in Gal 3: 28 Paul states: ‘There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female’. But nothing in Galatians suggests that there are problems concerning gender relations in the Galatian congre‐ gations. Hence, we should be careful about referential conclusions. 41 Cf. Jos. Asen. 4: 7; 27: 1; 28: 7; Josephus Ant. 1.3.1 §96; 20.8.11 §189ff.; 2 Chr 5: 6. Luke may be borrowing the concept of ‘God-fearers’ from LXX (cf. Das 2007, 73). 42 Also cf. Acts 13: 16, 26, 43 where Luke juxtaposes two distinct groups: 1) ‘Israelites’, ‘brothers’, ‘Jews’ and 2) ‘God-fearers’ and ‘proselytes’. 43 Martial Epigrammata 4.4; Plutarch Superst. 3.166a 44 Cf. Plutarch Cicero 7.6.5; Epictetus Diatr. 2.9.19ff.; Suetonius Dom. 12.2; Dio Cassius 67.14.2 45 Thorsteinsson 2003, 114 the analysis presented above, Paul was quite clear in his letters: He did not address any Jews with his gospel. Since those are his own words - also in Ro‐ mans - I do not regard Paul as addressing his gospel to Jews. Concerning the second reason for contending that Paul wrote to Jews as well as to Gentiles, many scholars assume that since Paul presupposes an acceptance and understanding of Judaism and the Jewish scriptures, the audience must surely have consisted of Jews. Thus, many scholars interpret these implicit in‐ ferences as explicit facts. But these inferences constitute a referential fallacy. Paul’s use of Jewish scriptures, and his thorough discussions of Jewish concerns do not necessarily imply that the audience consisted of Jews. The fact that Paul discusses and makes use of these things tells us only that he presupposed the audience’s acquaintance with Judaism and the Jewish scriptures. 40 Thus, the au‐ dience may well be considered ‘God-fearers’. We know from ancient sources and the LXX that ‘God-fearers’ found the Jewish Scriptures and customs attrac‐ tive. 41 From Acts we know Cornelius, the Roman military officer, whom Luke describes as ‘righteous’ (δίκαιος, Acts 10: 22) and ‘pious’ (εὐσεβής, Acts 10: 2), a respected man who was known for his alms to Israel (Acts 10: 2, 4, 31), and Luke also calls him a ‘fearer of God’ (φοβούμενος τὸν θεόν, Acts 10: 22). 42 Martial and Plutarch tell us that non-Jews adopted Jewish practices, 43 and both (and several others) decried the practice. 44 Hence, the fact that Romans is densely filled with Jewish references and concerns does not contradict the fact that Paul explicitly identifies the audience as Gentile. As Thorsteinsson observes: ‘Paul’s speaking about Jews and Judaism does not make the audience Jewish’. 45 Thus, the only thing we may infer from the explicit identification of the audience as Gentiles is that they knew Judaism and the Jewish scriptures, because many Gentiles Some Jews after all…? 67 <?page no="68"?> 46 Cf. Sampley 1995, 40ff.; Jewett 2007, 834; Haacker 1999, 278f.; Barclay 1996, 289 47 Cf. Shogren 2000, 242; Moo 1996, 827; Haacker 1999, 277f.; Barclay 2013, 192 48 Cf. Shogren 2000, 242; Das 2007, 108; Moo 1996, 831 49 For discussions of this possibility, cf. Larsen 2015, 281; Dunn 1988, 2.801; Watson 2007, 95; Ziesler 1989, 322ff. 50 Rauer 1923, 76ff.; Schmithals 1975, 98 n16; Wilkens 1978-1982, 3.114; Jewett 2007, 868 throughout the ancient world found various aspects of Judaism attractive. We should think of these Gentiles in terms similar to ‘God-fearers’ or proselytes, as identified in the previous chapter on terminology. The Gentile identity of ‘the strong’ and ‘the weak’ In Romans 14: 1-15: 6, Paul discusses whether ‘the strong’ should yield to the conduct of ‘the weak’. This passage offers critics some of the strongest evidence for a Jewish constituency in the Roman congregation, because the terminology Paul employs is unique to Judaism, and he writes in an oblique manner, as though the audience knows the identities of the two groups involved. 46 So the argument is that Jews must be involved. ‘The weak’ try to keep Jewish customs and ‘observe the day’ (14: 6f.). They perceive certain food to be ‘unclean’ (14: 14), and they avoid meat and wine in favour of a diet possibly consisting of vegetables and water (14: 21). 47 Therefore, scholars have traditionally identified ‘the weak’ as Jewish Christians who con‐ tinued to observe the food regulations of the (Mosaic) law, and ‘the strong’ as Gentile, non-law-observing Christians. 48 However, the observance of Jewish customs does not necessarily require the presence of Jews in the Roman con‐ gregation. The Jewish customs shaped in 14: 1-15: 6 are precisely the sort of cus‐ toms observed by proselytes, ‘God-fearers’, or Gentiles affiliated with Judaism who accommodate themselves to Jewish customs. And the controversies re‐ flected in the passage are easily imagined among Gentiles with differing per‐ ceptions of the (Mosaic) law. The question concerning the eating of meat could reflect whether or not the meat on the table was considered pure by those ob‐ serving the (Mosaic) law in this matter. Thus, the problem would be one of commensality - how law-observing Gentiles could partake of a meal hosted by someone who did not scruple to observe the (Mosaic) law on this matter - and not one of how to acquire kosher meat in Rome, 49 or a principled stance on vegetarianism or dietary asceticism. 50 There are well-known examples of how someone faithful to the observance of the (Mosaic) law restricted their diet to vegetables and water when eating meals prepared by unclean Gentiles (e.g. 3 Introductory Questions - Gentile addressees 68 <?page no="69"?> 51 Cf. Daniel 1: 8-16; Esther 14: 17 LXX; Josephus Vita 13-14; 4 Macc 5: 2-36; Judith 12: 1- 4 52 Cf. the discussion in Eisenbaum 2010, 111ff.; Cohen 2010, 337; Nanos 2014, 32ff.; Gar‐ roway 2008, 21ff. 53 Cf. Judith Lieu’s discussion (Lieu 2002, 50-85). Daniel and Esther), and there are also first-century parallels to this solution in Rome. 51 Also, in Against Apion, Josephus mentions that many non-Jews observe Jewish Sabbath and food customs: The masses have long since shown a keen desire to adopt our religious observances; and there is not one city, Greek or barbarian, nor a single nation, to which our custom of abstaining from work on the seventh day has not spread … and [where] many of our prohibitions in the matter of food are not observed. (Ag. Ap. 2.40) Philo made a similar statement when he wrote: [ Jewish customs] attract and win the attention of all, of barbarians, of Greeks, of dwellers on the mainland and islands, of nations of the east and the west, of Europe and Asia, of the whole inhabited world from end to end. (Mos. 2.4) The point made by both Josephus and Philo concerns the distinction between proselytes and sympathizers. Proselytes are circumcised (and thereby ‘conver‐ ted’) Gentiles who somehow now have become Jews, even though they may not be considered ‘real’ historical-ethnic Jews by some other Jews (cf. Jubilees 15: 26). However, the sympathizers easily present themselves as ‘God-fearers’. The Greek term θεοσεβής, usually translated as ‘God-fearer’ or ‘God-worshipper’, was a Jewish way of describing Gentiles who were regarded as pious by Jewish standards. Jews had used versions of the same expression in Hebrew and Greek to describe the piety of other Jews (e.g. Abraham in Gen 22: 12), but in the late Hellenistic period, ‘God-fearer’ became a designation of pious Gentiles. 52 Equiv‐ alent expressions include σεβομένος and φοβούμενος τὸν θεὸν. Apparently, the designation θεοσεβής is so broad that Josephus may call the wife of the emperor Nero a ‘God-fearer’ (Ant. 20.189-196). But it was also used with respect to other Jews in Jewish Hellenistic literature, for example Joseph, in Joseph and Ase‐ nath. 53 It is doubtful that there were any formal requirements for designating anyone as a God-fearer, but it often refers to Gentiles who were either respectful of the one God of Israel, of the Jewish community and practices, or both. Along with Philo’s and Josephus’ testimonies, Gentile authors also witnessed to the popularity of Jewish customs among non-Jews. In the works of Juvenal (Sat. 14.96ff.), Horace (Sat. 1.9.68ff.), Ovid (Am. 219), and Seneca (Ep. 95.47), we may read of Gentiles accommodating themselves to, or being affiliated with the The Gentile identity of ‘the strong’ and ‘the weak’ 69 <?page no="70"?> 54 Acts 10: 2, 22, 35; 13: 16, 26, 43, 50; 16: 14; 17: 4, 17; 18: 7 55 Cf. Watson 2007, 95ff. Jewish community and practices. These authors attest to pervasive Sabbath ob‐ servance among Gentiles. And in the New Testament, we have the clearest evi‐ dence of the presence of Gentiles in synagogues on the Sabbath. Acts does not use the specific word θεοσεβής, but instead mentions ‘You Israelites and others who fear God’ (ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται καὶ οἱ φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν, Acts 13: 16). Acts has several references to these pious Gentiles. 54 With the foregoing in mind, we should note that the content of Rom 14: 1- 15: 13 is completely comprehensible even in the absence of any Jews in the Roman congregation. ‘The weak’ may indicate Gentile ‘God-fearers’ or prose‐ lytes who observe the (Mosaic) law, and ‘the strong’ may indicate non-law-ob‐ serving Gentiles. To reconstruct the Roman situation we need only to imagine some law-observing Gentiles refusing to eat meat served by those whose law-observance they had reason to doubt. Thus, to understand the prevailing situation, it is irrelevant whether the meat in question was from an impure animal, or from an incorrectly slaughtered animal, or other dubious connec‐ tions. 55 What mattered to the people in the Roman assembly was that it was considered κοινός. The whole point of the passage is that Paul does not demand cultic purity practice of Gentiles, which means that we should imagine the Jewish observances in view as practised specifically by Gentiles affiliated with Judaism. The whole reason Paul can speak obliquely about ‘the strong’ and ‘the weak’ without further qualification is that both groups are Gentile, but ‘the weak’ observe Jewish cultic practices, whereas ‘the strong’ do not. Because the non-law-observing Gentiles (in Christ) had stopped practising Jewish customs, the ongoing validity of the (Mosaic) law was at stake, since the law-observing Gentiles still did. If ‘God-fearers’ ate with those who were not ‘God-fearers’ (i.e. non-law-observing Gentiles), they would probably have had concerns about the meat and wine, because the meat might have been sacrificed to idols. Such a situation would have led to tensions, and this would be a specific situation in which Paul would intervene, and write a letter with a specific occasion and purpose. Therefore, throughout chapters 1 to 11 Paul presents a situation where he constructs the situation of a fictive, Gentile ‘God-fearer’. This situation and theological dialogue serve as the foundation on which the specific exhortations of 14: 1-15: 13 build. 3 Introductory Questions - Gentile addressees 70 <?page no="71"?> 56 Shogren 2000, 245; Haacker 1999, 321; Jewett 2007, 962; Keck 2005, 373; Dochhorn 2015, 296ff. 57 Mar 6: 4; Luk 1: 58; 2: 44; 14: 12; Johs 18: 26; Act 10: 24 Jews in chapter 16 Many scholars infer ethnic Jewish addressees in Rome, and a Jewish constitu‐ ency in the Roman congregation, because of the names Paul mentions in chapter 16. 56 Prisca and Aquila are mentioned, and we know from Acts 18: 2 that they were Paul’s Jewish co-workers. Paul had also referred to his fellow Jews as ‘compatriots’ or ‘relatives’ (συγγενής) in 9: 3. He applies the same word in 16: 7, 11, and 21 to Andronicus, Junia, Herodion, Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater. Thus, the argument is that since these must be Jews, the actual addressees of Romans must also contain Jews. If we turn to LSJ and BDAG, we soon learn that the most common use of συγγενής is not ‘fellow national’, but ‘relative’ or ‘kin’. Words do receive their meaning through their use in a specific context, but the dictionary gives the most common use and meaning. In the New Testament, the word συγγενής appears six times outside the Pauline text, and on each occasion means ‘family member’. 57 Romans 9: 3 contains the only instance that deviates from this meaning, and this might cause us to pause. Also, in 9: 3 Paul goes out of his way to firmly signal a use of συγγενής that differs from the most widespread one, by modifying it with κατὰ σάρκα. Thus, in 9: 3 Paul specifically identifies an ethnic affiliation, but he does it by way of κατὰ σάρκα, instead of merely through συγγενής. This qualification is lacking in chapter 16! Besides, nothing in chapter 16 indicates a departure from the word’s usual meaning of ‘relative’, as occurs in 9: 3. This argument e silentio does not automatically mean that Paul does not refer to ethnic Jews in chapter 16, but it does show a different and more wide‐ spread use of συγγενής than that chosen by those scholars who argue for a Jewish constituency in the Roman congregation. Hence, the argument e silentio is stronger because of the difference from the use of the word in 9: 3, and because of the more common meaning of the word. In addition to the foregoing observation, we must note that frequently, Paul metaphorically employs familial language when referring to members of his movement. For instance, he identifies his addressees as ‘brothers’ (1 Thess 1: 4; 1 Cor 8: 11; Phil 3: 1). Epaphroditus and Timothy are his ‘brothers’ (Phil 2: 25; 1 Thess 3: 2), and Apphia is a ‘sister’ (Phlm 2). A believing wife is also a ‘sister’ (1 Cor 9: 5). Paul calls himself ‘father’ (1 Cor 4: 15; 1 Thess 2: 11; Phlm 10), and Timothy and Onesimus are Paul’s ‘children’ (1 Cor 4: 17; Phil 2: 22; Phlm 10). The Corinthians are Paul’s ‘children’ (1 Cor 4: 14; 2 Cor 6: 13) and the patriarchs are Jews in chapter 16 71 <?page no="72"?> 58 Cf. Donfried 1991 ‘ancestors’ or ‘forefathers’ (Rom 9: 5). Those who believe are ‘sons’ of Abraham (Gal 3: 7), and those who belong to Christ are Abraham’s ‘offspring’ (Gal 3: 29). Jesus is the firstborn of many siblings (Rom 8: 29). Throughout chapter 16, Paul also employs this metaphorical kinship lan‐ guage. Hence, Phoebe is Paul’s ‘sister’ (16: 1), several of those greeted are Paul’s ‘beloved’ (16: 5, 8, 9, 12), Rufus’s mother is Paul’s own mother (! ) (16: 13), and Paul also speaks of his ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ (16: 14, 15, 17). Consequently, Paul’s wording in chapter 16 suggests that he constructs metaphorical family ties to the Roman congregation. Paul constructs a metaphorical family in which the genealogical relationship to Christ is prior to any ethnic relationship to parents. This affects the meaning of συγγενής in chapter 16. The mere use of the word συγγενής does not justify the conclusion that the persons thus described are Jews. And if we want to insist on the literal meaning of συγγενής, to imply historical-ethnic Jewishness, then we should be consistent and also insist on the literal meaning being that Phoebe is Paul’s biological sister, that Rufus’s mother is Paul’s biological mother, and of the others mentioned being Paul’s biological siblings. Otherwise, our reading strategy and logic will be inconsistent, eclectic and predisposed. Hence, these observations support the argument e silentio as presented above, where συγγενής does not mean ‘fellow Jews’. Additionally, the presence of Prisca and Aquila in Rome indicates a Gentile congregation - not a Jewish one. The reason for this is that we know from Acts that Prisca and Aquila may be associated with Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. The presence of Jewish missionaries to the Gentiles would affirm the Gentile identity of the Roman congregation. Therefore, the addressees of Romans should be considered Gen‐ tiles, and the doubtful presence of Jews in chapter 16 (apart from Prisca and Aquila) should not be taken to indicate a Jewish constituency in the Roman congregation. The arguments for a Jewish constituency simply do not convince. The occasion and purpose of Romans - some preliminary insights The final introductory questions we must address are, what were the occasion and purpose of Romans? We must ask whether Romans stands out from the other Pauline letters, meaning that the occasion behind this letter is less clear than it is in 1 Cor, 1 Thess, and Gal, for example. The many articles in Karl P. Donfried’s The Romans Debate has helped survey the options for decades now. 58 3 Introductory Questions - Gentile addressees 72 <?page no="73"?> 59 ‘christianae religionis compendium’ (Melanchthon 1944, 69; Melanchton 1955-1983, 2.1.7). 60 Bornkamm 1991, 16-28 61 Jervell 1991, 53-64; also cf. the exposition by Christoffersson 1990, 25-26 62 Jervell 1991, 62ff. 63 Fitzmyer 1993, 725 Even though many options point in different directions, they may not be mu‐ tually exclusive. And even though Romans does appear to be more voluminous in the scope of its teachings, that may not make the occasion and purpose of the letter more elusive. However, here I consider the primary purpose of Paul’s letter. For centuries, Romans was considered to be a summary of Paul’s theology. Philipp Melanchthon described Romans as a compendium of Christian doc‐ trine, 59 and more recently, Günther Bornkamm argued that Romans was Paul’s last will and testament. 60 However, if Romans is a doctrinal letter or a testament for a congregation that Paul had not founded, then the specific interest - on the Roman side - evaporates. Why would the Romans be interested in this specific letter? Why would they be interested in a last will and testament more concerned with issues that would arise in Jerusalem than in Rome? And if we agree that Romans is to be perceived more as doctrine than as a specific letter, is it not peculiar that Paul’s understanding of the church, his treatment of the Lord’s Supper, the resurrection, or Christology is rather meagre? If Romans is presented as a theological treatise, it is hardly a comprehensive one. Also, any specific knowledge of the Roman congregation Paul betrays in the letter would under‐ mine such a stance, since the focus would then shift from doctrine to a specific purpose and occasion. That is why those who think of Romans in such a way minimize the value of Rom 14-15 for reconstructing the situation at Rome. Some scholars have proposed that the occasion and purpose behind the letter is Paul’s plan to go to Jerusalem. This has been proposed by Jacob Jervell. 61 Jervell argues that in Romans, Paul imagines or prepares what he will say at the Jeru‐ salem church when he arrives with the collection. As apostle to the Gentiles, Paul anticipates a conflict with the Jews in Jerusalem. Thus, Romans is Paul’s way of preparing his arguments for a discussion in Jerusalem. However, Paul never indicates that there was even a question concerning the circumcision of Gentiles. Why would Paul send such a ‘secret letter’ to Rome, if he actually has Jerusalem in mind? If Paul wanted the Roman congregation to stand behind him because it occupied a prominent position in the heart of the Gentile world, 62 and his gospel would ring hollow if he had not yet visited Rome, such reasoning amounts to ‘letting the tail wag the dog’. 63 The collection to be taken to Jerusalem cannot explain the major thrust of the letter, nor be the major clue to its inter‐ The occasion and purpose of Romans - some preliminary insights 73 <?page no="74"?> 64 The same objection amounts to the argument that Romans serves as Paul’s preparation for the Spanish mission (cf. Zeller 1973, 38-77; Jewett 1982, 5-20). In no way does Paul link the content of the letter with his future missionary endeavours, and the Spanish mission is not mentioned directly until the conclusion of the letter, and then only in a minor key. 65 Klein 1991, 29-43 66 Jervis 1991 67 Klein 1991, 41 68 Jervis 1991 69 Also cf. Weima 1994 70 Watson 1991, 203ff. pretation, because Jerusalem appears only as a tangential element. 64 If ‘the Jer‐ usalem trip’ is favoured as a solution, it is at the cost of the rhetorical integration of the letter’s framework with its body, and the entire rhetorical integrity and continuity of 1: 18 to 15: 13. Too much of the letter appears to be targeting con‐ cerns in Rome, not Jerusalem, especially 12-15. Paul mentions Jerusalem only to buttress his authority as an apostle, also in Rome. Some scholars have proposed that the purpose of Romans was to provide an apostolic foundation for the congregation in Rome, 65 or that Paul exercised au‐ thority as apostle to the Gentiles. 66 In Rom 15: 20, Paul claims that he would not build on another’s foundation. However, that seems to be exactly what he was doing. Günter Klein has observed that Paul must have thought that the Roman congregation lacked a proper apostolic foundation, and, hence, was not a proper church of God. 67 But if the Roman congregation lacked a proper foundation, why would Paul speak so highly of it (1: 8; 15: 14)? Besides, Paul never explicitly iden‐ tifies the need for an apostolic foundation for Rome as a justification for his visit in 15: 24, 32. Instead, he writes about Jerusalem and Spain. And finally, very little of the content of the letter can be marshalled in support of Klein’s proposed purpose for Romans. L. Ann Jervis agreed with Günter Klein that Paul was, indeed, exercising au‐ thority over the Romans as apostle to the Gentiles, even though her point of departure was the letter’s framework. 68 However, the problem with Jervis’s po‐ sition 69 is that it is unclear how the framework of the letter explains the body, or explains Paul’s primary purpose in writing. For instance, why does Paul argue so strongly about Judaism in a letter to Roman Gentiles, or about the relationship between the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’? What is lacking in Jervis’s exposition is that Paul does not ground his apostolic authority as an end in itself; he does it so his advice to the Roman congregation will be followed. Francis Watson has argued that Paul wrote Romans primarily to unite divided communities. 70 Watson argues that the Roman Jewish Christians met for wor‐ 3 Introductory Questions - Gentile addressees 74 <?page no="75"?> 71 Watson 1991, 207 72 I have put Christianity in quotation marks because I do not think Christianity as a movement (or religion) had materialized yet. However, many scholars still believe that what thrived in the Roman congregation was Christianity. ship separately from the Gentile Christians, and that Paul wanted the two groups to come together, even if the Jewish Christians were forced to leave the syna‐ gogue in the process. 71 According to Watson, the Roman Gentile ‘strong’ are to ‘welcome’, the Jewish Christian ‘weak’ who attend their gatherings. However, Watson does not explore the possibility that both the ‘weak’ and the ‘strong’ could be Gentile believers, when Paul urges non-law-observing Gentiles to wel‐ come the law-observing Gentiles ‘into’ their house. The word ‘welcome’ (προσλαμβάνω) in 14: 1 and 15: 7 does not indicate that the ‘weak’ and the ‘strong’ previously met as separate groups. Rather, προσλαμβάνω is used in these verses in the middle form, in the sense of ‘accept’ or ‘receive’. As in the letter to Philemon, Paul is no stranger to Philemon, yet he admonishes him to ‘welcome’ him. Consequently, the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ are not separate groups, but factions within the same congregation. To argue that 14: 1 and 15: 7 indicate two separate groups is to give these verses too much weight, and it goes directly against the olive tree metaphor in 11: 17-24, where the Gentiles do not form their own separate tree, but are dependent on Israel. Thus, the problem in the Roman assembly was that the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ disapproved of each other’s practices when they were together. Therefore, in 14: 1 Paul never asks the ‘weak’ to abandon their Jewish practices, but instead calls for mutual ac‐ ceptance (15: 7). The most popular theory about the situation behind Romans argues from the record of the Edict of Claudius, expelling the Jews from Rome because of a squabble over ‘Chrestus’. If ‘Chrestus’ refers to Christ, then someone believed in Christ in the Roman synagogues in the late 40s. After Claudius’s edict of expulsion, usually placed in the year 49, the Jews were forced to leave Rome. The Gentiles, who had learned of Christ in and from the Jewish communities, were not forced to leave Rome, but now had to meet on their own. When Nero became emperor in 54, the expelled Jews were able to return to Rome, only to find ‘Christianity’ 72 thriving. The argument goes that during the years of the Jews’ absence from Rome, Gentile converts had joined the assemblies. These Gentiles would not have the same appreciation of Judaism as the ‘Christians’ of the synagogues would have had. Consequently, the Gentile ‘strong’ would have found themselves in conflict with the returning Jewish ‘weak’. The Jewish fol‐ lowers of Christ, who had comprised the majority of ‘Christians’ in Rome prior to their expulsion in 49, found themselves in the minority on their return. Now, The occasion and purpose of Romans - some preliminary insights 75 <?page no="76"?> 73 Meeks 1987, 290ff.; Sampley 1995, 40-52 74 Sampley 1995, 42; Meeks 1987, 292 75 Meeks 1987, 292. Meeks further warns against excessive mirror-reading, which cer‐ tainly is warranted. 76 Karris 1991, 65ff. the non-Law-observing majority questioned the ethnic practices of the re‐ turning Jews. Thus, according to scholars who favour this interpretation, Paul wrote Romans to resolve the tensions between the Gentile non-Law-observing ‘strong’ and the law-observing Jewish ‘weak’. Such tensions would require Paul to summarize his gospel insofar as it concerns the relationship between Gentiles and Jews in God’s historic plan for Israel. He would have to exposit his gospel more fully, to successfully persuade an audience that did not personally know him and his preaching. Some scholars, such as Wayne A. Meeks and J. Paul Sampley, have questioned whether the letter to the Romans offers adequate evidence for a specific recon‐ struction of the Roman situation. 73 They argue that Paul’s approach is rather oblique, and that he employs rather vague formulations. 74 According to Meeks and Sampley, Paul identifies the situation more directly in his other letters than he does in Romans. 75 Paul had never visited Rome, so his letter may more ac‐ curately reflect his own life and ministry, rather than any particular circum‐ stances in Rome. Similarly, in his review of 14: 1-15: 13, Robert J. Karris argued that, in a more generalized manner, Paul was reiterating to the ‘weak’ and the ‘strong’ of Rome his exhortation to the ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ of Corinth, regarding meat sacrificed to idols. 76 However, the peculiar details of Rom 14-15 and the differences between Romans and 1 Corinthians defy such a conclusion - and the same applies to the differences between Romans and Galatians. The differences between Romans and 1 Corinthians more than suggest dif‐ ferent situations underlying the two letters. For instance, in Romans, Paul never mentions food offered to idols, the possibility of eating in the temple of an idol, or the problem of ‘knowledge’. Instead, and moreover, Paul adds certain specifics to the Roman situation, for instance, that the ‘weak’ in Rome eat vegetables, observe days, and abstain from wine, features that do not characterize the Cor‐ inthian ‘weak’. These specifics limit the applicability of the paraenetic instruc‐ tions to a specific situation in Rome, rather than widen the perspective in a generalized way. Another important feature is the space Paul devotes to the problem, and his careful descriptions of the opposing positions in the congre‐ gation. He even numbers himself among the ‘strong’ (15: 1) in this conflict, which indicates that he is well aware of the issues involved. The rationale must be that, since he can predict his allegiance to one of the two groups in the conflict, he 3 Introductory Questions - Gentile addressees 76 <?page no="77"?> 77 Cf. Reasoner 1999, 57 78 For a more elaborate critique of Karris’s position, cf. Donfried 1991b, 107ff. 79 I will deal more thoroughly with Paul’s actual advice to these two groups in the exegesis of chapters 14 and 15. must somehow know where they stand. Otherwise, using ‘false’ designators would cripple his case. Thus, Paul’s use of the designations ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ adds to the specificity of the situation, since it would have been counterpro‐ ductive to apply these labels to the congregation, had he not known them to identify specific groups. 77 Finally, Rom 14-15 inhabits a prominent position as the climax of Paul’s exhortations at the end of the paraenesis. It suggests the immediate applicability of these matters to the Roman congregation. Thus, the placement of these exhortations in such a prominent position in the letter clearly reflects the community’s needs. 78 With all the above-mentioned possibilities surveyed, what do I imagine to be the primary purpose and occasion behind Romans, from a historical and philo‐ logical perspective, rather than a radical one? Paul’s primary purpose in writing Romans was to clarify questions and problems among Gentile followers of Christ in the Roman congregation. Some of these Gentile Christ-followers may have been proselytized Gentiles who, on the one hand, were considered Jews, because they had undertaken the most important Jewish identity marker (circumcision), but who, on the other hand, were not considered ‘real’ (historical-ethnic) Jews by other Jews, because they had converted to Judaism as adults, and had no genealogical connection to Judaism. That is, they were jewishish Gentiles, or ex-pagan Gentiles. However, there may have been no proselytes at all in the Roman congregation to which Paul writes. But if there were, these proselytized Gentiles should be considered among the ‘weak’, and the most jewishish of the Gentiles in the Roman congregation. But the conflict between the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’, being a conflict between Gentiles only, still work if there were no proselytized Gentiles. All we need for a conflict between the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ is a group of (fanatic) God-fearers who observe the prescriptions of the (Mosaic) law concerning eating, drinking, and certain days. These Gentiles, in contrast to the other Gentiles in the assembly, still believed it to be mandatory to follow the (Mosaic) law concerning these matters. Paul wrote Romans to ensure that they coorporate as a group, and ‘welcome one another’ (14: 1; 15: 7), just as God (and Christ) has welcomed them into the family of Israel as Abra‐ ham’s heirs. 79 Romans 14: 1-15: 6 deals with problems pertaining to the socio-religious dis‐ tinctions within the Roman assembly, and also with the impression the assembly conveyed to the surrounding society. That is why Paul so early in his letter The occasion and purpose of Romans - some preliminary insights 77 <?page no="78"?> carefully depicts the person he is writing to: a proselytized, judaizing, jewishish, ex-pagan pagan, Gentile-Jew who judges others (2: 1), who relies on the law and boasts of his relationship with God (2: 17), who knows the will of God, and can determine what is best because he is instructed in the law (2: 18), who considers himself a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness (2: 19), a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowl‐ edge and truth (2: 20), who teaches others, but does not teach himself, who preaches against stealing, but steals (2: 21), who forbids adultery, but commits adultery, who abhor idols, but robs temples (2: 22), who boasts in the law, but dishonours God by breaking the law (2: 23), who does not do what he desires, but does the very thing he hates (7: 15). The diatribe Paul addresses to this fictive Gentile interlocutor throughout the majority of Rom 1-11 serves as the foun‐ dation - and personification - of the problems Paul addresses in his specific admonitions to the Roman congregation in 14: 1-15: 6. That is how the unity, continuity, coherence, and sequence of the letter is maintained, while the spe‐ cificity of the letter as a real letter with a real and specific situation, occasion, and purpose is preserved. As a final speculation we may ask: What might be the reason(s) that Paul (primarily or exclusively) addresses this letter to the Roman Gentiles in this literary way? I offer three short answers or perspectives. First, he is an apostle to the Gentiles (1: 5; 11: 13; 15: 16-17), and he addresses his letter to Gentiles in order to authorize and legitimize his apostleship to the Gentiles exclusively as the apostle to the Gentiles. Second, he fashions his address to Gentiles in order to arouse jealousy among the Jews (cf. Rom 9-11). This may be a tricky and ambivalent reason, but it may be a part of his missionary strategy, and he may have conceived of it as part of God’s handling of history. Paul may have con‐ ceived of this as God’s way of including both Jews and Gentiles, and in the end, it is a mystery (cf. Rom 11: 26). Finally, Paul may fashion his address to Gentiles to accelerate the ‘Day of Wrath’, the Second Coming of Christ, and the end (ἔσχατος). This may be some kind of messianic logic in which Paul believed. Obviously, Paul perceives his missionary strategy to precipitate God’s judge‐ ment of the world. And when it happens, the dead will rise, and a new heaven and a new earth will replace the old. Hence, Paul wrote Romans exclusively with Gentiles in mind, in order for God’s reign to be complete. From this point of departure, the radical perspective may help studies of Romans to prove how far we can reach with such assumptions of audience and addressees in mind. 3 Introductory Questions - Gentile addressees 78 <?page no="79"?> 1 Kennedy 2003, xii; Stowers 1995, 180; Anderson Jr. 1996, 62-63 2 Niebuhr 2013, 51; Malherbe 1977, 29-59; Stowers 1994, 17 3 Stowers 1995, 181 4 A fictive Gentile interlocutor - προσωποποιία Paul’s educational background Aelius Theon’s Progymnasmata (‘preliminary exercises’ i.e. to the study of rhet‐ oric) date to approximately the first century CE. 1 Theon’s Progymnasmata con‐ sist of seventeen exercises that prepared a student for the study of rhetoric through a series of short, but increasingly long and complex compositional practices. If Paul was instructed in the Progymnasmata, he may (but improbably) have been instructed by Theon’s account. This would have required him to be instructed in the second level (of three) of the ancient literate education. The consensus among New Testament scholars is that Paul received some sort of rhetorical instruction higher than mere reading and writing (first level instruc‐ tion), but not to the level of sophistication of Philo of Alexandria or Josephus (a third level of education including technical rhetorical instruction and philos‐ ophy). 2 The level of rhetorical instruction described in the Progymnasmata matches Paul’s level of education quite well, as evidenced by his letters. Besides, we know that the Progymnasmata were used as the culmination of the second level of education, as a transition to the third (and rhetorical) level. We may think of the Progymnasmata as a ‘high school’ (gymnasium) curriculum, beyond elementary education, but not at the level of philosophy. Stanley Stowers clearly summarizes the scholarly consensus on Paul’s educational attainments: ‘Paul’s Greek educational level is roughly equivalent to that of someone who had pri‐ mary instruction with a grammaticus or a ‘teacher of letters’ and then had studied letter writing and some elementary rhetorical exercises’. 3 This descrip‐ tion corresponds to what Theon writes in the chapter on προσωποποιία: ‘Under this genus of exercise fall the species of consolation and exhortation and letter writing’ (Theon 1997, 70). From these observations we may infer that Paul prob‐ ably received instruction in literate education up to the second level of educa‐ tion. And since he was instructed in the Progymnasmata at this second level, he would have received instruction in προσωποποιία, which is one of the elements or exercises of the Progymnasmata. There is no precise English translation of <?page no="80"?> 4 Stowers 1995 the Greek προσωποποιία, but it may be translated as something like ‘speech-in-character’ or ‘impersonation’. In the Progymnasmata, Theon points out that the species of consolation, ex‐ hortation, and letter-writing fall under the genus of exercises in προσωποποιία (Theon 1997, 70). The grammaticus or second-level teacher would ask the stu‐ dent to compose a letter or a speech by imagining what a certain person would say to a certain addressee on a certain occasion. According to Theon, προσωποποιία is ‘the introduction of a person to whom words are attributed that are suitable to the speaker and have an indisputable application to the sub‐ ject discussed’ (Theon 1997, 70). Hermogenes of Tarsus (who flourished in the time of Marcus Aurelius 161-180 AD), who also composed a Progymnasmata, explained that it was ‘an imitation of the character of a person supposed to be speaking’ (Hermogenes 2003, 84). These definitions reveal to us that the exercise of προσωποποιία consists of speech-in-character or impersonation, because it involves the creation of a fictive speech that fits the character of some legendary, historical, or type of person (Theon 1997, 70). The exercise requires the student to reveal a person’s character through speech, as that person confronts a specific circumstance. This is exactly the reason the Latin poet Ovid (43 BCE-17/ 18 CE) has the famous and mythico-historical characters in his Heroides write fictive letters - Penelope to Ulysses, Helen to Paris, and so on. Thus, if Paul had received instruction in letter-writing, he would have received instruction in προσωποποιία (and exhortation). Furthermore, as a fundamental part of the literate education in antiquity, προσωποποιία would be important, partly be‐ cause the specific process of learning how to read ancient Greek texts involved the identification of characters and persons, partly because προσωποποιία was one of the elementary exercises closely related to learning prose and poetic composition in general. Therefore, Paul must have known how to identify in‐ stances of προσωποποιία before he knew how to produce pieces of προσωποποιία himself. The level of education reflected in Paul’s letters - even before one observes Paul’s own use of speech-in-character - makes it plausible that he received instruction in these subjects. Thus, reading Romans in terms of προσωποποιία offers a strong reading from a literary-historical perspective. In a 1995 article, Stanley Stowers argues that Rom 7: 7-8: 2 should be under‐ stood as speech-in-character or προσωποποιία. 4 Also, in Stowers’ main opus, A Rereading of Romans, he argues that the imaginary conversation of 2: 1-5, 3: 1- 9, and 3: 31-4: 2 ‘is best read with this ancient rhetorical technique of 4 A fictive Gentile interlocutor - προσωποποιία 80 <?page no="81"?> 5 Stowers 1994, 16 speech-in-character’. 5 In general, I fully agree with this observation. However, whereas Stowers switches back and forth between a Gentile and a Jewish in‐ terlocutor for Paul, I stick to a Gentile interlocutor throughout, because it pro‐ vides a more consistent and coherent reading of Romans. In the following pages, I will explain the theoretical background of speech-in-character, and why it makes more sense to stick with a single interlocutor throughout Romans. There are good theoretical reasons for sticking with the same interlocutor, and good exegetical reasons. Ultimately, the results of sticking to a single interlocutor are a more conceivable interlocutor who stands out as a definite persona, and a stronger interpretation of Romans in terms of continuity, unity, and coherence. Προσωποποιία Aelius Theon opens his explanation of προσωποποιία in §8 of the Progymnas‐ mata by stating that the author must, first, have in mind the personality of the speaker he wishes to present, and to whom the speech is addressed. This includes the speaker’s age and social status, the occasion, and the place. Then, the ap‐ propriate words must be chosen. Different ways of speaking belong to different stages of life, and different ways of speaking also belong by nature to women or men, by status, to slaves or freemen, by activities, to soldiers or farmers, by state of mind, to a lover and a temperate man, and by origin to a Laconian or an Attic man. The classic example given to students to consider is what words - and how to phrase them - Achilles might say as Patrocles lay dead and he was deliberating returning to battle. Theon specifies that to master these techniques one must not speak about great things vulgarly, nor about small things loftily, nor about paltry things solemnly, nor about fearful things in a casual manner, nor about shameful things rashly, nor about pitiable things excessively. The point is to give what is appropriate to each subject, aiming for what fits the speaker and his manner of speech, and the time and his lot in life (Theon 1997, 70-72). Theon’s initial account of προσωποποιία tells us something very important about ancient readers and writers: They read/ wrote with strict and stereotyped ideas of characterization. When they characterized a person, they deemed cer‐ tain attributes to be consistently true of men, women, barbarians, Athenians, Προσωποποιία 81 <?page no="82"?> 6 Cf. Stowers 1995, 190. Stowers deduces the point about ancient readers’ way of reading with strict and stereotyped ideas about characterization from Origen’s discussion of προσωποποιία. 7 Quint. Inst. Or. 11.1.41; Theon 1997, 71 philosophers, and so forth. 6 Consequently, if Jews at the time of Paul had a cer‐ tain or stereotyped perception of Gentiles, then Paul would definitely bring such a perception to bear, when portraying a Gentile in writing. This would be self-evident to Paul, since his studies had taught him to visualize the personality he was to present in writing: through several exercises, he had learned to visu‐ alize the occasion and the social status of the speaker, and if he was to portray a typical Gentile in Rome, he would surely portray him with the occasion and the social status in mind. He had also learned to choose appropriate words and a specific way of speaking that would reflect the Gentile he wanted to portray, and he had learned to speak neither vulgarly nor loftily, but to present what would be appropriate to the subject in question, and aimed for what would befit the Gentile speaker. So, if he wanted to portray a Gentile, he would have to bring all these literary rules and guidelines together in a coherent and consistent pre‐ sentation of the person, personality, or persona he wanted to portray. The foregoing point is further substantiated by the fact that both Theon, and Quintilian (35-100 CE) in his Institutio Oratia - a more refined rhetorical work than the Progymnasmata, written for students at the third and rhetorical level of the literate education, but also dating to the 1 st century CE - explicitly include foreign ethnicity as a category for προσωποποιία. Theon writes that different ways of speaking belong to a Laconian or an Attic man, and he further empha‐ sizes this ethnic category by discussing Herodotus’s ability to produce charac‐ terizations of barbarian speech. Quintilian praises the literary difficulty of im‐ personation ‘since it involves the portrayal of the emotions of children, women, nations (populorum), and even of voiceless things, all of which require to be represented in characterization’. 7 A marvellous (and humorous) example of this ability to convey or imitate a person’s character, family, nationality, social status, and way of speaking is found in the Apocolocyntosis of Seneca the Younger (4 BCE-65 CE). Seneca makes the divus Augustus speak against the deification of the emperor Claudius (cf. Seneca Apocol, 10-11) in a heavenly court. Up to the point in the story where Augustus speaks, Seneca has several times pointed out the importance of nationality, language, parentage and homeland of the char‐ acters. And when Claudius arrives in heaven and is greeted by Hercules, Her‐ cules addresses him in Greek (not Latin), and asks him about his race, his city and his parents (τίς πόθεν εἶς ἁνδρῶν, πόθι τοι πόλις ἠδὲ τοκῆες; Apocol 5). When the divus Augustus enters the stage, Seneca orchestrates a προσωποποιία 4 A fictive Gentile interlocutor - προσωποποιία 82 <?page no="83"?> 8 Seneca even presents the scrupulousness of Augustus‘ public persona by stating that Augustus wrote down his speech before he delivered it (Apocol, 11). Suetonius witnesses this well-known biographical detail about Augustus in Life of Augustus (82). This minor detail makes the προσωποποιία of Augustus stand out as even more ‘in-character’ of the person speaking. 9 [115] Προσωποποιΐα ἐστὶ προσώπου παρεισαγωγὴ διατιθεμένου λόγους οἰκείους έαυτῷ τε καὶ τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις πράγμασιν ἀναμφισβητήτως (Theon 1997, 70). Also cf. Quintilian Inst. Or. 9.2.30 10 Cf. e.g. Nesholm 2005, 11 11 E.g. Stowers 1981; 1994; Song 2004; Thorsteinsson 2002, 124ff.; Garroway 2012 in which he has Augustus speak in a way that mirrors and conveys the wording and phrasing of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Seneca presents Augustus by dem‐ onstrating and personifying his public persona in and through his speech (and text). 8 The public image of the emperor who represents the moral high ground and appeals to the idealized Republican virtues is embodied in the speech Au‐ gustus delivers, making it an exquisite example of προσωποποιία. Hence, what all this comes down to is that if Paul uses προσωποποιία in Romans to stage a dialogue with a fictive Gentile interlocutor, his form, style, and application of literary rules and guidelines should enable us to identify a consistency of the speaker that corresponds to the person or type of character Paul presents. It all comes down to the point that the characterization must be consistent and thought-through, including with regard to ethnicity. According to Theon, προσωποποιία is a literary or rhetorical device whereby an author places a speech in the mouth of a person to whom words are attributed that are suitable to the speaker and have an indisputable application to the sub‐ ject discussed. 9 In a very strict definition, προσωποποιία is limited to actual speech - that is, a person speaking while being ‘in character’. The Latin author Ovid exhibits complete mastery of this rhetorical technique in his Heroides. The Heroides is a series of speeches written as letters that famous persons might have delivered/ written in a certain situation. Ovid presents us with speeches by Pe‐ nelope, Briseis, Dido, Helen, Medea, Ariadne, and other famous mythico-his‐ torical personalities. Within the field of Classics it is commonly mentioned that Ovid uses προσωποποιία in the Heroides. 10 However, I have not come across any New Testament scholar who compares the Heroides with Paul’s use of προσωποποιία in Romans. Instead, scholars seem to focus on diatribal features, and compare Paul to Seneca (Epistles 88, 2: 348-76) or Plutarch (Moralia 469D, 6: 194). 11 If we more closely examine Theon’s Progymnasmata and Quintilian’s Insti‐ tutio Oratia (and Cicero’s De Oratore), we realize that the same rules apply to προσωποποιία and a diatribal dialogue. This is important, because there is con‐ Προσωποποιία 83 <?page no="84"?> 12 Stowers 1995, 187 13 The two exceptions to this general picture are Runar Thorsteinsson (2003) and Joshua Garroway (2012). However, neither of them looks into the diatribe more specifically, and neither of them follows the exegesis from Rom 1-4 to Rom 7 14 Stowers 1994, 175 15 Stowers 1994, 203 16 Stowers 1994, 252 siderable consensus among Pauline scholars that Paul employs diatribal features in Romans. In the 1995 article referred to above, Stowers even claimed that almost all the dialogical techniques characteristic of the diatribe would be types of προσωποποιία. 12 The consequence of such an observation is that whether something should be characterized as a diatribal dialogue or as προσωποποιία is open to discussion. And this aspect has been absent in the works discussing Romans as a diatribe. The apparent reason for this shortcoming is that no one seems to believe that Paul addresses the same person in 2: 1 and 2: 17. 13 However, the important point to maintain is that the literary theory of προσωποποιία firmly states that the person presented as speaking ‘in-character’ must be consistent throughout the discourse, not only in the actual speech-in-character, but also in the entire dis‐ course wherein he appears. But this principle is quite difficult to maintain if one believes that Paul changes interlocutor in the middle of his discourse (e.g. 2: 17), as do most scholars. If Paul generally outlines the Gentile situation in 1: 18-32, then turns to a (fictive) Gentile interlocutor in 2: 1-16, only to change interloc‐ utor in 2: 17, and at some undefined point return to the Gentile interlocutor, it becomes quite difficult to determine the identity of the character speaking with Paul in 3: 1-9, 4: 1-9, 6: 1, 6: 15, 7: 7-25, 8: 31, 9: 1, 9: 14, 9: 19, and further on (not to mention the occasion behind the dialogue, and the social position of the person uttering it). For instance, according to Stanley Stowers, Paul addresses an imag‐ inary Gentile in 2: 1-16, a Jewish teacher of Gentiles in 2: 17-29, 3: 1-9, and 3: 27- 4: 2, 14 but the focus of the dialogue throughout chapters 1-4 is the Gentile people. 15 Also, Paul’s dialogue with the Jewish teacher of Gentiles does not con‐ tinue in chapters 5-8, where, for the first time since the prescript, Paul speaks directly and explicitly to the encoded readers, who are Gentiles. And in 7: 7-8: 2, Paul presents ‘a brilliant display of speech-in-character’ by a conflicted Gen‐ tile. 16 So even in Stowers’ very elaborate and significant interpretation, the identity of the interlocutor shifts, and sometimes even interferes with the en‐ coded reader/ audience directly addressed, and by implication, also with the oc‐ casion behind the discourse. This is a major weakness in Stowers’ (and others’) presentation of the discourse in Romans 1-11, and it is this problem I intend to 4 A fictive Gentile interlocutor - προσωποποιία 84 <?page no="85"?> 17 Later authors of Progymnasmata develop a conceptual distinction between these diverse positions, but these distinctions were not yet developed by Theon. address by way of προσωποποιία. Consequently, if Paul outlines the Gentile situation in 1: 18-32, then turns to a fictive Gentile interlocutor in 2: 1-16, then further qualifies the same Gentile interlocutor in 2: 17ff. as a Gentile wanting or pretending to be a Jew (i.e. a proselyte or a God-fearer), then the identity of the speaker in 3: 1-9, 3: 27-4: 2, 6: 1, 6: 15, 7: 7-25, 8: 31, 9: 1, 9: 14, 9: 19 and further on is clearly conveyed as the same fictive Gentile interlocutor addressed by Paul throughout. This means that if it is possible to prove a calibration or connection of the diatribal features with the theory of προσωποποιία, not only does the (formerly mysterious) identity of the speaker of Rom 7: 7-25 reveal itself, but the unity, cohesion and continuity of Romans 1-11 becomes clear and straightfor‐ ward. So, let us continue to look more closely at προσωποποιία. Προσωποποιία continued According to Theon, προσωποποιία includes cases where one invents the ἦθος (the character; by means of words) of a known person (πρόσωπον), and also of cases where one invents both the ἦθος and the person. 17 This means that an author could use the device of προσωποποιία for an already known and famous person (as in the Heroides), or the author could invent a fictive person with a consistent character, for example, a certain type of person (for instance a Laco‐ nian, an Attic, or a jewishish Gentile). As stated above, προσωποποιία concerns actual speech. However, both Theon and Quintilian state that we are justified in inventing either the character (ἦθος) or the person of the one who actually delivers a ‘speech-in-character’. This means that before the ‘actual’ speech-in-character takes place, the author is allowed to invent and describe the person, for instance through a narrative or an address by another person. This helps the reader to more clearly perceive the character of the invented person. Quintilian writes: A bolder form of figure, which in Cicero’s opinion [De Or. 25.85] demands greater effort, is impersonation, or προσωποποιία. This is a device which lends wonderful variety and animation to oratory. By this means we display the inner thoughts of our adversaries as though they were talking with themselves (but we shall only carry conviction if we represent them as uttering what they may reasonably be supposed to have had in their minds); or without sacrifice of credibility we may introduce con‐ versations between ourselves and others, or of others among themselves, and put Προσωποποιία continued 85 <?page no="86"?> 18 Quintilian Inst. Or. 9.2.29-31 19 Cf. Marrou 1964; Cribiore 1996; 2001; Morgan 2007 words of advice, reproach, complaint, praise or pity into the mouths of appropriate persons. Nay, we are even allowed in this form of speech to bring down the gods from heaven and raise the dead, while cities and peoples (populique) may find a voice. 18 This excerpt raises at least three important points. First, what Quintilian argues is a direct extension of Theon’s guidelines in the Progymnasmata. There is no sense in arguing that, since Institutio Oratia was a third level curriculum and the Progymnasmata was a second level curriculum, they differ in their guidelines on προσωποποιία. On the contrary, from what we know about ancient literate education 19 the second level curriculum would be completely incorporated into the third level, which would involve a more elaborate and technical presenta‐ tion. So what we find in the Progymnasmata could (potentially) be further illu‐ minated through the Institutio Oratia, but could not be used to question the account in the Progymnasmata. The second point is that Quintilian explicitly states that the gods, the dead, a city, or an entire people can find a voice through προσωποποιία. This means that Paul would not merely be justified in his use of προσωποποιία in his pre‐ sentation of a dialogue with an imaginary Gentile who represents all the Gentiles who want to become or appear Jewish (or jewishish). He would actually be pre‐ cisely following the literary guidelines for using προσωποποιία in a discourse, that is, a textbook example. The characterization of this jewishish Gentile would match the actual ones Paul had met throughout his mission and committed himself to as a ( Jewish) apostle to the Gentiles, and probably also the ones he had read about in other contemporary Jewish literature (for instance, Wisdom of Solomon or Joseph and Aseneth), and the LXX (e.g. Gen 18-20). Hence, it would make perfect sense that Paul knew exactly how to characterize this kind of person, and could guide him through the difficulties and pitfalls of affiliating himself with Judaism and the Jewish Messiah. The third point raised by the foregoing quotation is that the quotation from Quintilian confirms that dialogical features should be considered forms of προσωποποιία. This would have implications for the significance of Paul’s pos‐ sible application of the dialogical diatribe. If an author presents a dialogue with a consistent characterization, it should be considered a form of προσωποποιία. And Quintilian firmly emphasizes that in the discourse, what the character says must be plausible. Also, the variety of forms of προσωποποιία presented by Quintilian clearly testifies to the fact that not only should the first-person speech in Rom 7: 7-25 be considered speech-in-character (even though it obviously is 4 A fictive Gentile interlocutor - προσωποποιία 86 <?page no="87"?> 20 Quintilian Inst. Or. 9.2.31-32 21 Quintilian Inst. Or. 9.2.37 actual ‘speech-in-character’), but also the apostrophe in 2: 1ff., and the dialogue in 3: 1-9, 3: 27-4: 2, and further on. Quintilian places all the kinds of speech in‐ volving imaginary interlocutors under the heading of προσωποποιία. Thus, ac‐ cording to Quintilian’s categories, almost all the dialogical techniques charac‐ teristic of the so-called diatribe would be types of προσωποποιία. To further substantiate this point, Quintilian treats ‘apostrophe’ together with, or as a sub-element of, προσωποποιία in Institutio Oratia 9.2.38. Consequently, to state that Paul initiates an apostrophe in 2: 1 based on the personification of the pre‐ tentious (Gentile) person in 1: 18-32 would be to state that Paul applies προσωποποιία in 2: 1ff. Thus, the line between diatribe and προσωποποιία is barely definable. Quintilian further elaborates on the device of impersonation with more spe‐ cific examples of dialogue. He writes: There are some authorities who restrict the term impersonation to cases where both persons and words are fictitious, and prefer to call imaginary conversations between men by the Greek name of διαλόγους, which some [Cornific. Op. cit. iv.43 and 52] translate by the Latin sermocinatio. For my own part, I have included both under the same generally accepted term [i.e. προσωποποιία], since we cannot imagine a speech without we also imagine a person to utter it. 20 Quintilian explicitly states that he considers imaginary conversations or dia‐ logues to be forms of προσωποποιία. This means that we are more than justified in arguing that Paul’s presentation of dialogical material should be considered forms of προσωποποιία. And because we cannot imagine a speech without also imagining a person to utter it, we must be sure to construct and characterize this person thoroughly. In the end of his description of προσωποποιία, Quin‐ tilian writes: We may also introduce some imaginary person without identifying him, as we do in the phrases, ‘At this point someone will interpose’, or ‘Someone will say’. Or speech may be inserted without any mention of the speaker… This involves a mixture of figures, since to impersonation we add the figure known as ellipse, which in this case consists in the omission of any indication as to who is speaking. At times, imperso‐ nation takes on the form of narrative. Thus, we find indirect speeches in the histor‐ ians… 21 Προσωποποιία continued 87 <?page no="88"?> 22 Quintilian Inst. Or. 9.2.37 Here, Quintilian identifies various ways to begin a speech-in-character. He states that we need not explicitly mention who the speaker is, when a speaker enters the discourse. The characterization follows from the consistency of the speaker, and we are also justified in using narrative to create the impersonation. This means that the discourse furnishes information that will inform us of the speak‐ er’s character, and also when this specific character speaks, because of the con‐ sistency of the characterization. This is grounded in Quintilian’s remark, ‘At times impersonation takes the form of narrative’. 22 So it is not only possible to have προσωποποιία in a narrative form, it is a textbook example specifically described in the rhetorical handbooks on rhetoric. And, as may be inferred from both Theon and Quintilian’s work, it is possible to discuss something by way of προσωποποιία or through prosopopoistic features. So even the narrative dis‐ course of Rom 1: 18-32, which develops into an apostrophe (2: 1) and a dialogue (3: 1), only to come full circle in 7: 7-8: 2 as an actual ‘speech-in-character’, could be considered part of the προσωποποιία. If we turn to Romans for a while, to apply our recently gathered insights, it is evident from the opening narrative description of the Gentiles in 1: 18-32, and the continuous apostrophe/ dialogue between Paul and the fictive Gentile (2: 1ff.), that concerns about characterization inform and mould Romans throughout: what Paul does in the letter is to play with the interlocutor’s mythico-religious and ethnic past in a conversation about what it means to be a jewishish Gentile who believes in the Jewish Messiah and affiliates himself with Judaism and ethnic Israelites. The character Paul presents throughout Romans is motivated by, reacts to, and builds on existing, stereotypical personifications, both literary and actual. Paul is familiar with the stereotypical Gentile from the Old Testament literature (and other contemporary Jewish literature), but he also had personal experiences with Gentiles as their apostle, even though he did not actually know the ones who lived in Rome. However, he knew their concerns and problems, and he identified an occasion in the Roman congregation in which he wanted to intervene. Thus, the fictive Gentile interlocutor, presented through προσωποποιία, effectively represents a figure familiar to Jews at the time of Paul. By complementing, reiterating, and recontextualizing the larger body of texts and experiences that animate this figure, Paul manages to present a con‐ sistent and uniform characterization of a jewishish Gentile. And this character perfectly matches the various queries and questions throughout the discourse of Romans. 4 A fictive Gentile interlocutor - προσωποποιία 88 <?page no="89"?> The Gentile Paul portrays does not appear in a literary vacuum. Paul is careful to construct a ‘thick description’ of this person’s character. The person has a past (e.g. 1: 18-32; 6: 17-22; 7: 9-13), a future (e.g. 7: 24-8: 8; 12: 1-2), and a present (1: 18-32; 2: 1-11: 36). Paul makes sure to characterize a variety of aspects and concerns of this person/ figure: his emotional status (7: 7-8: 2), his ethico-reli‐ gious habitus (2: 1-24), his kinship concerns (4: 1-25; 8: 12-17), his status con‐ cerns (3: 1-31), and his national and eschatological concerns (9: 1-11: 36). Paul also offers some in-depth considerations pertaining to the actions and motiva‐ tions of this person. This person is not condemned just for criticizing others, but for criticizing others even though he does the same things (2: 1ff.). This person’s actions are not just any acts that one might choose to criticize. They pertain to certain and specified acts. Paul uses the demonstrative pronoun, τοιοῦτος to connect the characterization of the person in 2: 1ff. to the specific condemnation of the Gentiles in 1: 18-32. Verse 32 refers to the list of things that characterize idol worshippers with the expression οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες. But these idol worshippers not only do such things (αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν), they also agree with ‘those who do them’ (τοῖς πράσσουσιν). Paul deliberately extends this kind of characterization in 2: 1-6, where he describes the person who does these things, yet considers himself superior to his fellow idolaters: ‘You do the same things’ (τὰ αὐτὰ πράσσεις). This person ought to know that God condemns ‘those who do such things’ (τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντας), so Paul can repeat the accusation in 2: 3: ‘Do you think, sir, that when you judge those who do such things (τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντας) and you (yourself) do the exact same things (ποιῶν αὐτά)…’ Consequently, what this consistent, ‘thick’, and thought-through use of designators testifies to is a thoroughly composed character, consistent in both mind and actions, even though he presents himself differently. Paul continues the foregoing kind of reasoning in 2: 21ff., but this time he repeats the actual accusations, instead of using the demonstrative pronoun. In 2: 17, he lists all the apparent advantages of the person in question, but in 2: 21 he turns the tables on him. The person who teaches others will not teach himself (διδάσκων ἕτερον σεαυτὸν οὐ διδάσκεις); the person who preaches against stealing, steals (μὴ κλέπτειν κλέπτεις); the person who forbids adultery, commits adultery (μὴ μοιχεύειν μοιχεύεις) and so forth. Consequently, the character, the identity, and the actions of this ‘animated persona’ are apparent and distinct right from the outset, because Paul presents him in a consistent and thorough manner. Paul constructs and develops this persona in direct continuation of the people who do the things specified in 1: 18-32. The character Paul constructs from 2: 1 onwards, based on the preceding verses is not just any or every person. It is specifically someone who might know the truth about God. And these des‐ Προσωποποιία continued 89 <?page no="90"?> ignations and character descriptions are re-activated throughout the discourse (e.g. 5: 6-10; 6: 17-22), because they echo the Gentile, jewishish, God-fearing identity. The significance of προσωποποιία - literature and life, or rhetoric and realism From the observations discussed above, I find it difficult to overestimate the importance of the persuasive persona of the imaginary interlocutor that Paul constructs through the literary device of προσωποποιία. This persuasive mask that Paul constructs and shapes, informs the letter in such a way that it has a deliberate and calculated effect on the addressees in the specific and final par‐ aenesis (Rom 14-15). In short, Paul applies the rhetorical device of προσωποποιία for a reason. All the elements Paul brings into play (background, emotions, history, concerns, ethnicity, religion, status, etc.) cumulatively con‐ tribute to the calculated creation of a persuasive persona and character. The language may sometimes reflect an artificial, exaggerated, or rhetorical position of enunciation, as though uttered from a stereotypical ( Jewish) worldview, without the warmth of actual flesh and blood. The convincing and realistic tone may be lacking at times, but there is sufficient realism in the presentation to win our sympathy. At times the language may be monotonous, and may border on the excessively rhetorical, but it is equally clear and soothing. It may also be artificial. But in 7: 7-25, the very artificiality of the passage bestows on it a lasting quality, and it realizes the message. Consequently, what may be lost by reason of its being a ‘stereotype on steroids’, in language removed from ordinary life, is gained from the pleasant style. Thus, we should evaluate Paul’s use of προσωποποιία based on its communication of a certain message and presenta‐ tion of a certain ethnic, religious, and social person. Even more importantly than this, we should not feel forced to choose between literature and life, between rhetoric and realism. We may enjoy a ‘speech-in-character’ as a clever and bril‐ liant treatment of a (literary, ethical, religious, ethnic) theme enriched with enough of the human touch to suggest to the reader the illusion of an actual individual. Paul’s stereotypical, religio-ethnic persona no doubt interests us as a literary figure. But even this characterization possesses qualities that give him a semblance of realism: The religio-ethnic Gentile is cocksure, boastful, calcu‐ lating, impenitent, arrogant, bookish, double-tongued, a braggart, a windbag, and a wiseacre (cf. 2: 1-24; 7: 7-8: 2). He is such a complete failure that he becomes untrustworthy and exaggerated, as did the stereotypical account of the Gentiles 4 A fictive Gentile interlocutor - προσωποποιία 90 <?page no="91"?> in 1: 18-32, who did not just do one tiny thing wrong, but did everything wrong. At the same time he is also dedicated, interested, devoted, understanding, re‐ morseful, penitent, happy, and overexcited (3: 1-9; 7: 7-8: 2). Thus, we find it easier to identify with him. This also means that his literary and rhetorical persona reaches beyond the confines of the textual borders, and all these rhet‐ orical and realistic features help Paul to communicate his message. As a final consideration, we may evaluate the ‘actual’ speech-in-character in 7: 7-8: 2. This is a highly rhetorical piece, both in its ostensible persuasiveness, and in its mode of expression. This follows naturally from the fundamental pur‐ pose of communication: Paul demonstrates and comments on a certain way in which his letter as a text can negotiate relationships, and mediate between writer and reader, concerning the difficult question of identity. He presents two dif‐ ferent perspectives - his own and the Gentile interlocutor’s - and facilitates a fictive dialogue. Thus, the purpose is revealed as not merely persuasion, but also the engendering of a response from, and a sense of identification in the addres‐ sees. Consequently, Paul combines rhetoric with confession, in order to create a persuasive paraenesis (cf. Rom 12-15); he frames the experiences of the ad‐ dressees - actual, stereotypical, or exaggerated - through the devices of rhetoric and confession, in order to achieve his interventional goal in the paraenetic part of the letter. At the general level of discourse, he combines persuasion and par‐ aenesis - the fundamentals of deliberative rhetoric. He presents them as syn‐ onymous processes, or as cumulative and consecutive processes. And as a par‐ aenetic text with an overtly persuasive agenda, Romans establishes this overlap as it achieves persuasive paraenesis at the personal (confessional) level of the encoded reader/ audience (in 7: 7-25), and also (and more importantly) at the level of the actual, historical, Roman addressees. The significance of προσωποποιία - literature and life, or rhetoric and realism 91 <?page no="92"?> 1 I am not claiming that being Jewish could be so easily defined. I endorse J.Z. Smith’s polythetic mode of classification (cf. Smith 1982, 1-18). According to Smith, inclusion in a group cannot be established through a determinate number of attributes. 5 Romans 1: 18-32 Introduction So far, I have stated that, in Romans, Paul explains his gospel to Gentile believers in Christ, in order to equip these Gentiles not to pursue a full or normal Jewish life with circumcision and observance of the law as their mode of entry into God’s covenant with Israel. Should they pursue such a life, they would mistrust and betray their Gentile status as members of the family of Israel, and they would have misunderstood the purpose and efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice on their behalf. In this chapter, I will begin to move forward through the text of Romans (pro‐ gressively) in order to substantiate these claims. Throughout chapters 2-11, Paul presents an interlocutor who appears as a fictive Gentile who takes great interest in boasting of his Jewishness - except in 7: 7-25. The Gentile interlocutor supposes that literal circumcision and ob‐ servance of the law 1 are obligatory entry requirements for being a member of the family of Israel, and for becoming an heir of Abraham. However, as Paul’s argument unfolds it becomes clear that Paul does not argue against Judaism, as traditional scholarship has it. Paul argues about Judaism - specifically how a Gentile as a Gentile gains entry into the family of Israel in the wake of Christ. Thus, Paul’s rhetorical strategy constitutes an argument that seeks to persuade the mistaken Gentile interlocutor that the faithfulness of Christ (πίστις Χριστοῦ) alone suffices to grant him access to the covenant and make him an heir of Abraham as a Gentile, and of what his position is within this new family. Consequently, the entirety of Romans 1 to 11 is Paul’s attempt to convince Gen‐ tiles in Rome that (Christ’s) faith alone has secured their status as members of the Abrahamic covenant and initiates into the family of Israel as Gentiles. Therefore, Paul must open the argument with a description of what it was like - from a Jewish point of view - to be a Gentile, in order to explain their situation or condition. And 1: 18-32 serves this purpose. In a general way, I consider 1: 18-32 a stereotypical Jewish presentation of Gentiles - an ethnocentric description of the ‘others’ and ‘outsiders’. Conse‐ quently, before moving forward with the straightforward exegesis of 1: 18-32, I <?page no="93"?> 2 The following presentation is based on Hall’s explanation in Hall 2003, 223-283. Also cf. my article ‘Anthropology or Ethnic Stereotyping in Paul’ (Mortensen 2017, 135-154). The following discussion reiterates most of what is presented in my article. will make a detour around the concept of stereotypes and related concepts (us/ them, insiders/ outsiders, etc.). These considerations of stereotyping serve as the entry-point to Paul’s description of the Gentile condition in 1: 18-32. It is crucial to a straightforward and sequential interpretation of Romans to grasp this point of departure, because the Gentile condition as described in 1: 18-32 reverberates - often verbatim - in subsequent passages of Romans. In this sense, 1: 18-32 should be considered the foundation upon which the rest of the argument rests. The situation and facts underlying the letter’s outlook are described in 1: 18-32, which should be considered the narratio of the letter. Thus, Paul uses 1: 18-32 to present stereotyped Jewish perceptions of Gentiles, which inform and per‐ sonify the interlocutor from 2: 1 onwards. This means that 2: 1ff. should be con‐ sidered the probatio of the letter, and it constitutes it’s argumentative body. Ethnic Stereotypes - a modern perspective In ‘The Spectacle of the ’Other”’ (2003), cultural theorist Stuart Hall (1932-2014) describes the process of social or cultural stereotyping. 2 That something is ster‐ eotyped means that it works through a set of representational practices. As the outcome of these practices, the stereotyped object or person becomes reduced to a few essentials, as though it was fixed in nature or ontologically by a few, simplified characteristics. Hall explains that the process of stereotyping (or ‘othering’) corresponds to the way a cartoonist portrays, illustrates, and cari‐ catures a certain type with a few, simple, essentializing strokes of the pen. The portrayed type becomes reduced to the signifiers of typical differences - for example, impiety, sexual immorality, fraudulence, unrestrainedness, or the like. The stereotyped description then becomes a popular type that reduces the in‐ dividual portrayed to a few simplified, reductive, and essentialized features, easy to identify, copy, and pass on. Hall claims that we always make sense of things in terms of wider categories - we understand the particular in terms of its type. We assign someone mem‐ bership in a certain group according to class, gender, age, nationality, race, lin‐ guistic group, sexual preference, religion, political affiliation, and so on. A type is any simple, vivid, memorable, easily grasped and widely recognized charac‐ terization in which a few traits are foregrounded. At the same time, change or development is minimized. However, the type is different from the stereotype. Ethnic Stereotypes - a modern perspective 93 <?page no="94"?> 3 Said 1979 Stereotypes seize the few, simple, vivid, memorable, easily grasped and widely recognized characteristics of an object or a person, and then reduce everything about the object or person to those traits, exaggerate and simplify them without allowing them to change or develop. Edward Said’s (1935-2003) analysis of how Europe constructed a stereotypical image of ‘the Orient’ is an example of this. 3 Said explains that far from simply reflecting what the countries of the Near East were actually like, ‘Orientalism’ was the discourse by which European culture was able to manage, and even produce, the Orient, politically, morally, socio‐ logically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively during the post-Enlightenment period. Thus, stereotyping reduces, essentializes, natural‐ izes, and fixes differences; there is no depth to a stereotyped presentation, merely surface. Stereotyping deploys a strategy of splitting, dividing what is normal and ac‐ ceptable - from a specific (cultural, ethnic, religious, moral, medical, etc.) point of view - from the abnormal and unacceptable. It also excludes or expels ev‐ erything that does not fit the norm. Thus, stereotypes align closely with social types. But social types live by the rules of the cultural codes, whereas stereotypes are excluded. Stereotypes become ‘the other’ in the process of ‘othering’. What matters in the stereotyping process is that boundaries must be clearly delineated. Therefore, stereotypes are characteristically fixed, clear-cut, and unalterable. Thus, stereotyping works through closure and exclusion (or identity and oth‐ ering), because it symbolically fixes boundaries and excludes everything that does not belong. Consequently, stereotyping is part of the maintenance of the social and symbolic orders: it establishes a symbolic frontier between the normal and the deviant, the healthy and the pathological, the acceptable and the unac‐ ceptable, what belongs and what does not or is ‘other’, between insiders and outsiders, us and them. In this way, stereotyping facilitates the symbolic bonding among those of us who are ‘right’ into one imagined community, thereby ex‐ cluding all those, the others and outsiders, who are different and ‘wrong’. Roughly stated, this is what Stuart Hall presents as the essentials of stereotyping. Stereotyping in Antiquity The theory of stereotyping is a modern one, developed by contemporary cultural theorists, but very similar discourses were expressed in antiquity. The content of these similar, ancient discourses corresponds closely to the ways in which 5 Romans 1: 18-32 94 <?page no="95"?> 4 Cf. Malina 1996, 35-96; Pilch & Malina 1993. Also cf. the work of Jerome Neyrey (Neyrey 1990; Neyrey 1991). 5 Cf. Malina 2001, 58-80; also cf. Esler 2003a, 54 6 Malina 1996, 41 7 I am aware that Malina has received some criticism for his readings (cf. e.g. Lawrence 2003, 22ff.; Meggitt 1996, 215-219). However, New Testament scholars generally agree about the overall outline of Malina’s work, even though details and specifics are still contested. 8 Cf. Valerius Maximus 6.8; Bradley 1987, 27-29, 35 9 E.g. Menander Epitr. 202-211; 316-359. For the use of slavery as a metaphor in Paul’s mission and early Christianity cf. Martin 1990. Bruce Malina (among others) has described the ancient Mediterranean cul‐ ture. 4 Malina explains that in the ancient Mediterranean culture, people thought more sociologically (communally) than psychologically. 5 In general, they were more concerned with group stereotypes than individual features, because the ancient Mediterranean culture was a collectivist culture. Instead of thinking about a person as an individual, they thought about a person as ‘an undifferen‐ tiated ethnic ego mass’. 6 They knew others generically (by their ‘nature’), not individualistically, and they perceived them as members of either an in-group or an out-group. In the in-group, people regarded each other sympathetically, from a perspective of similarity. When people from an in-group considered those from an out-group, they regarded them with indifference or even hostility, al‐ most as different species of being. According to Malina, people in the ancient Mediterranean culture neither thought nor acted introspectively, and they understood and assessed one an‐ other in terms of group-determined stereotypes. 7 They classified each other ac‐ cording to family or kin group, race and place of origin, gender and class. They thought of, and categorized the world by means of genus and species, and they were not sensitive to individuals. This way of thinking may be described as stereotypic, because it was thought that if you knew these sorts of details about a person, you knew the person. If you knew their traits, you had all the infor‐ mation you needed in order to know a person’s character and the sort of be‐ haviour you could reasonably expect from him. These general descriptions - articulated from Malina’s contemporary perspective - find ancient textual sup‐ port in several places. For instance, there are several descriptions of a stereo‐ typical slave personality, commonly held and espoused by the elite in antiquity. These descriptions state that slaves were, by definition, lazy, negligent, wilful, cowardly, and criminal. 8 A similar stereotypical slave persona is found in cari‐ catures of slaves in Greek comedy. 9 In Aristotle’s Politics, we also find descrip‐ tions supporting the idea of a stereotyped ethnic identity: Stereotyping in Antiquity 95 <?page no="96"?> 10 Aristotle Politics 1327b1-2 11 Josephus Vita §352 12 Josephus Contra Ap. §269 13 Titus 1: 12 14 Strabo Geography 16.2.23 15 Strabo Geography 16.4.24 16 On physiognomy in antiquity cf. Barton 1994, 95-132; Evans 1969, 1-101; Rohrbacher 2010, 92-116; Malina 1992, 68-70 Let us now speak of what ought to be the citizens’ natural character. Now this one might almost discern by looking at the famous cities of Greece and by observing how the whole inhabited world is divided up among the nations. The nations inhabiting the cold places and those of Europe are full of spirit but somewhat deficient in intel‐ ligence and skill, so that they continue comparatively free, but lacking in political organization and capacity to rule their neighbours. The peoples of Asia on the other hand are intelligent and skilful in temperament, but lack spirit, so that they are in continuous subjection and slavery. But the Greek race participates in both characters, just as it occupies the middle position geographically, for it is both spirited and intel‐ ligent; hence it continues to be free and to have very good political institutions, and to be capable of ruling all mankind if it attains constitutional unity. The same diversity also exists among the Greek races compared with one another: some have a one-sided nature, others are happily blended in regard to both these capacities. 10 From other ancient authors we learn that Tiberians have ‘a passion for war’, 11 Scythians ‘delight in murdering people and are little better than wild beasts’, 12 ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons’, 13 in ‘the seamanship of its people… the Phoenicians in general have been superior to all peoples of all times’, 14 ‘this is a trait common to all the Arabian kings’ that they do ‘not care much about public affairs and particularly military affairs’. 15 Thus, the logic be‐ hind such perceptions was that if you knew a group, a people, or a race, you knew the individual as a representative of the group, because ‘you are the way you look’. The stereotypic way of thinking is very elaborate and abundantly evident in ancient physiognomic (and medical) literature, because physiognomic knowl‐ edge is stereotypical knowledge. The physiognomic (and medical) literature worked with the premise that character was determined by form. Physiogno‐ mists studied the human character based on how people looked and acted, be‐ cause a person’s physiognomic constitution was considered a replication of as‐ cribed identity. 16 Thus, you could tell a person’s character from the way he looked, because there was nothing inside which did not register on the outside. 5 Romans 1: 18-32 96 <?page no="97"?> 17 Ps. Aristotle Physiognomics 805a, 7-15, translation taken from Malina 1992, 70 18 Ps. Aristotle Physiognomics 806a, 22-23 19 Polemo 1893, 31-296 20 Galen On Prognosis pp. 100; 102 21 Polemo 1893, 1.268 22 Polemo 1893, 1.110, 1.25-112: madness; 1.164, 1.19-21 (epilepsy? ); Celsus On Medicine 3.18; Caelius Aurelianus On Acute Diseases 1.4ff.; 42ff.; 3.107 23 Polemo 1893, 1.128 Ps. Aristotle (unknown Peripatetic author in the 1 st century BCE) explains the connection between inner and outer person: It is especially in the creations of nature that one can see how body and soul interact with each other, so that each is mainly responsible for the other’s affections. For no animal has ever existed such that it has the form of one animal and the disposition of another, but the body and soul of the same creature always [correspond] such that a given disposition must necessarily follow a given form. 17 Thus, physiognomists observed the dispositions of a person in order to correlate these with specific forms and identities. The ‘signs’ the physiognomists studied included a person’s movements, pos‐ tures, colours, facial expressions, hair, type of skin, voice, flesh-tone, parts of the body, and overall physique. 18 Consequently, after having outlined the prin‐ ciples of physiognomics, the ancient author Polemo (90-144 CE) claims, ‘as often as you judge any race or people of the world on the basis of these indices, you will judge them correctly’. 19 The medical specialist, Galen (129-216 CE), makes some amazing deductions in the On Prognosis, where he diagnoses a woman - from the way she looks - as being in love with a dancer. He also diagnoses a slave - from the way he looks - as being worried about being found to have lost some of his master’s money. 20 The same applies to Polemo’s spotting women who are about to elope, and the man who is only pretending to have lost his goods in a shipwreck. 21 These physiognomic deductions, which may seem far-fetched, judgemental, and idiosyncratic to modern people, were considered true and scientific in antiquity. These deductions were considered a systemati‐ zation of the physique as a collection of signs of the inner character. Both med‐ icine and physiognomics established lists of signs or symptoms, from which they inferred the state of the mind or the body. Both often relied on common causes, such as the humours or the blood, and they sometimes sought the same phe‐ nomena in cases of madness, epilepsy, apoplexy, and deafness. 22 Polemo also offers a striking description that applies to many: A thick, flattened end of the nose indicates brutality. 23 Stereotyping in Antiquity 97 <?page no="98"?> 24 Polemo 1893, 1.194. Ps. Aristotle describes the difference between male and female thus: ‘the first division which must be made in animals is into two sexes, male and female, attaching to them what is suited to each sex. Of all the animals which we attempt to breed, the females are tamer and gentler in disposition than the males, but less powerful and more susceptible to rearing and handling. This being their character, they have less spirit than males’ (Physiognomics, 809a, 28-35). He continues by explaining that females have a more evil disposition than males, and that they are less courageous. Concerning males he writes: ‘The males are in every respect opposite to this; their nature is as a class braver and more honest, that of the female being more cowardly and less honest’ (Physiognomics 809b, 11-14). He also states that ‘… the male sex has been shown to be juster, braver, and speaking generally, superior to the female’ (Physiognomics, 814a, 9- 10, translations taken from Malina 1992, 70). 25 Polemo 1893, 1.238 If this were true, a lot of people should - because of the shape of their nose - be carefully watched by the police. Nevertheless, these authors believed that you could correctly judge people’s character, if you judged their race, posture, or appearance according to certain indices, because their inside registered on the outside. Polemo presents different types that work through their ‘othering’ or oppo‐ sitional, strategic definitions; the typical woman is defined by her deviation from the male norm. 24 The ‘beast’, the ‘alien’, or the ‘ethnic other’ is not directly defined in contrast to someone else, but may be anyone not belonging to a cer‐ tain and well-defined geographical area - that is, the ones ‘outside’. Ethnic types are created and fixed by the nature of the place from which they originate. Therefore, differences among people derive from the ethnic characteristics, which are rooted in the water, soil, and air in which the ethnic group lives. In his section ‘On the Shape of Southern Peoples’, Polemo explains that the Southern peoples are black, have curly hair, narrow ankles, metallic-coloured eyes, black hair, and thin flesh. This generalized description is thought to match all Southern peoples, and there is no room for individual features or deviations. Hence, there is no depth to the description, merely surface, because there is no internal state that is not knowable by some external feature. The features that correspond to this description are as follows: The Southern peoples are kind, ready of wit and memory, they take pleasure in learning, but they are always thinking up lies, they are greedy, and inclined to theft. 25 These are harsh features to ascribe to all peoples from the south, based on their looks. Nevertheless, ac‐ cording to the erudite and highly educated Polemo, they were considered true and valid. As a minor curio, it may be interesting to observe what Polemo thought of ‘the Northern Peoples’, since that description was supposed to apply to Germans, Danes, and other Scandinavians. In his section ‘On the Shape of Northern Peo‐ 5 Romans 1: 18-32 98 <?page no="99"?> 26 Polemo, Physiognomici, 1.238 27 The same applies to authors such as Hippocrates (cf. ‘Diseases of Women 1’ (1975), 572) and Soranus (cf. Gynecology, 1.3). ples’, Polemo writes that the Northern peoples are tall, white-complexioned, with red hair, and gray-blue eyes. They are rough to the touch, they have thick legs, dense and plump bodies, soft flesh, and huge stomachs. Their corre‐ sponding character is as follows: They are quick to anger, quick in debate, they are rash, honest, and find it hard to learn. 26 As a red-haired, blue-eyed, white-complexioned, and tall hyperborean, I find the physical description rather precise (despite my thin legs and flat stomach), but I definitely do not appreciate the corresponding character. Nevertheless, concerning Polemo’s conclusions or deductions on both the ‘Southern’ and the ‘Northern’ peoples, we would be justified in claiming that such generalizations and idiosyncratic opinions are wildly inaccurate and morally deplorable. However, that is not the point here. The point is that from ‘within’ a certain cultural-religious-ethnic-political per‐ spective, such propositions may be deemed self-evident and scientifically true, even by philosophers and doctors such as Polemo and Galen. 27 These doctors and philosophers actually tried to detect the character, disposition, or destiny of a person from external features. However, such descriptions may simply tes‐ tify to the process whereby a certain type is reduced to a few, simplified, reduc‐ tive, and essentialized features that are easy to identify, copy, and pass on. Thus, from a certain ethnocentric and in-group perspective, such propositions are valid. Now, if Paul shows the slightest evidence of such idiosyncratic and ster‐ eotypical generalizations in Romans, we should be cautious about regarding these as universal or anthropological descriptions. Instead, we should consider whether Paul was merely passing along cultural, ethnic, and religious stereo‐ types of Gentiles from a Jewish perspective. The significant consequence of this way of perceiving people in antiquity was the belief that behaviour and character were fixed and unchanging. People were born into a fully pre-arranged world where everything significant was equally pre-controlled by nature. Therefore, in light of the physiognomic literature, we may reasonably expect first-century Greeks, Romans, and Jews to have attrib‐ uted certain behaviours to peoples based on their appearance, background, na‐ tionality, place of origin, or kin group. Those belonging to a particular geo‐ graphical location or a certain race would have been expected to behave in a certain way, because the features one exhibited were regarded as corresponding to a certain behaviour - that is, you are the way you look, and physiognomics replicate your identity. Cicero bears witness to such an understanding, when he Stereotyping in Antiquity 99 <?page no="100"?> 28 Cicero Prov. Cons. 5.10 29 Aristotle Politics 1327b1-2. According to Aristotle, slaves were human beings, but slavery was still natural. The exception was the unjust case, where someone was born a free Greek citizen, and then sold as a slave after their city had been captured. But the general rule was that slaves were born that way. Slaves were slaves by nature, no less than male and female were such by nature. describes Jews and Syrians as ‘races born to slavery’. 28 Aristotle, too, works from the assumption that certain races are only suited to, and destined to slavery, because of their collective characteristics. 29 In effect, those who came from ser‐ vile origins would have been expected to act like slaves - just as a Gentile would have been expected to act like a Gentile from a stereotypic and ethnocentric Jewish point of view. And since behaviour was viewed as unchangeable, so also the essential servility or ‘Gentile-ness’ was viewed as unchangeable. Conse‐ quently, when we read the descriptions of certain races or nationalities in Paul (i.e. Jews and Gentiles), we should analyse these descriptions as examples of stereotypical ethnic presentations of ‘us’ and ‘them’. Stereotyping in Paul’s practices In order to identify a stereotyping process - or its results - in Paul, we must be able to identify the ‘us’ and ‘them’ in Paul’s regime of representation. This means we must be able to identify how Paul distinguishes the inside from the outside, or the in-group from the out-group. Besides, and more importantly, we must pay close attention to the word ‘all’. The word ‘all’ (πᾶς) seldom - if ever - refers to some universal everyone or everything. Instead, ‘all’ usually distinguishes a discrete entity known from a social or literary context. This means that ‘all’ may sometimes refer to the out-group, the in-group, to all in Israel/ the Jews, or to another discrete entity. Sometimes, the qualified group is specified, but usually it is not. This is the case in Rom 5: 12-21, where Paul applies an unspecified ‘all’ (πάντες), and also an unspecified ‘the many’ (οἱ πολλοὶ). Thus, we must strive to determine whom or what this ‘all’ designates, from either the literary or social context. Before turning to Paul, we must state that the simple activity of categorizing people as members of either an in-group or out-group produces social discrim‐ ination. Members of an in-group will favour fellow in-group members and dis‐ criminate against members of out-groups. This activity constitutes the contin‐ uous stereotyping or boundary-making that occurs in all Paul’s letters. Even though the boundaries of an in-group identity may be fluid, and Paul specifically 5 Romans 1: 18-32 100 <?page no="101"?> 30 Paul’s use of ‘us/ them’ language pervades his letters. Some of the most explicit examples are found in: Rom 1: 18-32; Rom 5: 1-10; Rom 9: 4-5; Rom 11: 1; Gal 2: 11-16; Phil 3: 5-6; 1 Cor 5: 1; 1 Cor 12: 2; 1 Thess 4: 3-5 31 I am aware of the discussion among scholars concerning how to translate the Greek word Ioudaioi (Ἰουδαῖοι). Some have argued it should be translated as ‘Judaeans’ (a national and geographic aspect), whereas others have argued that it should be translated as ‘Jews’ (a religious and transnational aspect) (cf. the discussion in Malina 2002, 613ff.). I am sympathetic to Caroline Johnson Hodge’s account and discussion ( Johnson Hodge 2007, 11-15), because she reflects both positions. In some of her early articles, she argued for a translation of Ἰουδαῖοι as ‘Judaeans’. However, she has come to rethink her posi‐ tion, and renders Ἰουδαῖοι as either ‘Jew’ or Ioudaioi. She often uses the transliterated word, in order to call attention to the problems clinging to the translation. regarded himself as addressing such liminal identities or threshold positions (sympathizers, God-fearers, proselytes), the feelings among in-group members are rooted in the perception of similarity to others. If you are of the same gender, age, family, extended family, neighbourhood, town, city, religion, or ethnic group, you are treated with loyalty, openness, solidarity, and support. An un‐ derstanding of the reach of this in-group sympathy and solidarity is crucial when reading Romans, because Paul addressed his message to Gentiles who were per‐ ceived as part of the out-group from a stereotypical Jewish perspective, but had now somehow become in-group members. Generally speaking, from Paul’s per‐ spective being a Gentile meant being a member of the out-group. But Paul re‐ worked this perception, and somehow perceived these Gentiles as ‘no longer Gentiles’ (e.g. 1 Cor 12: 2). ‘Us’ - the Jews Throughout the letters, Paul makes extensive use of ‘us/ them’ language. 30 This tells us that he operates with a dichotomized perception of cultural, ethnic, and religious identities, rather than a unified and universal essentiality. Paul ad‐ dresses his audience through a series of juxtapositions of Ioudaioi and non-Iou‐ daioi: 31 Jew/ Gentile, Jew/ Greek, circumcised/ uncircumcised. This amounts to an ethnocentric perspective of the world, as the term ‘ethnocentrism’ was defined by W.G. Sumner in 1906: Ethnocentrism is the technical name for this view of things in which one’s own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it. Folkways correspond to it to cover both the inner and the outer relation. Each group nourishes its own pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts its own divinities and looks with contempt on outsiders. Each group thinks its own folkways the only right ‘Us’ - the Jews 101 <?page no="102"?> 32 Sumner 1906, 12-13 cited from Reminick 1983, 7 33 Cf. Philo De Abr. 98, where Israel is defined as the ‘most God-loving of all nations’ (ὅλον ἔθνος καὶ ἐθνῶν τὸ θεοφιλέστατον). Israel is the centre of everything, the standard according to which everything else is measured, and all other peoples (Gen‐ tiles) are scaled and rated with reference to Israel. 34 An interesting collection of articles explores the religious, ethnic, and cultural roles of the Gentiles in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and their roles are thoroughly negative (cf. Holt, Kim and Mein 2015). ones, and if it observes that other groups have other folkways, these excite its scorn. Opprobrious epithets are derived from these differences… For our present purpose the most important fact is that ethnocentrism leads a people to exaggerate and inten‐ sify everything in their own folkways which is peculiar and which differentiates them from others. It therefore strengthens the ‘folkways’. 32 Paul (like other ancient authors) viewed his own group, the Jews, as the centre of everything. 33 For Paul, the decisive factor when sticking to this idea is that ethnic identity - in continuation of the stories of God’s handling of Israel in the Hebrew Bible - is inextricable from a people’s standing before God. This na‐ tional, ethnic, or united criterion for evaluation is explicitly stated in the his‐ torical interpretations of Judah’s and Israel’s past (cf. e.g. 1 Kings 14: 22; 15: 11). Israel was perceived to be the people of peoples, and this by divine disposition. Every other people and nation was peripheral and placed outside the centre by the God of Israel. As a first-century Jew, Paul exhibits perceptions that support the view that Gentiles are who and what they are because they have rejected the God of Israel. 34 That was how Jews interpreted God’s handling of history (cf. e.g. 1 and 2 Macc.), and that is exactly what Romans 1: 18-32 testifies to. We will return to Rom 1: 18-32 below, but first, a telling discourse from Galatians. Paul’s language reflects his construction of Jewish and Gentile identities. In Gal 2: 11-16, Paul recounts a conflict between himself and Peter. Paul presents the conflict as existing between those who used to eat with Gentiles, but now refuse to eat with them. Peter and the other Jews fear those from the circumcised (τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς, Gal 2: 12), so Paul asks Peter: ‘If you, though a Jew (Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων), live like a Gentile (ἐθνικῶς), and not like a Jew (Ἰουδαϊκῶς), how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews (ἰουδαΐζειν)? We are Jews by birth (φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι), we are not sinners descending from the Gentiles (ἐξ ἐθνῶν)’. The oppositional ethnic strategy (or, in the vocabulary of Stuart Hall: the process of stereotyping) is fully displayed and morally evaluated here, since Paul ex‐ plicitly contrasts two groups, the Jews and the Gentiles. Paul’s term for Jews is ethnically specific, whereas his term for non-Jews is Gentiles (ἔθνη), a non-spe‐ cific, simplified, reductive, essentialized, and totalizing term that lumps together 5 Romans 1: 18-32 102 <?page no="103"?> 35 Mason 2007, 489ff. 36 Cohen 1999, 75 37 Strabo Hist. Hypomnemata, as preserved in Josephus Ant., 14.115 38 Josephus Ant. 11.173 all non-Jews into one group. Paul also explicitly splits the normal and acceptable - from a Jewish perspective - from the abnormal and unacceptable. Additionally, Paul does not identify the Jews with the opprobrious epithet ‘sinners; ’ that des‐ ignation is reserved for the Gentiles, that is, the deviant and unacceptable ‘oth‐ ers’. Paul deploys these designations in a moral-religious contrast to the Jews, where he nourishes his pride in, and vanity of his Jewish identity by exalting his own ancestral traditions while contemptuously dismissing the Gentile iden‐ tity. He considers the ancestral traditions to be the only right ones, indeed, as though they were taught by nature itself. But how did Paul perceive the ‘us’, the Jews, more specifically? First, a general first-century Jewish perspective. Ioudaioi was a fairly common designation for Jews in Paul’s time, used by both Jews and non-Jews. 35 According to Shaye Cohen, in the Roman Empire Ioudaios was widely understood as an umbrella term for all Jews, and ‘both the Judaeans themselves and the Greeks and Romans had a sense that all Judaeans everywhere somehow belonged to this group’. 36 Strabo (64 BCE-24 CE) confirms this view when he writes that the Jews ‘have made their way already into every city, and it is not easy to find any place in the habitable world that has not received this nation and in which it has not made its power felt’. 37 Even though the term Ioudaios has a history from the Persian period onwards, it was adopted as a self-designation by persons and groups in the Greek-speaking diaspora who were bound ethnically, politically, economically, religiously, socially, and cul‐ turally to Judaea, Jerusalem, and its Temple. At the time of Paul, both insiders and outsiders used the term Ioudaioi to refer to the collective whole of the people belonging to Israel, including 1 and 2 Maccabees, Philo, and Josephus. Josephus explains that after the return from Babylon, both the people and the country were known by this title. 38 Thus, at the time of Paul, Ioudaioi was a well-known term, and frequently used by both insiders and outsiders as an umbrella term for those loyal to the one God of Israel and the Temple - the Jews. Ancient ethnic groups, including the Jews, affiliated and defined themselves with reference to a particular god or gods. By participating in specific practices of worship, ancient ethnic groups signalled membership by showing loyalty to a deity or deities. Jewish writings often equate following the one God of Israel with moral superiority, and they associate following other gods with moral de‐ pravity (cf. the examples further down). This means that Paul and the ancient Jews were monotheistic in their beliefs, but they were monotheistic in the an‐ ‘Us’ - the Jews 103 <?page no="104"?> cient sense of the word: Their allegiance was firmly attached to the God of Israel as the highest and most powerful god, but they were perfectly aware of other gods. Paul even insults these other gods, and he warns his Gentile addressees to not have anything to do with them. He also complains about the effects of these gods: The god of this world (ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) has blinded the minds of Paul’s Gentile addressees (2 Cor 4: 4); the rulers of this world (ἄρχοντες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου), which probably refers to some astral powers, have crucified God’s son (1 Cor 2: 8); the divinities whom the Galatians formerly worshiped are not gods by nature (τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς), but mere weak and beggarly elemental spirits (τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα), unworthy of fear or worship (Gal 4: 8-9). Such gods are not ‘real’ gods, but mere subordinate deities (δαίμονες, 1 Cor 10: 20-21), as, indeed, there are many gods and many lords (1 Cor 8: 5-6). But these lower powers, currently worshiped through images, will soon themselves acknowledge the one God of Israel when Christ defeats them and establishes God’s kingdom (Rom 16: 19-20; 1 Cor 15: 24-27), since, ultimately, all these beings will bend their knees to Jesus (Phil 2: 10). The affiliation to a specific god and specific practices of worship signalled membership in an ethnic group. It also exemplifies an ethnic construction of stereotypes: People are defined by contrast to each other, or through how they deviate from ‘the normal and acceptable’, from a specific cultural and religious perspective - here, the Jewish. Paul defines both Jews and Gentiles in this way, but whereas Jews reap the benefits of their loyalty to the one God of Israel, the Gentiles suffer the consequences of having rejected the God of Israel. This is very apparent in Romans, where Paul contrasts these two groups. When he describes the Jews, he includes specific references to Jewish history, practices, ancestry, morality, and religion, each of which defines them as the chosen people of God. The most elaborate of these descriptions follows in Rom 9: 3-5: … my brothers, my kindred according to the flesh, who are Israelites, who have the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and from them comes the Messiah according to the flesh… This description states that the Israelite identity is rooted in the stories of their ancestors, the covenants, and the promises that established them as sons of God. The (Mosaic) law and cult services mark this relationship, and govern their lives as an ethnic group and people. Paul uses each of these characteristics (ancestry, worship, law, etc.) to construct and confirm the ethnic Jewish identity in 9: 3-5. Paul does this in several ways: 5 Romans 1: 18-32 104 <?page no="105"?> 39 Paul and other contemporary Jews called these common features ‘ancestral’ or ‘tradi‐ tional’ (Gal 1: 14 (τῶν πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεων); 3 Macc 1: 3; 4 Macc 8: 7; 18: 5). These features included the same ancestors, the same language as the ancestors, ancestral customs, ancestral worship, and ancestral land. • By commenting on their biological relationship, stating that they are his kinsmen according to the flesh (τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα); • By commenting on their nationality, that they are Israelites (οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλῖται); • By commenting on their ancestry, kin group, family, place of origin, and relationship to the mythological patriarchs: they have the sonship and the fathers (ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία, ὧν οἱ πατέρες); • By commenting on their religious status and power, they have the glory (of God in the Temple) (ἡ δόξα); • By commenting on their religious relationship to God and their religious practices, they have the covenants, the worship, and the promises (αἱ διαθῆκαι, ἡ λατρεία, αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι); • By commenting on their politics and social agreement, they have the law (ἡ νομοθεσία); • Finally, by stating that they have the Messiah, according to the flesh (ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα). All the foregoing privileges (features or physical constituencies), which function in the same way as the physiognomic authors’ descriptions of people’s charac‐ ters, are characteristics that define and distinguish the Jews from the Gentiles. 39 The common, shared, and united Jewish identity (whatever it was in various settings) was infused or ‘read into’ each individual identity, which thereby in‐ evitably displayed how the inside registered on the outside. This was precisely how ancient authors described and defined ethnic identities, and it corresponds to what Stuart Hall describes as the process of stereotyping. This is not some‐ thing unique to Paul’s perspective; we find similar criteria and descriptions de‐ fining Greek identity in the work of Herodotus and other ancient authors: ‘Us’ - the Jews 105 <?page no="106"?> 40 Herodotus Histories 8.144.2, translation amended from Loeb. Herodotus did not include common geography or territory, because he thought in terms of an immobile popula‐ tion, and was uninterested in outsiders. Paul and his contemporary Jews were rather preoccupied with ties to ancestral land, because of the Israelite experiences of exile and emigration. Also cf. the ethnocentric descriptions of Europe, Italy, and Rome in Pliny’s Natural History III.i, § 5; III.v, § 39-42, and Cicero’s description of the moral virtue of Rome De Har Resp IX.19 The Greek people are of the same blood and the same tongue, and we have in common the edifices of our gods and our sacrifices, and our traditional ways are all the same. 40 Thus, Paul’s construction of ethnic identities resembles other ancient authors’ thoughts about, and organization of, their worldviews. Just as in the physiog‐ nomic literature, certain characteristics define the conduct, behaviour, and social position in the world and before these people’s god(s). This is how they are, because this is the way they look and behave. These socially contrived categories erected boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’, and supported the ethnocentrism of the various ancient Mediterranean peoples. Paul’s description of Jews is idi‐ osyncratic, ethnocentric, and stereotypical from a Jewish point of view - exactly as Herodotus’s is from a Greek point of view. Paul’s practices merely represent ethnic stereotypes, not universal anthropological statements about ‘all’. So, when it comes to Israel or the Jews in general, Paul paints a rather positive picture. And why would he not? After all, he still considered himself part of Israel, and a proud Jew. This becomes even clearer when we turn to Paul’s pre‐ sentations of himself in ethnic terms. When Paul explains his own ethnic identity - as a representative of the Jewish group - something similar to what is found in Romans 9 occurs; he positions himself within a shared Jewish history as a descendant of the same ancestors, with the same stories, values, and privileges: ‘For I, too, am an Israelite, out of the seed of Abraham, the tribe of Benjamin’ (Rom 11: 1). In Philippians, Paul emphasizes not only his ancestry and membership in a particular tribe, but also his devotion to the (Mosaic) law: ‘Circumcised on the eighth day, descended from the lineage of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews, according to the law a Pharisee, as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness I was blameless in the law’ (Phil 3: 5-6). And the same is said in 2 Corinthians: ‘Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I’ (2 Cor 11: 22). Throughout his letters, Paul enumerates both his broader membership in an ethnic group (Hebrews) and his membership in a sub-group defined by descent from an ancestor (Benjamin). And for Paul, circumcision, the practice of the law, and kinship are all factors in 5 Romans 1: 18-32 106 <?page no="107"?> 41 I am aware that Paul criticizes his own former Jewish life in Phil 3: 4ff. However, this strategy should be seen as an attempt to keep the Philippian Gentiles from considering full conversion to Judaism. his own ethnic identity as an Israelite - and they are extremely positive fac‐ tors. 41 Paul highly esteems and values all the characteristic ethnic features that define him and his people/ nation in the ancient world. He positions himself and his people on/ in a scale/ hierarchy (according to social values), and his whole project of proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles concerns their removal from far down this hierarchy to a much better and more favourable position (cf. Rom 11: 17-25). In the words of Hall’s theory of stereotyping, Paul presents his own type as simple, vivid, easily graspable, and widely recognized. He describes the normal and acceptable features, but he also highlights the splendour and spec‐ tacle of his own and his people’s position. His presentation of Israel and his own Jewish identity reflects the process of splitting the abnormal and the deviant from those who live by the rules of the cultural codes. This is who he is, and this is the group he represents - and he is proud of it. He does not present this in any ontological sense, but in a stereotypical way. In contrast to Paul’s descriptions of himself and the Jewish people are the numerous depictions of the Gentiles. Paul describes the Gentiles as weak, sin‐ ners, and enemies of God (cf. Rom 5: 6-10), and he describes them most elabo‐ rately in Rom 1: 18-32. These descriptions furnish the ‘negative side’ of the op‐ positional pairs through which Paul presents his gospel. Thus, they represent the stereotypical ‘back side‘ or ‘surface’ of the Jewish ‘front’ or ‘depth’. However, these should not be confused with psychological or introspective features de‐ scribing a general anthropology or ontology, as has often been done in the Christian (Lutheran) tradition. On the contrary, these descriptions are specifi‐ cally anti-psychological and anti-introspective, because they are stereotypical in the ancient sense. They reflect the simply-assumed Jewish and ethnocentric correspondence between internal states and external features. In Paul’s time, there was no conception of universalism, in the sense of all humans being equally human, having common human faculties, and deserving human rights, independent of individual abilities. There was no conception of a plurality of nations endowed with equal rights, and no perception of the individual as a unique, idiosyncratic being. There was no sense of empathy or congeniality in the sense we know it today. These are all modern phenomena that emerged during the Enlightenment and afterwards. People at the time of Paul were eth‐ nically particularistic in the sense that each ethnic group was a species distinct from other ethnicities, just as a wolf was distinct from a whale. We must be aware of these differences when we approach the ancient texts, specifically Rom ‘Us’ - the Jews 107 <?page no="108"?> 1: 18-32. I now turn to this passage, in order to define the ‘them’ or ‘out-group’ in Paul’s reproduction of Jewish stereotypes concerning Gentiles, and in order to initiate the straightforward and sequential exegesis of Romans. ‘Them’ - the Gentiles In contrast to the specific practices and attributes of a people loyal to the God of Israel, Paul describes the Gentiles as a people who have rejected God. The description of the Gentiles in Rom 1: 18-32 is an almost complete inversion of the privileges and characteristics of the description of the Jews in 9: 3-5. In 1: 18- 32, Paul outlines the history (both now and then) of the Gentiles. Even though they had the opportunity to know the one and true God, who revealed himself to them, they nevertheless failed to recognize him. ‘For though they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened’ (Rom 1: 21). Because they failed to recognize him as God, and because they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, God handed them over to the desires of their hearts, dishonourable passions, and an undiscerning mind. As a consequence of this, they worshipped the created rather than the creator (1: 25), they became morally depraved, engaged in intercourse that was outside of nature (1: 27-28), and they engaged in every injustice, evil, greed, and wickedness (1: 29). What Paul presents in Rom 1: 18-32 amounts to the reproduction of stereo‐ types: Paul presents the Gentiles through a series of representational practices that reduces them to a few essentials, as though they were fixed ontologically or in nature. The description - when read with a disengaged distance - suddenly stands out as the description of ‘stereotypes on steroids’. These people have not just occasionally done something wrong; they have done everything wrong ‘ever since the creation’ (1: 20). They do all the wrong things and they revel in the worst of these. Paul also deploys the strategy of splitting, when he writes that they could have known God, but they do not; they could have honoured and given thanks to him, but they do not; they claimed to be wise, but became fools, and so on. Through this stereotypical process of ‘othering’, Paul constructs the Gentiles as ‘others’ or the out-group relative to the Jews - as ‘them’ in contrast to ‘us’. Gentiles did not specifically or generally think of themselves as Gentiles. They would need a Jewish ethnocentric perspective to become aware of their peripheral religio-cosmic and social situation. But, nevertheless, this is the way Paul describes them from a Jewish point of view. 5 Romans 1: 18-32 108 <?page no="109"?> 42 This is evident in other contemporary Jewish texts, e.g. Wisd. of Sol. 11-15; Sib. Or. 3.8- 45; Philo, De Decal. 76-80; De Vit. Cont. 8f.; Abr. 135-36; Let. Arist. 134-141, 152 43 Translation taken from VanderKam 1989, 131-132 The Jews at the time of Paul understood the idolatry described in 1: 18-32 as describing the identity of Gentiles. They did not perceive such a description as concerned with mankind’s original sin. 42 It specifically concerned Gentiles. Sim‐ ilarly, the author of Jubilees gives voice to a stereotypical perception of Gentiles. In 22: 16-18, Abraham summons his son, Jacob, and tells him (in a general and stereotypical way) about the Gentiles: Now you, my son Jacob, remember what I say and keep the commandments of your father Abraham. Separate from the nations, and do not eat with them. Do not act as they do, and do not become their companion, for their actions are something that is impure, and all their ways are defiled and something abominable and detestable. They offer their sacrifices to the dead, and they worship demons. They eat in tombs and everything they do is empty and worthless. They have no mind to think, and their eyes do not see what they do and how they err in saying to (a piece) of wood: ‘You are my god’; or to a stone: ‘You are my Lord; you are my deliverer’. They have no mind. 43 This perception of Gentiles is stereotypical and represents a Jewish in-group point of view. Paul also affirms such a perception of Gentiles in his letters. In 1 Thess 1: 9-10, 1 Cor 12: 2, and Gal 4: 8, he writes that they (his Gentile addressees) earlier slaved under dumb and lifeless gods. It is implied in these statements that the Gentile addressees no longer slave under these gods, because they have turned away from such a life. The life Paul describes in Rom 1: 18-32 is a per‐ ception of the way Gentiles lived before they turned to the God of Israel and became members of Paul’s congregations (cf. 12: 1-2). When Paul writes (1: 18) that the wrath of God is revealed against ‘all peoples’ ungodliness and wicked‐ ness’, he is not referring to all people, as in ‘all mankind’, in an anthropological or universal sense; he is referring to all people who are qualified as impious and unjust, those who, by their wickedness, suppress the truth. Thus, ‘all’ qualifies the impiety and injustice that, in a traditional, historical Jewish context, would apply to the Gentiles. Hence, Paul’s description represents a typical ‘in-group’ perception of those ‘outside’. But, as in 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians, he does not consider these designations to be suitable anymore, be‐ cause now they (the Roman Gentiles) have turned away from their earlier life. Nevertheless, in general, such descriptions exactly match that of Gentiles, from a Jewish point of view. ‘Them’ - the Gentiles 109 <?page no="110"?> 44 Scholars who see a reference to Adam or ‘the fall of man’ cf. Longenecker 1991, 173-4; Dunn 1998, 91-93; Bryan 2000, 78; Stuhlmacher 1989, 34; Haacker 1999, 46; Lohse 2003, 85. In contrast to these, Philip Esler designates the introduction of Adam into the pas‐ sage as ‘flatly antipathetical’ (Esler 2003, 18). 45 Jewett 2007, 152, my italics. From a historically-contextualized understanding of 1: 18-32, it is evident that Paul addresses Gentiles exclusively. In fact, it is so obvious, that even those scholars who still cling to the perception that 1: 18-32 reflects a general, uni‐ versal, or ontological ‘fall of humanity’ often confess that this may not be the intention of this passage. 44 This is the case with Robert Jewett, in his 2007 com‐ mentary. He explains Paul’s use of the term ‘all’ in 1: 18: Despite a later reference to characteristically pagan failures (1: 23), the formulation with ‘all’ indicates that Paul wishes to insinuate that Jews as well as Romans, Greeks, and barbarians are being held responsible. 45 However, this understanding of ‘all’ suffers from a misunderstanding. First, ‘all’ need not refer literally to all humanity in any anthropological or universal sense. As stated earlier, ‘all’ usually distinguishes a discrete entity known from the social or literary context. If we look at a contemporary Jewish text, Wisdom of Solomon 11-15, this is clearly the case. Wisdom of Solomon 13: 1 employs the same expression in its accusation of idolaters. For all people who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature (μάταιοι μὲν γὰρ πάντες ἄνθρωποι φύσει οἷς παρῆν θεοῦ ἀγνωσία); and they were unable from the good things that are seen (ἐκ τῶν ὁρωμένων ἀγαθῶν) to know the one who exists (εἰδέναι τὸν ὄντα), nor did they recognize the artisan while paying heed to his works. If Paul expresses something similar to Wisdom of Solomon, ‘all’ means nothing more here than all those under scrutiny, which means Gentiles. A few other examples from Wisdom of Solomon deserve to be mentioned, because of their similarity to Rom 1: 18-32. In 12: 3-4, Wisdom of Solomon describes the Gentiles as ‘[t]hose who lived long ago in your holy land [whom] you hated for their detestable practices’. In 12: 23-23 it speaks about: [T]hose who lived unrighteously (ἀδίκως), in a life of folly, you tormented through their own abominations. For they went far astray on the paths of error, accepting as gods those animals that even their enemies despised; they were deceived like foolish infants. 5 Romans 1: 18-32 110 <?page no="111"?> 46 There are several other contemporary Jewish authors who describe Gentiles similarly to Paul and Wisdom of Solomon: Philo (De Vit. Cont. 8-9, 59-64; De Decal. 76-80; Abr. 135-136; Spec. 3.37-42) Jub. 22: 16-18; Sib. Or. 3.8-45; Let. Arist. 134-141, 152. Just as in Romans 1: 18-32, a long list of the resulting vices (focusing on sexual, marriage, and gender roles) follows the account of the origins of idolatry (14: 22- 31). There is another example that sounds Pauline in 14: 12-14: For the idea of making idols (εἰδώλων) was the beginning of fornication (πορνείας), and the invention of them was the corruption of life (φθορὰ ζωῆς); for they did not exist from the beginning, nor will they last forever. For through human vanity (κενοδοξίᾳ) they entered the world, and therefore their speedy end has been planned. This continues in the same style in 14: 27-30, and it is explicitly clear in these passages that Wisdom of Solomon specifically depicts the Gentile peoples’ decline into idolatry and vice. It says so explicitly in 15: 14-15: But most foolish, and more miserable than an infant, are all the enemies who oppressed your people. For they thought that all their heathen [or Gentile] idols (τὰ εἴδωλα τῶν ἐθνῶν) were gods, though these have neither the use of their eyes to see with, nor nostrils with which to draw breath, nor ears with which to hear, nor fingers to feel with, and their feet are no use for walking. What Wisdom of Solomon presents here is very similar to what Paul presents in 1: 18-32. 46 Indeed, it should be regarded as acting similarly, to construct and reproduce ethnic stereotypes. Another and more important argument in Romans 1 may be foregrounded: In 1: 18, Paul does not write ‘all people’. Paul does not target the impiety and injustice of ‘all people’. What Paul targets is the impiety and injustice of persons who ‘unjustly suppress the truth’. ‘All’ describes the impiety and injustice - not the people (Ἀποκαλύπτεται γὰρ ὀργὴ θεοῦ ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν ἀνθρώπων τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων). Consequently, Paul is not accusing all humanity in any anthropological or universal sense. Paul indicts all the wickedness of those who subvert the truth, and he gives no indi‐ cation here that such persons include the entire human race. On the contrary, Paul furnishes the identity of those persons in the ensuing discussion, which may be identified as Gentiles from a stock Jewish polemic against another ethnic stereotype. He simply passes on an in-group Jewish stereotype of the Gentile out-group. Consequently, Paul’s description in 1: 18ff. does not amount to a de‐ scription of a universal fall of man with ontological consequences for humanity. ‘Them’ - the Gentiles 111 <?page no="112"?> 47 The famous German New Testament scholar, Ernst Käsemann (1906-1998), regarded Rom 1: 18-32 as a universal indictment of humankind based on only the most meagre premises. However, this interpretation was widely accepted because Käsemann repeats Lutheran stereotypes of an anti-Jewish reading. Yet, Käsemann was not unaware of the obvious reference to Gentiles. He notes how ‘vv. 19-21 characterize the guilt of the Gentiles, and vv. 22-23 portrays God’s judgment’ (Käsemann 1980, 37). However, shortly thereafter, he further adds, ‘To the intensity of the judgment corresponds the totality of the world which stands under it, so that the statements about Gentiles applies to the heathen nature of mankind as such, and hence implies the guilty Jew as well’ (ibid. 38). 48 Luther attempted to express the permanent incongruity of grace in the believers’ life through this expression (cf. e.g. in 1533 Galatian lectures: WA 401 366.26 or LW 26.232). 49 Thorsteinsson 2003, 173 Such a reading of ‘all’ in 1: 18 is hardly justified, and it reads much better in a discourse delineating the Gentile shortcomings. 47 A historical-contextual reading makes it clear that 1: 18-32 presents a general Jewish account of how the Gentiles became Gentiles. By refusing to acknowl‐ edge God as God, they were given over to enslavement by their passions in a measure-for-measure justice. This account concerns neither universal humanity nor any individualistic and introspective subjectivity. Paul presents the story of the Gentiles as a group on the periphery of Israel’s story. Paul’s perspective - throughout Romans - is collective and historical. Paul lies in extension of the discourses found in the Hebrew Bible, in other contemporary Jewish literature, and in the writing of Greek and Roman ethnographers and historians. Israel as a group and nation has a relationship and a history with their God. The Gentiles also have a relationship with this God from a Jewish point of view, but it differs in significant ways. Both peoples (Israel-Gentiles, in-group-out-group) are in‐ volved in a history over which God rules and judges. Salvation in this history does not concern a universal question of a human essence being simul iustus et peccator, 48 but concerns salvation from God’s anger, even if that anger is justified. God’s wrath, which had long and justly been stored up against the Gentiles, presented an urgent and obvious problem; Paul turns to this specifically in 2: 1- 16. Even though the narrative in 1: 18-32 is dominated by verbs in the past tense, the passage is framed by references to current states of affairs, with verbs in the present tense (Ἀποκαλύπτεται (1: 18); ποιοῦσιν, συνευδοκοῦσιν (1: 32)). Paul does not merely elaborate on the Gentiles’ past history; he connects their history with their present condition. The historical narrative serves merely to explain and substantiate the present condition. As Runar Thorsteinsson puts it: ‘Paul is not only saying here to his gentile readership ’you once were…” but also ’beware, you are still…! ”’ 49 Consequently, what Paul lays out in Romans 1: 18-32 resem‐ bles the ancient physiognomic (and medical) descriptions of groups, and it may 5 Romans 1: 18-32 112 <?page no="113"?> 50 Thorsteinsson 2003, 179; Snodgrass 1986, 72; Garroway 2012, 90f.; Stowers 1994, 12; Haacker 1999, 59. This conflicts with Sanders and O’Neill, who treat Romans 2 as a non-Pauline synagogue sermon, or a missionary tract of Hellenistic Judaism (Sanders 1983, 123ff.; O’Neill 1975, 40, 53, 264). 51 Cf. Stowers 1994, 13 52 This argument contradicts Bassler (1984) and Flebbe (2008, 22 n22). Bassler and Flebbe argue that God’s impartiality is a separate and superior theme in Romans 2. Bassler argues that the conclusion in 2: 11 ends one passage, and a new and different passage begins. be regarded as constructing a regime of representation in a process of ethnic stereotyping. Continuity from chapter 1 to chapter 2 The idolatry and immoral behaviour of the Gentiles - which Paul presents from a contemporary Jewish perspective as the Gentile situation in 1: 18-32 - is the result of the behaviour of those who lived before the law. Like their ancient ancestors, the Gentiles of Paul’s time are slaves to their passions (πάθη, 1: 26) and desires (ἐπιθυμίαις, 1: 24). According to Paul, they know that the vices in which they indulge (1: 29-31) deserve to be punished by God (1: 32). Paul brings this awareness and description of the Gentile situation to chapter 2 and the rest of Romans, since 1: 18-32 serves as the narratio underlying and determining the rest of the discourse. Consequently, for a historically plausible understanding of Romans, it is crucial to not make a division between 1: 32 and 2: 1ff. From a stylistic and rhetorical perspective, there is no division. 50 The rhetorical point of the flow in 1: 18-2: 16 disappears if we break it into two separate units. In contrast, if we instead sustain the flow of the argument to cross the traditional division in 2: 1 (introduced by Augustine) 51 and tie together the two units, they deliver the first essential theme of Romans: God’s righteousness as his impartial judgement of Jews and Gentiles according to their deeds, and his mercy to the Gentiles through Christ. Here, it should be noted that the theme of God’s im‐ partiality is subordinate to the larger theme of God’s judgement, stretching from 1: 16 through chapters 2 and 3. 52 But God’s judgement and rightful acting towards the Gentiles runs through 1: 18-32 (historical background or precondition) and further into chapter 2 (actual Gentile condition). Thus, assessments of the in‐ terlocutor in 2: 1ff. are governed by assumptions of 1: 18-32. Continuity from chapter 1 to chapter 2 113 <?page no="114"?> 1 Byrne takes 2: 1-11 together (1996, 79ff.). Stuhlmacher (1989, 38ff.) detects a break in 2: 1. 2 Stowers 1994, 100; Song 2004; Thorsteinsson 2003, 123ff; Stowers 1981; Malherbe 1989, 25ff. 3 Song 2004, 16; Aune 1991, 93ff.; Stowers 1994, 17, 162; Moo 1996, 125. 4 Stowers 1994, 107; also cf. Swancutt 2001, 168ff. 5 For a summary of positions in the ‘διό debate’ cf. Cranfield 1975, 140f. In support of my reading cf. Song 2004, 92 and Thorsteinsson 2003, 179. Jewett (2007, 196) takes διό to draw the inference from the preceding argument (1: 18-32), but he does not regard 1: 18- 32 as being about Gentiles, but both Jews and Gentiles, since Paul addresses ‘all impiety’ (2007, 196 his emphasis). 6 From the use of the vocative ἄνθρωπε in Epictetus, Thorsteinsson translates it as ‘mis‐ ter’, ‘sir’, ‘fellow’, and the like (Thorsteinsson 2003, 188). Also cf. Stowers 1981, 85ff. Thus, Paul is not addressing mankind in general, but is being conversational in a dia‐ logical style. 6 Romans 2: 1-29 Romans 2: 1-5 In 2: 1, Paul begins an apostrophe to the personification of the pretentious person (ὁ ἀλαζών) described in 1: 29-32. 1 Thus, the continuity from 1: 18-32 to chapter 2 is obvious: The person addressed in 2: 1 is the Gentile personification just de‐ scribed in 1: 18-32. Rhetorically, the passage may be identified as speech-in-char‐ acter (προσωποποιία), used in a hortatory manner typical of the diatribe, pre‐ sented as an apostrophe. 2 The identification of the diatribal style is based on a combination of a number of elements: the use of an imaginary interlocutor ad‐ dressed with vocatives and the second-person singular; direct address to the audience (second-person plural); short vivid exchanges of questions and an‐ swers; series of objections and false conclusions (e.g. μὴ γένοιτο). 3 A common feature of protreptic literature was to turn directly to a fictitious and literary figure as a way of concluding the myth of degeneration. 4 Paul’s use of διό (2: 1) indicates this conclusion to and transition from 1: 18-32 5 whereby - in a free and conversational style - he says: ‘God is in his right when he judges the idolatry among the Gentiles; therefore, you sir (ὦ ἄνθρωπε), 6 who just left this kind of life I described, have no right to judge others as though you are the odd man out. In passing judgement, you disclose an arrogance and insolence personifying the Gentile sin (ὑβριστὰς, ὑπερηφανους, ἀλαζόνας (1: 30)). Thereby, you do exactly the same things (τὰ τοιαῦτα; 1: 32; 2: 2, 3)’. It is evident <?page no="115"?> 7 The fictive Gentile interlocutor should not be regarded as constituting ‘the general human being’ in an anthropological sense (contradicting Wischmeyer 2006). On the contrary, the fictive Gentile interlocutor is a historically contextualized persona exhib‐ iting exemplary features of similar historically contextualized Gentiles - just as Theon explained a writer should proceed, when depicting a type or person - so the addressees may identify the personification and decipher the rhetoric. 8 Dunn identifies the interlocutor of Romans 2 as ‘the typical Jew … that is the Jew per se’ (Dunn 1988, 80). Also cf. Moo 1996, 127; Keck argues for continuity from 1: 32-2: 1 and regards Paul as addressing a Gentile in 2: 1, but a Jew in 2: 17 (Keck 2005, 74, 82); Wright also holds that Paul addresses ‘the Jew’ in 2: 17 (Wright 2002, 445). 9 Even though Engberg-Pedersen contends that Paul’s addressees are to be identified as Gentile believers in Christ, and some passages clearly refer to Jews (185), he argues that Paul speaks of ‘every (kind of) human being who judges’ in 2: 1 (Engberg-Pedersen 2000, 202 his italics). 10 Cranfield 1975, 137ff. Hultgren (2011, 112) does the same, regarding 2: 11 as being what Paul ‘is driving at’. 11 Byrne (1996, 80) describes the transition from chapter 1 to 2 as though Paul were setting a trap, and consequently trying to surprise the judgemental Jew with his accusation. Bassler draws a strict boundary between chapters 1 and 2, whereby διό loses its con‐ nection to what precedes it, and has no transitional value (Bassler 1984, 44). 12 The vocative ἄνθρωπε may be intended to reverberate ἀνθρώπων in 1: 18, thereby fa‐ cilitating continuity and identity between the Gentiles (1: 18-32) and the Gentile (2: 1ff.). from this rendering that there is no radical break between 1: 18-32 and 2: 1ff. Paul portrays or invents a specific type of person and admonishes him. 7 How‐ ever, this person should not be identified as a Jew, even though traditional read‐ ings since Augustine have done that. 8 After all, Paul has just described the Gen‐ tile sin. Therefore, the apostrophe is directed at the Gentile who corresponds to the preceding description. 9 We should not read backwards or retrogressively from 2: 17 (as Cranfield does), 10 but instead read διό in a linear and sequential way, following the text at the surface level. 11 Hence, 2: 1 determines that the person in question belongs to the group of people described in 1: 18-32, that is, the Gentiles. In 2: 1ff., Paul rebukes the Gentile who does the same things (τὰ τοιαῦτα) as that described in 1: 18-32. 12 Paul points out the hypocrisy of such a practice, and the problem seems to be doing, rather than judging (cf. 2: 1-3). The Gentile shows an inconsistent self-representation in terms of appearance and action - a topos that returns in 2: 17ff. and 7: 7-25. Verses 5-6 confirm that the problem is ‘doing’ (πράσσεις, 2: 1; τὰ ἔργα, 2: 6), because Paul aims for God’s judgement of every man according to his deeds (κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ). Paul further elaborates on this in 2: 7-11. But in 2: 1, why does Paul earmark this person’s judgement, when the real problem seems to be the inconsistency between his appearance and practice (word and deed)? Paul does this because his judgement rebounds. When Romans 2: 1-5 115 <?page no="116"?> 13 Dunn 1988, 82f.; Thorsteinsson 2003, 191f. The same goes for Byrne 1996, 81 and Lohse 2003, 99. this person judges other Gentiles, such as those described in 1: 18-32 (πᾶς ὁ κρίνων), he judges himself, and thus is guilty of doing the same things (cf. the exhortation in 14: 22-23). Paul exposes this strategy as deceptive, and even asks, sardonically, whether he believes he (σύ) will escape the judgement of God (τὸ κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ, 2: 3)? Clearly, this rhetorical question should be answered with a ‘no’, though apparently, the interlocutor believes he will escape God’s judge‐ ment because of some precedence that gives him reason to boast. Paul’s argu‐ ment reveals the interlocutor’s position as no more favourable than that of other Gentiles. In 2: 4, Paul poses another rhetorical question: ‘Or do you despise (καταφρονεῖς) the riches of his kindness (χρηστότητος) and forbearance and patience (τῆς ἀνοχῆς καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας), (are you) ignorant (of the fact) that God’s goodness (τὸ χρηστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ) leads you to repentance (μετάνοιαν)? ’ Dunn and Thorsteinsson identify Wisdom of Solomon (15: 1) as the background of this verse: 13 But you, our God, are kind and true, patient, and ruling all things in mercy (σὺ δέ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν χρηστὸς καὶ ἀληθής μακρόθυμος καὶ ἐλέει διοικῶν τὰ πάντα). The perception of a patient, caring, merciful, and loving God is parallel in the two passages, and Paul addresses the same group of people in 1: 18-32 as Wisdom of Solomon presents as those who are given the opportunity to repent, that is, Gentiles. The same kind of reasoning may be found in 2 Macc 6: 12-16, which also reverberates with the Pauline vocabulary of us/ them, and God’s merciful handling of Jews and Gentiles: Now I urge those who read this book not to be depressed by such calamities, but to recognize that these punishments were designed not to destroy but to discipline our people (τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν). In fact, it is a sign of great kindness (μεγάλης εὐεργεσίας σημεῖόν ἐστιν) not to let the impious alone for long, but to punish them immediately. For in the case of the other nations (τῶν ἄλλων ἐθνῶν) the Lord waits patiently (μακροθυμῶν) to punish them until they have reached the full measure of their sins (μέχρι τοῦ καταντήσαντας αὐτοὺς πρὸς ἐκπλήρωσιν ἁμαρτιῶν); but he does not deal in this way with us (ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἔκρινεν εἶναι), in order that he may not take vengeance on us afterward when our sins have reached their height (ἵνα μὴ πρὸς τέλος ἀφικομένων ἡμῶν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὕστερον ἡμᾶς ἐκδικᾷ). Therefore he never with‐ draws his mercy from us (διόπερ οὐδέποτε μὲν τὸν ἔλεον ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀφίστησιν). Al‐ 6 Romans 2: 1-29 116 <?page no="117"?> 14 Cf. Stowers 1994, 104ff.; Donaldson 1993, 94. though he disciplines us with calamities, he does not forsake his own people (οὐκ ἐγκαταλείπει τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λαόν). This passage combines elements of history and theology that parallel Paul’s wording in Romans: God is patient, forbearing, caring, and good. And he will never forsake his people (Israel) or withdraw his mercy from them, even though he may at times discipline his people. He will punish the Gentiles for their sins, but according to Paul (and this is where he differs from 2 Macc), he will be even more patient with the Gentiles because of the faithfulness of Christ. The faith‐ fulness of Christ - the fact that Christ acts faithfully to God’s calling of him (just like Abraham) - provides another opportunity for the Gentile to repent, and the Gentile should not despise God’s goodness. Thus, a historically specific Jewish background explains God’s patience with, and delay in passing judgement on the Gentiles (cf. 3: 26; 9: 22). 14 However, this judgement will come, despite the failure to acknowledge God as God, as is the case of the Gentiles of 1: 18-32. For these Gentiles, God has accumulated (θησαυρίζω) a list of evils to be punished since the coming of the (Mosaic) law. Paul explains this to the Gentile in 2: 5 when he says that the Gentile is storing up wrath on himself (θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ ὀργὴν). In extension of 1: 18ff., in 2: 4 Paul indicates the opportunity for the Gentile to repent (εἰς μετάνοιαν σε ἄγει). The riches of God’s kindness and forbearance and patience fortify the point of Gentile repentance, since these attributes de‐ scribe God’s love for, and rule over the entire world (cf. Exod 34: 6). By way of a rhetorical question, Paul argues that the Gentile interlocutor disdains this kind‐ ness of God. Thus, the hypocrisy shown by the Gentile points forward to the boasting of the Gentile ‘olive shoot’ over the Jewish ‘branches’ in 11: 22. Verses 2: 4 and 11: 22 revolve around God’s kindness (χρηστότητος). Paul asks the Gen‐ tile to not despise (καταφρονεῖς) this kindness of God. Instead, the Gentile should repent and take advantage of God’s kindness. In 2: 5-6, Paul tells him that his impenitent heart will not endure the righteous judgement of God on the day of wrath, because God will repay everyone, according to his deeds. Thus, Paul tries to demonstrate to the Gentile that his conduct accumulates wrath, and that he will be judged by God according to his deeds if he does not repent. This reading (and the continuity of chapters 1-3) is confirmed by 3: 25-26, because Paul explains (still to the Gentile interlocutor) that God brought forth Jesus as a means of expiation, in order to manifest God’s righteousness. God passed over previous sins (διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων), owing to his restraint (ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ), because he is patient, caring, and merciful Romans 2: 1-5 117 <?page no="118"?> 15 Snodgrass 1986, 86 16 Cf. Sanders 1983, 105-113 (χρηστότης, ἀνοχή, μακροθυμία). Consequently, God has passed over Gentile sins, not forgiven them. God has delayed punishment owing to his ἀνοχή, but judgement will come, so repentance is necessary, and that is what Christ brings about for Gentiles. At this point in the Pauline discourse we dimly see how Christ’s function for Gentiles parallels what obeying the (Mosaic) law does for Jews. God shows mercy and elects - because he is righteous - and he provides a means of expiation to those who are faithful. God is the one who saves. But he is also just, so he will judge. Judgement and justification - justice and mercy In the reading of Romans 1 and 2 suggested here, judgement according to works is not the opposite of justification by faithfulness. Rather, it is the presupposi‐ tion. 15 God justifies the believer, but he still judges everyone according to their deeds, because election is by grace/ calling/ mercy and reward, and punishment corresponds to deeds. 16 Hence, law and gospel do not mutually exclude one another - they co-exist, just as God’s justice and mercy co-exist as his divine attributes. These are essentially Jewish theological truisms of the late Second Temple period and rabbinic Judaism. Observing the commandments leads to eternal life (because God shows mercy). We know this from Qumran: ‘His right‐ eous testimonies… which man shall do and live thereby’ (CD 3: 15-17). We know this from the Psalms of Solomon: ‘To them that walk in the righteousness of His commandments, in the Law which He commanded us that we may live’ (14: 1). We know this from the Gospel of Mark 10: 17-18: ‘what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life’ and Jesus’ answer: ‘you know the commandments’. We know this from the Gospel of John: ‘You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life’ (5: 40). So there is no oddity in the claim that everyone, Jew and Gentile alike, will be judged according to their deeds on the day of wrath, and reward and punishment will correspond to these deeds. But salvation comes through God’s mercy and election, and that does not disqualify the judgement according to deeds, but completes or fulfils God’s dealings with humans on the day of wrath. As representatives of the radical new perspective suggest, when recon‐ structing 1 st century CE Judaism, Jews did not seek righteousness in the law; instead, they lived with the (Mosaic) law in a covenant, as a way of being a 6 Romans 2: 1-29 118 <?page no="119"?> 17 Sanders 1977, 205 18 Even in Qumran, where perfection was highly important, allowance was made for transgression and atonement, cf. Sanders 1983, 28 19 Cf. the above references to Wisdom of Solomon 15: 1, and 2 Macc 6: 12-16, and also Rom 2: 4 member of an elect community (Ex 19: 5-6). Jews at the time of Paul were thankful for the guidance shown to them in the law, which marked them out as a ‘treasured possession’ of God (ibid.). According to E.P. Sanders, righteousness expresses the behaviour proper to a person who has accepted the covenant of‐ fered at Sinai, and the commandments that followed the acceptance of God’s kingship. 17 The (Mosaic) law was not considered a way to salvation. Salvation was an act of God based on his calling, mercy, and election. To be saved implied that one was given a share in the coming (future) age, and the foundation for this was the faithfulness of God to his promises in the covenant. God affixed requirements to the covenant - that is, the (Mosaic) law - but these requirements were to be observed out of gratitude, obedience, loyalty, and faithfulness (e.g. πίστις) to the giver of the requirements, not as a way of earning salvation. Con‐ sequently, the point was not complete perfection, but the will to remain within the boundaries of the covenant. 18 Salvation was a gift of God based on mercy, calling, and election, and grace and law belonged closely together. Often, when we read about someone who does not perfectly observe the (Mosaic) law, we tend to apply a rigid and legalistic understanding of what it means to observe the (Mosaic) law, and conclude that this person ‘breaks the (Mosaic) law’. We rarely consider the host of interpretive assumptions of someone claiming to observe the (Mosaic) law. Therefore, we fail to realize that Jewish tradition explicitly recognizes the fact that nobody will keep all the de‐ tails of the law at all times. And more importantly, we fail to realize that within the Jewish tradition, the answer to this (apparent) paradox is God’s forgiveness and grace. 19 The question of ‘obeying the whole law’ appears in Paul and in other contemporary Jewish literature. In Gal 5: 3, Paul writes to the Gentile addressees that if they undergo circumcision, they will be obliged to obey the entire law (ὀφειλέτης ἐστὶν ὅλον τὸν νόμον ποιῆσαι). Traditionally, this statement has been taken to indicate that Paul is calling for the obligation to observe every single commandment. But the context of the claim has often been omitted; Paul warns Gentiles to not undergo circumcision, because if they do, they go from being non-Jews (i.e. Gentiles or jewishish Gentiles or ex-pagan Gentiles) to being Jews (i.e. Jewish Gentiles). This implies a commitment to keep the entirety of the (Mosaic) law to which the Jews are committed. Far from breaking the law, Paul seems to be engaged in the process of applying the law. His instructions to Judgement and justification - justice and mercy 119 <?page no="120"?> 20 In my understanding, Das has missed this delicate distinction in Snodgrass’s article, in Sanders’ work, and in Paul (Das, 2001, 13). Das also allows literature and perceptions from after 70 CE and the destruction of the temple to overrule the primacy of covenantal nomism in pre-70 CE Judaism (chapter 2 in Das 2001). 21 The understanding of προσωπολημψία (2: 11) should be taken closely with the under‐ standing of διαστολή (3: 22; 10: 12). However, as my interpretation of chapters 9-11 will clarify, the impartiality of God should be restricted to God’s righteousness. There is indeed a difference between Jews and Gentiles, since Israel has the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, the promises, the patriarchs, and Christ according to the flesh (9: 4-5). As the metaphor of the olive tree reveals, Paul considers Israel to be a cultivated tree, whereas the Gentiles are a wild shoot grafted onto the noble tree. Evidently, Paul firmly believes Jews have a higher rank. Conse‐ quently, the impartiality of God with respect to his righteousness must not be taken to mean evenhandedness with respect to ethnicity, the covenant, and the promises. his congregations should be considered instructions that define the ways in which, and under which circumstances certain acts constitute idolatry (or do not). Simply by establishing rules concerning how to associate with the (Mosaic) law, Paul engaged in the balancing act of establishing halakah. This involved consideration of the biblical prohibitions, its prevalent interpretations, and the ethno-socio-religious circumstances of the Christ-following Gentiles in a Gen‐ tile/ pagan society, including their need to interact with people who had different religious observations than themselves. Consequently, we must be aware of the fact that the (Mosaic) law was flexible, since interpretations and rulings differ among various groups, and even within the same group. The Hebrew Bible explains that Israel always had the opportunity to atone through the covenant. But God had been storing up his wrath against the Gen‐ tiles since the coming of the (Mosaic) law. Christ provides the means of expiation for the Gentiles. The sins of Israel were not passed over and stored up; they were expiated. But judgement is still passed according to deeds. 20 Through Christ, Gentiles have the opportunity for forgiveness and to live in a faithful relation‐ ship with the God of Israel, but they will still be judged according to their deeds. Christ serves as their means of expiation, so they may sustain a faithful rela‐ tionship with the God of Israel. The concept of impartiality does not negate God’s covenant with Israel - it affirms it: ‘The doers of the law will be justified’ (2: 13). 21 In Phil 2: 12, Paul even states that salvation is to be worked out (κατεργάζομαι) in fear and trembling, indicating the close connection between judgement and justification. Consequently, what Paul points out to the Gentile interlocutor in 2: 1-6 is that he inhabits an extremely precarious position. Only God’s mercy can resolve this situation. God’s mercy towards Gentile sin mate‐ rializes in Christ, because he constitutes God’s solution to the theme of delaying judgement that will bring justice for the Gentiles. 6 Romans 2: 1-29 120 <?page no="121"?> 22 Jewett (2007, 203f.) regards 2: 6-16 as continuing the diatribe style, despite the shift from secondto third-person language. I agree with such a reading. 23 Thorsteinsson 2003, 153 Linguistic, stylistic, structural, and grammatical continuity in 2: 1-16 The history of the interpretation of Romans 2 has involved crucial problems concerning the cohesion and progression of the discourse in chapter 2. If we can establish the identity of the interlocutor in 2: 1 as Gentile throughout the entire chapter, many problems disappear. Also, when the identity of the interlocutor is established as Gentile throughout chapter 2, it will prove self-evident until 11: 36. Therefore, the question of continuity, cohesion, and progression in areas of terminology, style, grammar, and content must be posed. The tone in Paul’s address seems, on the face of it, to change in 2: 6-16. 22 In verses 1 to 5, Paul uses the second-person-singular address, but in 6-16 he changes to a more general third-person language. The second-person-singular address is resumed in 2: 17, and remains in force throughout 2: 17-29. The second-person address ends in 3: 1, where a series of questions and answers begins. Thus, Paul’s use of the second-person singular at the beginning and end of chapter 2 present an immediate unity and consistency at the surface level of the chapter. Even though 2: 6-16 shifts to a more general outlook, these verses continue the discourse taken up in 2: 1-5. Thus, the coherence of the chapter is straightforward. Verses 2: 5-6 should be taken closely together. Even though there is a shift in style from the second to the third-person singular, the boundary between the two verses blurs. 23 Grammatically, there is no division, and the relative clause in v. 6 (‘who will repay to everyone according to his deeds’) validates the prop‐ osition in v. 5 (‘you are storing up wrath for yourself ’). Paul presents the vali‐ dation by way of a scriptural quotation (2: 6), which serves as a response to the position presented in 2: 1-5. Thus, the scriptural quotation facilitates the tran‐ sition from second-person to third-person address, and, thereby further de‐ velops the cohesion and continuity of the discourse. In 2: 7ff. Paul further elaborates on the claims established in 2: 5-6 by saying that those who do good (and seek glory, honour, and immortality) will receive eternal life (ζωὴν αἰώνιον). In contrast, those who are self-seeking (and do not obey the truth) will incur wrath and fury (2: 8). For the good there will be glory, honour, and peace; for the wicked there will be anguish and distress. This applies to the Jew first, and also the Greek, for God shows no partiality (2: 9-11). So far, 2: 7-11 has continued the discourse of 2: 5-6 without a shift in subject. Thus, it Linguistic, stylistic, structural, and grammatical continuity in 2: 1-16 121 <?page no="122"?> 24 Also, the theme of judgement in 2: 7-10 and the repetitive use of (forms of) δόξα and τιμή recalls 1: 18-32, whereby an even larger sense of unity and consistency permeates the textual flow through chapters 1 and 2. 25 The difference from most scholarship does not concern the unity of 2: 1-16, but the overall unity of chapter 2. However, Bassler (1984, 45 n10), Tobin 2004, 110, and Byrne (1996, 79ff.) argue for a division of paragraphs after 2: 11. Also cf. Lohse 2003, 97-114 and Haacker 1999, 66ff. 26 Paul confirms the continuity and unity of the passage by using ‘the day’ (ἐν ἡμέρα) in 2: 5 and 2: 16. Furthermore, the connecting particles and conjunctions serve as structural markers, and each of vv. 7-10 is grammatically dependent on v. 6 (the relative clause), which in turn, modifies the genitive τοῦ θεοῦ in v. 5 (cf. Thorsteinsson 2003, 158; Snod‐ grass 1986, 80; Jewett 2007, 194). The particle γάρ connects v. 11 with the preceding verses (for God shows no partiality) as against Bassler 1984, 45. 27 Along with several translations (RSV, NRSV, NAB) and scholars (Bassler 1982, 121ff.; Engberg-Pedersen 2000, 212ff.; Carras 1992, 188 n. 12). 28 Thorsteinsson (2003, 158) formed the word-chain against Bassler’s incomplete word-chain (Bassler 1984, 50). furthers the chain of reasoning or commentary of the claims established in 2: 5- 6. 24 This observation is important, because it runs counter to the consensus of scholarship concerning chapter 2. 25 According to my understanding, the con‐ tinuity in form and content speak for the unity of the passage, despite the sty‐ listic shift from second to third-person language. The same applies to 2: 12-16, though a new concept (νόμος) is foregrounded. 26 The final link in the chain appears in 2: 12-14. The γάρ already introduced in 2: 11 is followed by three others in verses 12, 13, and 14. This establishes the continuity, and the function of 2: 12-14 is to further elaborate on the discourse of 2: 5-11. Thus, the continuity of 2: 1-16 aims to represent the logic and flow of the entire passage. We should not follow the 28 th Nestle-Aland edition, 27 and ignore the function of γάρ in 2: 12, thereby beginning a new paragraph and theme. The theme of divine impartiality (2: 6-11) serves a function in the general flow of the discourse on divine judgement according to deeds (2: 1-16) (i.e. ev‐ eryone’s accountability to God). Hence, it is subordinate, and should not be cut off from the textual flow by a new paragraph indicating a new theme. Instead, even though Paul introduces the concept of νόμος in 2: 12, the continuity of the whole passage should be acknowledged. Paul expresses his line of thought through the word chain, Ἰουδαῖος-Ἕλλην-νόμος-ἄνομος-περιτομήἀκροβυστία, 28 which stretches from 2: 11 through 2: 16 (and even further). The introduction of νόμος in 2: 12 does not begin something new, but represents the natural consequence of something already implicit in the discourse in 2: 6-11, and probably already in 1: 16 ( Jews and Greeks). The (Mosaic) law constitutes 6 Romans 2: 1-29 122 <?page no="123"?> 29 Cf. the discussion in Garroway (2012, 17ff.), which notes that no single characteristic may be identified as the defining element of Jewishness. Thus, it does not make sense to claim that the law was what defined a Jew from a non-Jew. On the other hand it makes sense to claim that (adherence to) the law was one of the most important char‐ acteristics that defined Jewishness. Hence, since Paul introduces the distinction be‐ tween Jews and Greeks in 1: 16ff., the law may be said to be implied from that point onwards. 30 The vast majority of scholars reject this view (e.g. Räisänen 1983, 97-98, 102; Stowers 1994, 37; Sanders 1983, 33; Lohse 2003, 109; Stuhlmacher 1989, 46). As far as I know, only Thorsteinsson (2003) and Garroway (2012) endorse it. Although it seems obvious (at least to me) that the apostrophe (which develops into a (diatribe) dialogue in 3: 1) with the Gentile continues, Stowers tries to explain it away like this: ‘At the point we expect Paul to get to the heart of the matter, he turns away from the Greek. The apostle has just mentioned his good news and Christ Jesus (2: 16) when he spots one of his competitors in the crowd, a Jew who has committed himself to teach gentiles about the Mosaic law’ (Stowers 1994, 142). Gager concurs with Stowers, even though he contin‐ ually reiterates the importance of Gentiles as addressees and as Paul’s interlocutor (Gager 2000, 107f.). It is simpler to conclude that Paul continues his dialogue with a fictive Gentile, and this better fits the form and content (rhetorical flow and thematic progression). one of the main differences between Jews and Greeks, 29 so it may be said to have been implied throughout 1: 16ff. To recapitulate: The second-person language of 2: 1-5 is ‘brought in’ to the third-person language by means of the relative clause in 2: 6; 2: 7-11 ‘reaches backwards’, commenting and further elaborating on 2: 5-6; the occurrence of γάρ four times in 2: 11-14 ‘bridges’ 2: 7-11 and 2: 12-14, which is further sub‐ stantiated by the logic of the word chain. Finally, 2: 15-16 continues the discourse on the function of the law (2: 12ff.) and reaches back to 2: 5 by repeating ‘the day’ (ἐν ἡμέρα), which confirms the continuity, consistency, flow, logic, progress, and unity of the passage. Consequently, if I can argue that the consistency, coher‐ ence, and progression of 2: 1-16 continue in 2: 17ff. - an interpretation that picks up some of the radical new perspective’s crucial insights - I will have argued against the vast majority of scholars writing about chapter 2, who deny that the fictive Gentile interlocutor introduced by Paul in 2: 1 (as a personification of the description in 1: 18-32) continues to be Paul’s interlocutor. Thus, for a unified reading of Romans, the coherence of 2: 1-29 is vital. Romans 2: 17-24 In 2: 17, Paul resumes the apostrophe to the interlocutor of 2: 1ff. 30 Paul addresses the interlocutor again: ‘But if you call yourself a Jew’ (Εὶ δὲ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος Romans 2: 17-24 123 <?page no="124"?> 31 Even Gager, one of Paul’s most radical interpreters when it comes to maintaining the Gentile perspective throughout Romans, sees Paul addressing boastful Jews in 2: 17 (Gager 2000, 112). The same goes for Johnson Hodge ( Johnson Hodge 2007, 86). 32 Das 2001, 182 33 Das 2001, 183 34 Jewett 2007, 220 35 When Seneca shifts to another interlocutor, there is a shift in address from second-person verbs to third-person verbs (Epistles 88, 2: 348-76). Also cf. Thorsteinsson 2003, 143; Garroway 2012, 92 36 Plutarch Moralia 469D, 6: 194; cf. Thorsteinsson 2003, 139; Garroway 2012, 92 ἐπονομάζῃ). That Paul chooses to address this person by stating what he (the interlocutor) believes himself to be (a Jew) leads almost every scholar to assume that he (the interlocutor) is a Jew. 31 Andrew Das writes: ‘Romans 2: 17 introduces a new section as Paul specifically turns to the ’Jew.”’ 32 And he continues: ‘Ev‐ erything mentioned in these verses is typical of Jewish self-understanding. Ei‐ ther one calls oneself, or is called, a Jew (v. 17)’. 33 Robert Jewett confirms this understanding, since he brings this heading in his rhetorical disposition: ‘The nonexemption of Jews from impartial judgment’. 34 However, nothing previously in the text suggests the inference that the interlocutor changes from 2: 1 to 2: 17. On the contrary, there is a thunderous correspondence and similarity in style and substance between 2: 1ff. and 2: 17ff., because Paul points out the inconsis‐ tency between the person’s appearance and being. Also, there are no rhetorical indications that Paul is addressing a new interlocutor, such as a change in verb form or an indefinite pronoun, which ancient readers would have expected. From Seneca we know that if the interlocutor changes, the verbs also change. 35 The same goes for Plutarch; he introduces a new interlocutor with the expres‐ sion ‘someone else might say’. 36 Besides, against the background of the con‐ tinuity of 2: 1-5 and 2: 6-16, we should regard it as impossible that Paul would leave the original interlocutor from 2: 1. This assumption is supported by ancient rhetorical theory: According to Theon’s explanation in the Progymnasmata concerning προσωποποιία, the characterization must fit the person, and what was said about the person must be consistent throughout. From a superficial perspective on the text, Paul still addresses the interlocutor from 2: 1ff. Now, in 2: 17ff., he further elaborates on the fact that God will judge everyone according to deeds, and that his (the interlocutor’s) claimed position and boasting are double-faced and a blatant inconsistency in self-representation. Only Paul’s statement concerning the self-image or self-perception of the interlocutor may indicate that Paul addresses another person. But it does not. What Paul says is that this person calls himself a Jew; not that he is a Jew. From our work with chapter 2 thus far, a number of facts suggest that there is no shift in interlocutor: 6 Romans 2: 1-29 124 <?page no="125"?> 37 Thorsteinsson lists ‘to be surnamed’ for the passive, and ‘to classify oneself by means of a name, title, or attribution’ or ‘claim to be’ for the middle (Thorsteinsson 2003, 197). On the possibility of Ἰουδαῖος being used as a surname, cf. Cohen 1999, 25ff.; also cf. the inscriptions CIG 9916, 9926; CIJ 530, 643 for the use of Ἰουδαῖος/ Iudaeus as a sur‐ name. 38 E.g. Fitzmyer, Jewett, and Wright. 39 Fitzmyer translates, ‘But suppose you call yourself a Jew’ (Fitzmyer 1993, 314); scholars who translate this as ‘But if you call yourself a Jew’ include Byrne 1996, 95; Jewett 2007, 219; Keck 2005, 83; Hultgren 2011, 124 40 For discussions of the historical plausibility of the claim that Paul’s interlocutor thinks of himself as a Jew, even though he ‘is’ a Gentile, cf. Garroway 2012, 22ff. and Thor‐ steinsson 2003, 201ff. In ancient Jewish society, distinctions could be made according to the level of Jewishness of a proselyte or God-fearer, but for outsiders, such as Dio Cassius (150-235 CE), the only meaningful distinction was between Jews and non-Jews (Hist. Rom. 37.17.1). This paradox testifies to the modern problem of the necessary and sufficient criterion of Jewishness (being a Jew) in antiquity (cf. the methodological dis‐ cussion in Smith 1982, 4ff.). The question of the rise of Christianity as something ‘Jewish-but-not-Jewish’ (a third thing) should be situated here with questions of the identity of a hyphenated ‘ethno-religious’ person. 41 Cf. Gorday 1983, 43ff. First, style: The second-person-singular address is the same in 2: 1-5 and in 2: 17 onwards; also, Paul’s use of verbs is conditional. Secondly, the content is alike in the first and second part of chapter 2. The person who judges in 2: 1-5 does so because he knows the (Mosaic) law, and in 2: 17ff. Paul further explains that this person relies on the law and boasts of his relationship to God. Thirdly, the character or persona of the interlocutor in the first and second part of chapter 2 is very similar, since Paul condemns the same kind of public pretence. And fourthly, the actions of the interlocutor in the first and second part of chapter 2 are the same, since the person pretends to be or do something that does not reflect his actual constitution. Hence, we should consider Paul as addressing the same interlocutor. The verb ἐπονομάζω in 2: 17 is a hapax legomenon in the NT. A distinction could be made between the middle and passive form, since we do not know which one appears in 2: 17. However, it would not make a significant difference, and we should not draw too strict a boundary between the two forms. 37 Most commentators lean towards the middle form, 38 which allows us to translate 2: 17, ‘But if you call yourself a Jew’, ‘But if you want to call yourself a Jew’, or ‘But if you claim to be a Jew’. 39 Hence, Paul does not explicitly say that the person addressed is a Jew, as he explicitly does in Gal 2: 14 when he confronts Peter as being a Jew/ Jewish (εἰ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων). Paul says that this person (the interlocutor) thinks of himself or wants to call himself a Jew, 40 a distinction al‐ ready noted by Origen. 41 Furthermore, Paul’s language is set in conditional terms Romans 2: 17-24 125 <?page no="126"?> 42 In Rev 2: 9 in the letter to the congregation in Smyrna it says, ‘I know your affliction and your poverty, even though you are rich. I know the slander on the part of those who say they are Jews and are not (λεγόντων Ἰουδαίος εἶναι ἑαυτοὺς), but are a syna‐ gogue of Satan’. The accusation that some say of themselves that they are Jews but are not, echoes Paul’s address to the Gentile in 2: 17. Rev 2: 9 uses λεγόντων, where Paul uses ἐπονομάζῃ. These words indicate attributes and not essence, as would be the case in Gal 2: 14, where Paul uses ὑπάρχων. Despite the different word choices in Revelations and Romans, they have similar meanings: Someone says of themselves, or calls them‐ selves something that they are not, according to someone else. The dispute reflects an internal Jewish dispute between two related groups, and it concerns the right to define the content of genuine Jewishness. This strategy or dispute is known from several other ancient incidents that use similar wording. Stowers provides examples of this, but they all use λέγω or καλέω (Stowers 1994, 144-149). The author of Revelations does not distinguish between Israel and the church, so in 2: 9 the Jews are not Jews, because of their blasphemy - hence, they are a synagogue of Satan (cf. Bredin 1998, 160f.). In Romans, the Gentile is not a Jew because of his two-faced practices (cf. 2: 1-5; 2: 17-24). 43 Cf. Stowers 1994, 144ff. 44 Josephus Ant. Jud. 13.257-8. Also cf. Cohen 1999, 17-18, 81-82, 110-129; and Josephus Ant. Jud. 20.38-39 (if you call yourself (εἰ and the conjunctive mode of ἐπονομάζῃ)), which suggests the contingency that the Gentile could be called something else. Thus, what Paul actually identifies is the well-known topos from Hellenistic moral philosophy of name versus deed. The interlocutor claims something about himself, but acts otherwise. 42 He wants to be a Jew, and calls himself a Jew, but, as Paul will show, he cannot support this claim. We know a similar discussion to the foregoing from Epictetus (Discourses, 2.9.19-21), who writes, ‘Why, then, do you call yourself a Stoic … why do you act the part of a Jew, when you are Greek’ (τί οὗν Στωικὸν λέγεις σεαυτόν ... τί ὑποκρίνῃ Ἰουδαῖον ὤν Ἕλλην). Epictetus uses λέγω when referring to what someone is called. When the person really becomes what he identifies with, Epictetus writes that he both is and also is called what he claims to be (τότε καὶ ἔστι τῷ ὄντι καὶ καλεῖται Ἰουδαῖος). Thus, Epictetus clearly distinguishes be‐ tween what is said about a person (λέγεις) and what that person really is (ἔστι), and that is reflected in his use of verbs. 43 Another example, from Josephus, further illuminates this discussion. When Hyrcanos defeats the Idumeans in the second century BCE, Josephus designates the converts as Ἰουδαῖος. Josephus explains that Hyrcanos allows the converts to stay in the country ‘so long as they had themselves circumcised and were willing to observe the law of the Jews’. 44 The Idumeans accepted these conditions, so Josephus explains: ‘[F]rom that time on they have continued to be Jews’. Another example from Dio Cassius is worth noting, as Dio ponders the meaning of the designation Ἰουδαῖος: ‘The country has been named Judaea (Ἰουδαία), and the peoples themselves Jews 6 Romans 2: 1-29 126 <?page no="127"?> 45 Dio Cassius Hist. Rom. 37.17.1 (the Loeb translation slightly modified). 46 Quoted from Cohen 1999, 61 47 Quoted from Cohen 1999, 134 48 Cf. Cohen 1999, 137, 162, 169. Also cf. Feldman 1993, 338-341, and Barclay 1996a, 438. (Ἰουδαῖοι). I do not know how this title came to be given them, but it applies also to all the rest of mankind, although of alien race, who strive for their cus‐ toms’. 45 What follows from Dio’s account is that the title Ἰουδαῖος would have been applied not only to native Jews, to historical-ethnic Jews, or to full scale proselytes, but to any Gentile adherent to Judaism. Dio’s broad use of this term is definitely not unique, and may even be found in rabbinic literature: ‘Anyone who denies idolatry is called a Jew’. 46 Origen seems to have the same under‐ standing, since he writes: ‘The noun Ioudaios is the name not of an ethnos but of a choice (in the manner of life). For if there be someone not from the nation of the Jews, a Gentile, who accepts the ways of the Jews and becomes a proselyte, this person would properly be called a Ioudaios’. 47 Consequently, what these examples tell us is that on certain conditions, a person of Gentile origin could be called Ἰουδαῖος, and this was done by both Jews and non-Jews. However, the fact that a person could be designated Ἰουδαῖος did not mean that all distinctions between Jews and non-Jews ceased to exist, when the Gentile became a Ἰουδαῖος. The ancient sources do not unmistakably indicate that proselytes achieved real equality with native or historical-ethnic Jews. Instead, the social status of such people in the Jewish communities appears to have been ambig‐ uous. From the intra-Jewish perspective, a Gentile who converted to Judaism did not become a Jew but a proselyte, even though the Gentile might be con‐ sidered a Ἰουδαῖος in the eyes of an outsider. The reason for this is that most of the Jews in antiquity considered the ethnic definition to be supplemented, not replaced, by the religious definition. Consequently, Jewishness became an ethno-religious identity, thereby preventing or restricting Gentile converts from gaining full equality with the native or historical-ethnic Jews, because they lacked the bloodline that was an essential part of the ethnic aspect of the Jewish self-definition. 48 From the data presented above, it should be possible to consider whether Paul’s address in 2: 17 is directed, not at a native or historical-ethnic Jew, but specifically at a Gentile who calls himself or wants to call himself a Jew - a jewishish Gentile or an ex-pagan Gentile. This would be the kind of person who acts the part of a Jew and is considered as a proselyte or a potential one, from an intra-Jewish perspective. In particular, this is suggested by Paul’s subsequent characterization (2: 25-27) of this person. Paul’s perception appears to be that such a person would merely be a circumcised Gentile, or a Jew of a peculiar sort, Romans 2: 17-24 127 <?page no="128"?> 49 I find it tragically ironic that on the same page, Sanders can write: ‘There is good reason to think that, although observing the law was not burdensome to Jews, it appeared onerous and inconvenient to Gentiles’. This statement concerns Galatians. He then turns to Romans: ‘It is striking that Paul applies this same principle to Jews … [because] it does not proceed from traditional Jewish messianic expectations’ (Sanders 1983, 29). Of course it appears striking and out of touch with contemporary Judaism, because Paul does not apply it to Jews. In Romans, Paul argues with a Gentile. at best. In Rom 4, Paul provides this Gentile with a bloodline reaching all the way back to Abraham, but in chapters 9 to 11 he still assigns a special position to native or historical-ethnic Jews, in God’s plan for the world. To further support the claim that the person Paul addresses in 2: 17 is a Gentile there is the fact that none of the scholars who claim that the interlocutor in 2: 17 is a Jew seem to consider the oddity of their claim that Paul addresses a Jew who calls himself a Jew. If the interlocutor really is a Jew, he does not need to call himself a Jew, because he is a Jew. Paul would not have to address a Jew in conditional terms about his Jewishness if he really was a Jew. It would be self-evident to a Jew that he is a Jew, and Paul would not question that. Therefore, we should consider the opposite: Paul is not addressing a Jew - he is addressing a Gentile who claims to be a Jew. 49 This discrepancy between name and deed echoes the hypocrisy of the judge in 2: 1 who does ‘the same things’ (τὰ τοιαῦτα) as those he judges. He acts sinfully despite appearances to the contrary. Consequently, the connection to, and continuation of the apostrophe (which develops into a dialogue in 2: 1ff. with the same Gentile interlocutor) becomes explicit. Evidently, Paul is still addressing the person from 2: 1ff., who still ex‐ hibits the deficiencies noted in 2: 1ff. The ‘you’ addressed in 2: 17 is the same ‘you’ as the one addressed in 2: 1-5. The interlocutor in 2: 17-29 claims to be something he is not, but even worse, he does the very things he tells others to not do. He is double-tongued, just like the person in 2: 1-5. On the face of it, the characterization of the person in 2: 17ff. differs in content from that in 2: 1ff., but that is to be expected. It would make no sense for Paul to repeat the earlier accusations; instead, he expands his criti‐ cism. Thus, it follows naturally from the progression of the discourse that Paul further elaborates his description in 2: 17ff. In essence, the characterization of the person in question is further developed and elaborated, rather than discon‐ tinued. Verses 2: 19-22 display the interlocutor’s pretence of being a model for others to imitate. The relationship to 2: 1-5 is evident, because the interlocutor judges or teaches others without judging or teaching himself (κρίνω and διδάσκω). He claims to be ‘a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of children’. Even though he claims 6 Romans 2: 1-29 128 <?page no="129"?> 50 Thorsteinsson states that scholars either tend to locate empirical evidence for Jews robbing temples (largely unsuccessful), or provide an allegorical reading appropriate for the context, or accommodate Paul’s words to fit as an accusation of ‘sacrilege’ (Thorsteinsson 2003, 213-214). 51 Jewett 2007, 229 52 Carras 1992, 201 53 Horn 2011, 219 54 In Jubilees, the Gentile sin par excellence is eating blood - i.e. eating meat that was not processed by Levites (Hanneken 2013, 3). However, as Hanneken points out, it was crucial for the author of Jubilees to connect or link the eating of blood to idolatry, because idolatry was such an important aspect of the description of the Gentile ‘other’ (Hanneken 2013, 19ff.). 55 E.g. 1 Macc 1 and 6; 2 Macc 3, 4: 39-50; 5, 6, and 9; 4 Macc 4; Dan 1; Josephus Ant. Jud. 12.359; Bel. Jud. 1.654-55; for non-Jewish attitudes toward temple-robbers, cf. Demos‐ thenes Tim. 119-120; Lucian Phal. 1.6; Plato Leg. 853D; Plutarch Sol. 17.1. 56 Cf. Sanders 1977, 400 to boast in the law, he dishonours God. Essentially, the fictive Gentile continues to display the characteristic Gentile conduct described in 1: 18-32, and specifi‐ cally from 2: 1 onwards. Many commentators have great difficulty making sense of Paul’s accusation in 2: 22b: ‘You that abhor idols, do you rob temples? ’ (ὁ βδελυσσόμενος τὰ εἴδωλα ἱεροσυλεῖς; ). 50 Robert Jewett writes that ‘the link with temple robbery is puz‐ zling…’ and he does not come up with an actual explanation of the half-verse. 51 George P. Carras suggests that ‘it is best not to take Paul’s intent literally since it cannot be said that Jews in general were temple thieves’. 52 In a 2011 article, Friedrich Horn does not know what to make of this accusation. He designates Paul’s claim ‘undeutlich’. 53 And if the interlocutor in 2: 17-29 is taken to be a Jew, the verse is very difficult to explain, since Jews were not known to rob temples at the time of Paul. Thus, such an accusation becomes difficult to con‐ textualize, and Paul would be crippling his case with such a claim. But if, on the contrary, the interlocutor of 2: 17-29 is taken to be a Gentile, then the accusation makes much more sense. In 1: 18-25, Paul accused the Gentiles of exchanging the glory of God with despicable images, and from a Jewish perspective idolatry was the Gentile sin par excellence (cf. Wisd. of Sol. 12: 23-14: 31). 54 Furthermore, the theme of plundering temples (specifically the temple in Jerusalem) is a well-known topos in contemporary Jewish sources, 55 and was often associated with idolatry. In the Psalms of Solomon, the psalmist laments in psalm 1 that ‘their [the Gentiles’] transgressions (went) beyond those of the heathen before them’ (Ps. of Sol. 1: 8), and in Psalm 2, the sinners are the foreign aggressors - obviously the Roman soldiers under Pompey: 56 Romans 2: 17-24 129 <?page no="130"?> 57 Cf. Thorsteinsson 2003, 213ff.; Garroway 2008, 131ff. 58 A significant parallel should be mentioned: In the Progymnasmata, Theon describes different ways to describe or characterize a persona by describing the actions that pre‐ cede a given case. Theon’s own example concerns a temple-robber and is, thus, similar to the case Paul presents. Prior to this temple robber’s ‘impieties towards the gods’ he has done many inappropriate things. Theon enumerates all these things, but does it merely as a text-book example of how it is possible to describe ‘this kind of person’ and make him into a character or persona. Consequently, Theon does not describe some specific person. Theon describes a way in which an author may characterize a certain ‘kind’ of person. Theon writes: ‘It is likely that the temple robber dared to do many things against human beings and many things against the dead and omitted many of the customary honours to the gods, such as festivals, sacrifices, and prayers, and it is likely he often gave false oaths, and similar things.’ (Theon 2003, 44 (English transl.); Theon 1997, 65 (Greek)) This description fits the person Paul characterizes almost too well. Could it be that at this point in the letter, Paul draws explicitly on his literary education while giving a typological description of a person who is ‘wrong’ in so many ways? Could it be that Paul’s literary education comes explicitly to the fore here, in his description of ‘this kind of person’ which the Progymnasmata knows as a temple robber? When the sinner waxed proud, with a battering-ram he cast down fortified walls, And Thou didst not restrain (him). Alien nations ascended Thine altar, They trampled (it) proudly with their sandals. (Ps. of Sol. 2: 1-2) Clearly, these foreign Gentiles are idolaters who are defiling the Temple. Thus, Paul asks the interlocutor in 2: 22b whether he claims to abhor idols, and thereby differ from other Gentiles (i.e. 1: 18-25) in his ‘showing off ’ his Jewish creden‐ tials, yet beneath his jewishish pretensions still engages in the stereotypical Gentile act of robbing temples. He claims to be a Jew, but nevertheless is guilty of the characteristic Gentile misdeed of ἱεροσυλεῖν. He wants to call himself a Jew, but nevertheless behaves like a Gentile. Thus, the spill-over effect of reading 2: 22b as addressed to a Gentile is that we are able to explain how Paul’s accu‐ sation fits an ancient Jewish understanding of Gentile sins. 57 Furthermore, such an accusation of a Gentile interlocutor would elaborate his character or per‐ sona, and add to the consistency of Paul’s characterization through προσωποποιία. 58 Another observation adds to the probability that Paul’s interlocutor is Gentile. Since the interlocutor is boastful, Paul drives home his point with a quotation from Isaiah 52: 2, which concerns Gentiles: ‘The name of God is blasphemed 6 Romans 2: 1-29 130 <?page no="131"?> 59 My claim concerning Paul’s use of the Isaiah quotation as hinting at a Gentile goes against the majority of interpreters. Nonetheless, the quotation fits Paul’s argument much better if directed at a Gentile instead of a Jew. After all, it is among the Gentiles that God’s name is blasphemed, because of the boastful Gentile. And the context of Isaiah 52: 2 parallels this: Gentiles oppressed Israel, which led God’s name to be blas‐ phemed among the Gentiles. 60 Stanley Stowers argues that Paul’s censure of the interlocutor in 2: 17ff. constitutes the centre of this argument, because Paul thereby exposes and displays the Jewish teacher’s own inability to follow the law (Stowers 1994, 34). So Paul’s censure would be, ‘How dare you presume to improve the Gentiles, when you do not even improve yourself ? ’ However, the weakness of this position is that it falls back on the ‘old’ perception of Judaism as legalism. among the Gentiles because of you’. 59 What must be noted here is that Paul is not saying that it is wrong to boast in the law. In light of my interpretation, what Paul points out is the inconsistency between the interlocutor’s boasting and his actions. And this inconsistency gives jewishish Gentiles a bad name among other Gentiles, and causes the name of God to be blasphemed. Because of the boastful Gentile’s jewishish behaviour among other Gentiles, the name of God is blas‐ phemed. And no Jew would allow that. With this accusation, Paul confirms the thematic and rhetorical coherence of chapter 2 with the use of κρίνω: In 2: 1, Paul addresses the Gentile interlocutor, because he judges others. But because of the inconsistency between his words and deeds, he himself will be judged by truly jewishish Gentiles, (Gentile-)Jews, or ex-pagan Gentiles (κρίνω, 2: 27). Rom 2: 25-29 Paul continues the theme of name versus deeds (appearance vs. actions) in 2: 25- 29, but gives it a twist, to reflect the internal versus the external (ἐκ φύσεως, ἐν τῷ φανερῷ, ἐν σαρκὶ vs. ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ, καρδίας, ἐν πνεύματι). He applies the distinction of name versus deeds (internal vs. external) to the best-known sign of Jewishness, circumcision. This example makes perfect sense if the Gentile interlocutor presents himself as a jewishish Gentile or ex-pagan Gentile, and therefore considers circumcision, unless he was already circumcised. 60 Further‐ more, Paul’s use of the conjunction γάρ indicates that 2: 25-29 should be taken together with, or as a consequence of 2: 17-24. The conjunction οὖν in 2: 26 also indicates that Paul draws an inference from what precedes. Through these lin‐ guistic markers, the overarching continuity of chapter 2 becomes apparent, and, with it, the continuous elaboration of the character of the fictive Gentile inter‐ locutor. Also, 2: 25-29 constitutes a partial summary of 2: 6ff., and is parallel to Rom 2: 25-29 131 <?page no="132"?> 61 Cf. Snodgrass 1986, 80 62 On whether undergoing circumcision was ‘enough’ to be considered a Jew, Cohen writes: ‘in the city of Rome in the First century C.E., certainly in the latter part of the century, circumcision served as a marker of Jewishness’ (Cohen 1999, 44). 63 The majority of Jews at the time of Paul would have agreed with Paul’s explanation that circumcision was no guarantee of salvation. Boyarin confirms this view in A Radical Jew (1994, 92-93): ‘The privilege consists primarily in the guarantee that in the end of days they [the Jews] will be able to repent, and then God will restore Israel to its glory as he had promised to her ancestor [cf. Rom 11]… Jewish theology did not provide for justification on the basis of being Jewish alone, although there were some strains that came close to such a view’. 64 Nanos 2014, 39-53 2: 13-16. 61 Thus, Paul reiterates the point that a privilege (e.g. circumcision, the law) becomes significant only if it leads to obedience. But he also radicalizes the inverse logic: If those without this privilege obey, their uncircumcised state/ foreskin is considered as circumcision (2: 26). Paul will further comment on this privilege, or lack of it, in 3: 1-9. In 2: 25-29, Paul states that circumcision benefits one only if one obeys the law. Thus, the Jew or the circumcised jewishish Gentile who does not obey the law has become uncircumcised in God’s sight. Paul directs this point to the Gentile interlocutor. God no longer considers him a member of the covenant if he is disobedient. 62 Furthermore, the uncircumcised Gentile who obeys the law is considered to be circumcised and a member of God’s people (2: 26). The Gentile who is physically uncircumcised, but keeps the law, will judge the circumcised jewishish Gentile who breaks the law, even though the circumcised jewishish Gentile has the written code and is circumcised (2: 27). The reason (γάρ, 2: 28) that God does not reward circumcision is that such outer signs do not matter - only a spiritual circumcision of the heart matters (2: 29). 63 Those who manifest such a circumcision will be rewarded by God. The majority of scholars understand Paul to be writing about ‘real’ histor‐ ical-ethnic Jews and uncircumcised Gentiles in this passage. Even one of the ‘radicals’ (Mark Nanos) argues, in a 2014 article, that in this passage Paul ad‐ dresses ‘real’, historical-ethnic Jews and uncircumcised Gentiles. 64 However, given my analyses in chapter 2, from the extended argument in chapter 3 (which follows further down), and from contextual evidence in other Pauline letters, it makes more sense to argue that in this passage Paul addresses a purely Gentile distinction between circumcised and uncircumcised Gentiles. Thus, my inter‐ pretation forces the radical new perspective to be even more radical. In 3: 1-2 Paul states that circumcision is an advantage for the historical-ethnic Jews. Fur‐ thermore, in 11: 1 and Phil 3: 3ff. Paul confirms the value of his own circumcision, 6 Romans 2: 1-29 132 <?page no="133"?> 65 Also cf. 2 Cor 11: 21-22; 9: 4-5 66 Thorsteinsson 2003, 226 67 Cf. e.g. Deut 10: 16; Jer 4: 4; Ezek 44: 7; Jub 1: 23; Philo Migr. 92-93; Spec. 1.304-306 and he was a historical-ethnic Jew. 65 Also, in Gal 5 and 6, Paul discourages the circumcision of Gentiles. So from within the letter to the Romans, and from other Pauline letters, it makes sense to argue that Paul valued the circumcision of historical-ethnic Jews, but not of Gentiles. And I argue that Rom 2: 25-29 reads best as confirming this distinction. Thus, in 2: 25-29 Paul does not refer to the circumcision of historical-ethnic Jews, but to circumcised Gentiles, that is, pros‐ elytes. Paul’s idea would be that God’s plan for the Gentiles never was for them to be circumcised, even though God wants to include them (but only as Gentiles) in the covenant with Israel. In these verses, Paul opposes the circumcision of Gentiles because God has another plan for them. Circumcision would be val‐ uable to the interlocutor if he was supposed to follow the law. But he is not, since he is a Gentile. God has revealed another way for the Gentiles to be in‐ cluded in the covenant. Thus, what Paul is discussing is not circumcision per se, but the value of circumcision to the Gentile interlocutor. Runar Thorsteinsson notes: ‘Instead of being one of the ’doers of the law” who will be justified (v. 13), he [the interlocutor] is a mere ’hearer of the law”, who, despite his instruction from the law (v. 18), utterly transgresses it, and thus his circumcision is as good as worthless’. 66 Thus, the jewishish Gentile should not undergo circumcision to circumvent God’s plan for him. As Paul explains in 2: 28-29, it is the inward disposition that counts before God. 67 Thus, Paul reiterates the argument of 2: 15- 16 about Gentiles having the work of the law written on their hearts. The Gentile whose heart is circumcised is a ‘real’ jewishish Gentile, whereas the Gentile who is only a Jew ἐν τῷ φανερῷ will receive praise only from men. In conclusion, Paul’s dialogue in 2: 1-29 reads perfectly as the staging of προσωποποιία with a delusional, jewishish Gentile who presents himself as a Jew. This conclusion accentuates the coherence and progression of the discourse. Continuity from chapter 2 to chapter 3 If Paul addresses the same interlocutor in 2: 1ff. and in 2: 17ff., it is very probable that he remains the same in 3: 1 and throughout the rest of Romans. Such an inference concerns the rhetoric and style of the surface-level of the letter. At the thematic level of Paul’s discourse, several clues tell us that Paul continues his dialogue with the fictive Gentile interlocutor through a staging of Continuity from chapter 2 to chapter 3 133 <?page no="134"?> προσωποποιία. The themes of boasting (2: 17 and 3: 27-31), of accountability for sinful deeds (2: 6-16 3: 9-20), and of judging and judgment (2: 1 and 3: 4-8) return. The rhetorical strategy of chapter 3 also supports my coherent and continuous reading that Paul continues his dialogue with the Gentile interlocutor. 6 Romans 2: 1-29 134 <?page no="135"?> 1 Flebbe confirms the coherence of the passage, but does not see Paul debating with a Gentile (Flebbe 2008, 25ff.). 2 The passive form of προέχω renders the translation, ‘Are we [i.e. the Gentiles] at a disadvantage, then? ’ 7 Romans 3: 1-31 Rhetorical strategy of chapter 3 Let us move on to chapter 3 and examine the reach of the proposal of a coherent and unified reading of Romans, in light of the radical new perspective. Chapter 3 is structured according to four expressions by Paul: 1) Τί οὖν (3: 1); 2) Τί οὖν (3: 9); 3) Νυνὶ δὲ (3: 21); 4) Ποῦ οὖν (3: 27). The first section (Τί οὖν) (3: 1-8) follows from Paul’s preceding argument in 2: 25-29: If circumcision and Jewishness are inward things, then what advantage has the outward Jew - the historical-ethnic Jew? 1 Paul answers that there is indeed an advantage for the historical-ethnic Jew. He will further elaborate on the Jewish advantage in chapters 9-11, but at this point in the argument, Paul’s focus is not the Jewish advantage - it is ev‐ eryone’s accountability to God, and God’s righteousness (3: 5). This extends the claims of 2: 1-16. Therefore, instead of further elaborating on the Jewish (his‐ torical-ethnic) advantage, he questions the consequence of a potential Jewish advantage through the inverse case - namely, a Gentile disadvantage. Again, Paul’s point proves to be about God’s impartial righteousness towards, and judgement of both Jews and Gentiles (3: 9b). The second section of chapter 3 (3: 9-20) follows from Paul’s explanation of the first question: If there is indeed an advantage to being a historical-ethnic Jew, what then (Τί οὖν)? Are the Gentiles at a disadvantage? 2 No, for scripture has already charged that all are under sin: ‘None is righteous, no, not one…’ (3: 10-18) Consequently, Paul bolsters the claim that before God, neither Jew nor Gentile has an advantage or disadvantage when it comes to God’s judgement: Everyone is accountable. Whether you are under the law or lawless (2: 12-16, cf. 3: 19), no flesh will be justified by works of the law (3: 20). Therefore, it would be pointless to seek to be in the law, because all the law brings is knowledge of sin - at least for the Gentile. The third part of chapter 3 (3: 21-26) provides the answer or solution for the Gentiles to the claim that all are under sin. This is the climax of the first thematic <?page no="136"?> 3 Cf. Stowers 1994, 175; Rhyne takes 3: 20-30 together, and sees 3: 31 as a transition to 4: 1- 25 (Rhyne 1979, 61). part of Romans (3: 27-31 should be included): 3 Now, apart from the law, God’s merciful righteousness has been disclosed in Christ. The fact that all are ac‐ countable to God, and that all are sinners, might lead to the conclusion that no one stands a chance on the Day of Judgement. However, God has graciously provided a solution. God extends his righteousness to everyone - which here means Gentiles (despite their sinning) - through faith in (the faithfulness of) Jesus Christ. God acts thus because he wants to prove his righteousness (εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ, 3: 25) towards the Gentiles. In his forbearance (ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ) as a proof of his righteousness (πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ), God brought forth Christ, in order to show that He is righteous (εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον), also towards the Gentiles. Thus, in ex‐ tension of 3: 1 and 3: 9, Paul states that before the time of Christ, Jews had the advantage over Gentiles, ‘But now…’ (Νυνὶ δὲ) the playing field has been levelled. The fourth part of chapter 3 (3: 27-31) finally connects the theme of boasting (from chapter 2) to the consequences of the questions and solution from the opening of chapter 3. Without a verbatim repetition, chapter 3 forms a circular structure, because the jewishish Gentile or ex-pagan Gentile from chapter 2 has been deprived of his claim to ‘true’ Jewishness. In 3: 1, dispossession of the Gen‐ tile’s boasting provokes the question of what advantage the historical-ethnic Jew has. And in 3: 27, Paul follows up with the question of what becomes of the boastful qua jewishish Gentile of God and the law (cf. 2: 17, 23)). Paul explains how faith works for Jews and Gentiles, and the part the law plays for each. Thus, within the discourse of robbing the jewishish Gentile of his Jewish prerogatives (2: 1-29), Paul further establishes Jew and Gentile on equal footing regarding accountability to God: No one is righteous, so there is no place for boasting. There is a place for boasting, though, but that is intimately connected to Paul’s gospel of righteousness through Christ’s faithfulness in God’s mercy (cf. 5: 2-3, 11 and also Phil 1: 26). Paul does not reveal this aspect until Romans 5. To recapitulate: According to the proposed coherent reading of Romans 3, Paul places Jew and Gentile (3: 9) on equal footing, regarding accountability to God - Paul explicitly says so in 3: 19 (ὑπόδικος γένηται πᾶς ὁ κόσμος τῷ θεῷ). Romans 1: 18-2: 29 has stripped the boastful jewishish Gentile of all Jewish pre‐ rogatives, compared to other Gentiles. Romans 3: 1ff. continues this strategy, but widens the scope to also include the removal of Jewish prerogatives for histor‐ ical-ethnic Jews with regard to accountability to God - though not in light of Israel’s history with God, and that they were entrusted with the oracles of God 7 Romans 3: 1-31 136 <?page no="137"?> 4 Stowers 1994, 172f.; also cf. Dan 9: 16; 2 Macc 7: 38; and Albl 1999. 5 Cf. Lincoln 1994, 32f.; Wedderburn 2001 [1977], 195ff.; Larsen 2015, 272; Marxsen 1963, 85-100; Minear 1971, ix-x. 6 E.g. Engberg-Pedersen 2000, 22ff. (3: 2). Thus, to avoid the delusion that circumcision is insignificant, and that Israel’s history with regard to God does not matter, Paul has the interlocutor ask about these things (3: 1). Paul rejects the claim, and continues the dialogue with a focus on God’s privilege to judge righteously (3: 3-6). However, such an understanding of God’s righteous judgement was not something radically new, invented by Paul. Stanley Stowers mentions the Psalms of Solomon 9, and elab‐ orates on the common Jewish thought that Israel, like other nations, had sinned. 4 Therefore, God punishes Israel justly - just as he punishes the Gentiles. God is righteous, and neither Israel nor the nations will escape his judgement. Israel is God’s beloved, and all God’s actions serve Israel’s good. Where Paul radicalizes these common contemporary ideas is in equally distributing God’s punishment and reward to the Gentiles (2: 6-16, 25-29). Because of the equal distribution of punishment and reward, the jewishish Gentile interlocutor asks about the Jewish advantage (3: 1), and following Paul’s remarks (about the his‐ torical-ethnic advantage, which is not an advantage in light of accountability), whether the Gentiles are disadvantaged (3: 9). Thus, chapter 3 continues the theme of God’s righteousness and impartial judgement from chapter 2, with a view to everyone’s sinfulness, and the solution of this problem for Gentiles (3: 21-26). Israel had the (Mosaic) law as a means of expiating her sins - now the Gentiles have Christ. When we have established the identity of the Gentile interlocutor in chapter 2 and have also established how Paul continues his dialogue with him in chapter 3, it is easy to infer that through προσωποποιία, the dialogue with the fictive Gentile interlocutor continues by way of the already introduced rhetorical and stylistic features present in chapter 3 (Τί οὖν, Τί οὖν, Νυνὶ δὲ, Ποῦ οὖν). These stylistic markers persist all the way through to 11: 7 (Τί οὖν). This rhetorical and stylistic feature at the surface level of Paul’s discourse follows perfectly from what Theon explains about προσωποποιία: Whatever the author has the speaker say, he must present the speaker in a way that is consistent with what he said previously. In 12: 1, Paul opens a new section of Romans, guided by ex‐ hortations (Παρακαλῶ οὖν). Consequently, and as we propose here, at the sur‐ face level of Romans, everything runs smoothly from 1: 18 to 11: 36, and contin‐ uously from 12: 1. We do not have to read Romans from behind 5 or from some kind of implicitly inferred structure. 6 There are no unsuited digressions, where Rhetorical strategy of chapter 3 137 <?page no="138"?> 7 Cf. Käsemann 1980, 78; Campbell 1981, 23 8 Verses 3: 1-9 are not Paul’s existential debate with himself, as Dunn proposes (Dunn 1988, 129). 9 Stowers 1994, 166; Song 2004, 94ff.; also cf. Lohse 2003, 115ff. 10 Jewett (2007, 241) is very creative in his (traditional) explanation of the Jewishness in this verse. 11 It is difficult to determine whether Paul considers himself a Jew or a Gentile. In 1 Cor 9: 19-23, he claims to have become all things to all people. In 9: 20, he claims that to the Jews he became as a Jew; in 9: 21, he claims that to those without law, he became as without law. This could be taken to mean that, though a Jew, he became like a Gentile to win over Gentiles, thereby relinquishing his Jewishness. 12 The same kind of reasoning resonates throughout 3: 19-20. The law speaks to those who are in the law, and the purpose is to instil knowledge of sin, because no flesh will be justified before God through works of the law. So why take on the law? God has another plan for the Gentiles as Gentiles, namely, faith in Christ. Paul takes a breath before a conclusion, or gets ahead of himself. 7 There is one main argument, and Paul follows it calmly throughout. Unity, progression, and coherence mark his (diatribal) discourse. Romans 3: 1-8 In 3: 1, Paul continues to debate with the same Gentile as in chapter 2. 8 In 3: 1- 11: 36, Paul engages in an extended (diatribal) dialogue where the fictive Gentile and Paul exchange questions and answers. According to Stowers and Song, Paul’s style in chapter 3 is entirely diatribal. 9 The form is somewhat convoluted, but the overall meaning is relatively clear. Paul passes from general third-person language (3: 1-4), to the first-person plural (3: 5), to first-person singular (3: 5, 7), and finally, again to the first-person plural (3: 8-9). Verses 3: 1-4 support the claim that Paul is arguing with a Gentile. After all, why else would he refer to the Jews in third-person plural in 3: 2 (ἐπιστεύθησαν), when answering the Gentile’s question? 10 Paul includes neither the interlocutor nor himself in the Jewish people. 11 The Gentile’s question in 3: 1, provoked by the argument in 2: 25-29, concerns Jewish advantages: If circum‐ cision and Jewishness are inward, then what is the point of being Jewish out‐ wardly? 12 Paul verifies the historical-ethnic advantage of the Jews. The Gentile then asks again in 3: 3, ‘What if some of the Jews were unfaithful - will their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? ’ Paul rejects such an inference, and confirms Israel’s faithful covenant relationship with God, even though some 7 Romans 3: 1-31 138 <?page no="139"?> 13 Rhyne’s analysis of 3: 1-8 is admirable but inadequate to explain the stylistic and the‐ matic complexity of Paul’s argument (Rhyne 1981, 41-44). Furthermore, he brings an indictment against Jews only (Rhyne 1981, 64). Also cf. Haacker 1999, 76; Lohse 2003, 117 14 Cf. a similar argument in Ez 36: 17-36. Jews are unfaithful. Such claims represent traditional Jewish theology at the time of Paul, as we saw previously, for instance in 2 Macc 6: 14-16: 13 For in the case of the other nations (τῶν ἄλλων ἐθνῶν) the Lord waits patiently (μακροθυμῶν) to punish them until they have reached the full measure of their sins (μέχρι τοῦ καταντήσαντας αὐτοὺς πρὸς ἐκπλήρωσιν ἁμαρτιῶν); but he does not deal in this way with us (ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἔκρινεν εἶναι), in order that he may not take vengeance on us afterward when our sins have reached their height (ἵνα μὴ πρὸς τέλος ἀφικομένων ἡμῶν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὕστερον ἡμᾶς ἐκδικᾷ). Therefore he never with‐ draws his mercy from us (διόπερ οὐδέποτε μὲν τὸν ἔλεον ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀφίστησιν). Al‐ though he disciplines us with calamities, he does not forsake his own people (οὐκ ἐγκαταλείπει τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λαόν). This passage clearly starts from the assumption that at times, God disciplines his own people, but he does not forsake them. What Paul expresses in 3: 1-4 is an extension of this contemporary Jewish understanding. In 3: 5, the discourse changes, because the Gentile interlocutor includes him‐ self in the following question: ‘If our unrighteousness (ἡ ἀδικία ἡμῶν) serves to confirm God’s righteousness, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath (τὴν ὀργήν) [on us]? ’ The interlocutor (now speaking in the first person) naturally wonders whether the injustice or unrighteousness of the Gen‐ tiles (cf. 1: 18-32) impeaches God’s righteousness by leading God to punish Gen‐ tiles unfairly. The Gentile interlocutor echoes the discourse of 1: 18-32 about Gentile unrighteousness (ἀδικία, 1: 18, 29) and God’s wrath (ὀργὴ θεου, 1: 18; cf. 2: 5, 8), which confirms his identity as a Gentile through Paul’s staging of προσωποποιία. But Paul’s answer (3: 6) confirms God’s prerogative to judge the world, no matter how his righteousness comes about. Neither the unfaithfulness of some Jews (3: 3-4), nor that of Gentile ἀδικία (3: 5) will prevent God from faithfully fulfilling his promises to restore Israel and redeem the Gentiles - well-known Jewish theologoumena at the time of Paul. 14 Thus, Paul touches on both sides of the equation, which the change in pronouns reflects. Besides, 3: 5 does not constitute a universal affirmation of human sinfulness. Paul is not ex‐ plaining aspects of philosophical or universal anthropology, but God’s right‐ eousness (θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην, 3: 5) concerning the salvation of Gentiles. God’s merciful righteousness is the gospel (cf. 1: 1-3) concerning the Abrahamic Romans 3: 1-8 139 <?page no="140"?> 15 The allusion to the description of the quintessential Gentile sins of 1: 18-32 resonates heavily throughout these verses, e.g. the Gentile lie (ψεύσματι) and God’s truthfulness (ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ θεοῦ) recall 1: 25 (τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ψεύδει), which is closely connected to the glory of God (εἰς τὴν δόξαν αὐτου), which recalls 1: 23 (τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ). Thus, Paul is clearly arguing with the same Gentile. • • • • • • promise to the Gentiles, that is, that God will settle the Gentile’s situation (Gen 12: 3). Thus, 3: 5 does not inflict ontological sinfulness on the entire human race; it continues Paul’s discourse from chapters 1 and 2 concerning God’s righteous dealings with Gentiles and Jews at a specific historical moment, as a conse‐ quence of God’s game-changing event in Christ. Verse 3: 7 repeats the question from 3: 5, though now with a personal twist: ‘But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being judged as a sinner? ’ 15 And the Gentile goes on - in a freer tone - ‘Then why not just go off the rails and kick over the traces, because that obvi‐ ously confirms God’s righteousness? ’ The Gentile objection follows logically from Paul’s discourse throughout chapters 1 and 2, and reflects the consistency of the construction of the personification of the fictive Gentile interlocutor: If Gentile injustice and impiety help to bring about God’s righteousness, then sin‐ ning actually supports God’s plan - so why not just do evil, that good may come (3: 8)? Paul states that such an attitude leads to condemnation. According to my interpretation, the entire exchange between Paul and the fictive Gentile interlocutor may be presented thus: Interlocutor Then what advantage does the Jew have? Or what good is circumcision? Paul Much, in every way! Above all, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. Interlocutor What then if some [ Jews] were unfaithful? Will not their unfaithfulness annul the faithfulness of God? Paul God forbid! Let God be true and every man a liar, as it is written, ‘so that you may be justified in what you say, and win when you are challenged’. Interlocutor But if our [Gentile] unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say, then? Is God unrighteous when he expresses his anger? (I am speaking in a human way.) Paul 7 Romans 3: 1-31 140 <?page no="141"?> 16 Stowers 1994, 173f. Jewett reports that most translators and commentators take the middle form as active, thus meaning, ‘Have we an advantage? ’ (e.g. Lohse 2003, 120f.; Haacker 1999, 80; Byrne 1996, 119; Keck 2005, 94). However, Jewett regards it as a passive form, but still referring to ethnic Jews ( Jewett 2007, 256). 17 Gager misreads the question and imports the word ‘Jews’ to the translation, even though it figures nowhere in the Greek (Gager 2000, 118). The RSV also does this. Das also must maintain a Jew in 3: 9 (Das 2007, 89 n147). 18 The RSV, NRS, Haacker (1999, 79), de Boer 2013, 19, and Fitzmyer (1993, 324) include such translations. Commentators who omit ‘the power of ’: Jewett 2007, 253; Wither‐ ington 2004, 86; Moo 1996, 197; Byrne 1996, 115; Lohse 2003, 119 • • • • God forbid! How else would God be able to judge the world? Interlocutor But if the truthfulness of God is magnified by my [Gentile] falsity and increases his glory, why should I then still be judged a sinner? And shall we then say, as certain people also slanderously charge us with saying, ‘Let us do evil [as all Gentiles do] that good may come? ’ Paul [God forbid! ] Those who say such things will be justly condemned. Interlocutor What then? Are we [Gentiles] at a disadvantage? Paul Not at all… Romans 3: 9-20 Stanley Stowers makes a valid point when he takes προεχόμεθα (3: 9) as a passive term, meaning: ‘Are we at a disadvantage? ’ 16 The problem is that a Gentile asks the question, not a Jew. 17 Stowers should also be followed in seeing 3: 1 and 3: 9 as parallels. However, the parallel is structurally inverted, even though the question is similar. In 3: 1 the question concerns a Jewish advantage; in 3: 9 a Gentile disadvantage. Hence, 3: 9 follows logically from Paul’s confirmation of a Jewish advantage in 3: 2, but the Gentile now wants to know whether the Jewish advantage implies a Gentile disadvantage. Paul dismisses a Gentile dis‐ advantage, because everyone is under sin (ὑφ᾽ ἁμαρτίαν), just as it has been written (καθὼς γέγραπται). In light of my consistent reading it seems more appropriate to not translate πάντας ὑφ᾽ ἁμαρτίαν εἶναι as ‘everyone is under the power of sin‘. 18 Paul tends to understand sin as transgression or trespass, that is, specific behaviour by Romans 3: 9-20 141 <?page no="142"?> 19 I am aware of Gal 3: 22 and the universalistic-sounding statement that ‘scripture con‐ signed all things under sin’. But I regard Gal 3: 22 as an exception, compared to 1 Thess 4: 5; Gal 1: 4; 2: 15; 1 Cor 5: 1; 12: 2; 15: 3; 2 Cor 5: 21; 12: 22, so I do not let the Galatian meaning override the present Roman one. Furthermore, as Stowers explain, ‘the noun … sin appears forty-eight times in Romans and only ten times in the other letters. In Romans, it appears thirty times in chapters 6-7’ (Stowers 1994, 179). The argument Paul develops in 1: 18-3: 20 does not fit a universalist understanding of ontological sin, but concerns God’s righteousness and impartial judgement based on everyone’s account‐ ability - i.e. transgression of the (Mosaic) law. The overwhelming presence of sin in Rom 5-8 is based on Paul’s argument concerning the transformation of Gentiles, sinners by definition. 20 The example is taken from Stowers 1994, 202-203. 21 Schreiner provides a perfect example of reading sin as power, combined with univer‐ salizing individualism in both 1: 18-3: 20 and 7: 7-25 (Schreiner 1993, 66ff.; 84ff.). Also cf. Haacker (1999, 80f.) for a similar approach, and de Boer 2013, 16-17. 22 Jewett 2007, 259ff.; Hultgren 2011, 143; Stowers 1994, 176ff.; Garroway 2008, 141; With‐ erington 2004, 94f. specific people at historical times and places. 19 Furthermore, Ἰουδαίους τε καὶ Ἕλληνας πάντας does not necessarily mean: ‘Every single human being ever born’. The meaning may well be collective, as when all Israel is described as turning away from God, even though many faithful believers remain (cf. 11: 1- 6, 26). The meaning may also be: ‘All I spoke of earlier’, that is, the unfaithful Jews (3: 3) and the unrighteous Gentiles (3: 5 reiterating 1: 18-32). ‘All’ does not necessarily have to be a universalizing ‘all’, as in the utterance, ‘Penicillin is effective for everyone’, which logically applies only to those who are ill. 20 Thus, one should avoid reading sin as power, and combining it with universalizing individualism in the text. That does not fit the flow of 1: 18 to 3: 20, where some Gentiles live by the law (2: 14-15), and some Jews have been disobedient (3: 3). 21 However, ὑφ᾽ ἁμαρτίαν does mean something like ‘subject to sin’. But it should instead be understood in a historical perspective, rather than an ontological one. God has planned the course of history in such a way that Jews and Gentiles alike would be trapped under sin, whereby all the peoples of the earth will be shown mercy and be blessed equally (though in different ways, and from different sources). This current state of affairs, planned by God, is what justifies Paul’s gospel, that is, God’s just and merciful righteousness. In chapters 9-11, Paul further elaborates on the fact that not only Gentiles, but also Jews, have been temporarily consigned to disobedience by God, so the Gentiles may be saved. But 9-11 does neither witness to the disobedience of all Jews or Gentiles. Scholars seem to agree that Paul has carried over the scriptural catena (3: 10- 18) from a previously assembled piece of Jewish apocalyptic literature. 22 Paul has rehearsed these verses before, and now brings them in as weighty arguments 7 Romans 3: 1-31 142 <?page no="143"?> 23 Rhyne correctly identifies the law as the Mosaic Law, but misses Paul’s Gentile per‐ spective (Rhyne 1981, 64). supporting the claim that everyone is under sin. I agree. In 3: 19-20, Paul resumes his dialogue wherein 3: 19-20 should be taken together with 3: 9, and not as a separate passage. What opened as an apostrophe in 2: 1, and turned into a dia‐ logue in 3: 1, continues here as Paul’s discussion with the Gentile interlocutor: ‘We know, that is, that whatever the law says, it says to those who are within the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God’. As in 3: 9, in 3: 19 Paul speaks from a first-person-plural perspective, now about those who are in the law (τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ), as though the Gentile interlocutor was outside. Even though Paul understands the law as something good (cf. 7: 12, 14, 16), it becomes something bad for the Gentile, because it was not intended to bring the Gentile into a right relation to God. Christ’s faithfulness fulfils this purpose, and manifests God’s righteousness apart from the law (χωρὶς νόμου, 3: 21), to which Paul turns next. Furthermore, the overarching theme throughout chapters 1-3 - everyone’s accountability - resurfaces. The flow of the text re‐ flects a well-arranged rhetorical strategy on Paul’s part, with scriptural quota‐ tions leading to a conclusion. Verse 3: 20 elaborates on everyone’s accountability, by stating that no flesh will be justified in God’s sight by works of the law, because the purpose of the law is knowledge of sin (ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας). Thus, Paul drives home to the Gentile the point that it is futile and stupid to seek to become a Jew. There is no escaping sin - not even in the (Mosaic) law. 23 Neither Jew nor Gentile can live up to God’s standards. All are sinners. When Gentiles take on the law, they get only the knowledge of sin, because that is what the law serves to facilitate for Gentiles. Even though Paul includes Jews as sinners (on equal terms with Gentiles (cf. 1: 18-32)) in the scriptural string (3: 10-18), in 3: 19-20 he returns to the argument of talking the Gentile interlocutor out of being or becoming a Jew. Clearly, 3: 19- 20 concerns the question of Gentile inclusion in the covenant between God and Israel. Paul seems to say - to paraphrase: ‘If you choose (traditional) Judaism and the (Mosaic) law, you will not be justified before God, because the law only makes you aware of your sins. After all, that is what the law says to those who are in the law (τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, 3: 19) - as I just showed you through the scriptural quotations’. Paul knows that the law is good and holy and spiritual for the Jews, Romans 3: 9-20 143 <?page no="144"?> 24 Just as the Jewish groups at the time of Paul took the law to be a positive gift from God and part of the covenant, Paul understands the law as a blessing for the Jewish people. The law includes the institutions of repentance and atonement, whereby Israel main‐ tains a right relation with God. In contrast, or additionally, the law does not show the Gentiles how to live in the Jewish covenant with God; it chronicles their sin and disa‐ vowal of God. God never intended the law as a way to redeem the Gentiles who rejected him. Thus, the law has a dual effect: 1) The law constitutes or facilitates the covenant between God and Israel; 2) The law brings knowledge of sin and anger against Gentiles. In chapter 7, Paul also adds a function of the law for the Gentiles, since the law actively promotes sin, rather than just providing knowledge of it. Schreiner does not see this distinction in Paul, and states that the law cannot justify, because humans are unable to keep the entire law (Schreiner 1993, 65). 25 According to Das, Jews at the time of Paul took ‘the law as requiring strict and perfect obedience’ (Das 2001, 8). Das advances this point to correct Sanders’ view of covenantal nomism; even though covenantal nomism underlies the majority of Judaism from 200 BCE to 200 CE, the law still requires strict and rigorous obedience. Also, according to Das, in Gal 3, 4 and 2 Cor 3 Paul argues that there is no salvific capacity to the old covenant. This further distinguishes Paul’s perspective from covenantal nomism. 26 Sanders 1983, 105-106 but that is not the function of the law for the Gentile. 24 For the Gentile, the law brings knowledge of sin. Still, Paul brings in the catena to show to the Gentile that Jew and Gentile alike are now on equal footing. Thus, the law seems to hold two mutually exclusive and contradictory meanings: The law is good for the Jews, and useless for the Gentiles. Still, the law also expresses God’s standards and righteousness for Gentiles, and, besides, it bears witness to God’s right‐ eousness for the Gentiles in Christ (3: 21; cf. 9: 30-10: 4). 25 Thus, the law is in force, but it is also not in force. The law means one thing for Jews (inside), but another thing for Gentiles (outside). Thus, Paul’s presentation of the function of the law for Gentiles seems like a paradox, here in the words of E.P. Sanders: ‘Election and salvation are by God’s grace, while reward and punishment correspond to deeds’. 26 The paradox lies in the fact that election and salvation effectuate a life of the spirit, which conforms to the law. Also, the reward and punishment that corresponds to deeds is measured by the law. Thus, the law plays a part on both sides of the equation, even though God elects and saves by grace and mercy. This means that some parts of the law do not concern Gentiles, even though it still does as an expression of God’s standards. That is why ‘works of the law’ will not justify any Gentiles before God, but only bring knowledge of sin (3: 20). Still, this constellation in which the law figures on both sides of the equation does not reflect a paradox, because there is no conflict between God’s mercy and justice. Thus, what seems to be a paradox must not be taken as constituting a paradox. It should instead be seen as something separate, though related. 7 Romans 3: 1-31 144 <?page no="145"?> What creates the apparent problem just described is the absence of Paul’s explanation of the Jewish relationship to Christ. But this absence is only natural and logical in the rhetorical outline of the letter, because Paul writes as the apostle to the Gentiles, to Gentiles in Rome, about the Gentile situation, staged through a dialogue with a fictive Gentile. Only incidentally does Paul drop a hint or two of Israel’s situation. Nevertheless, Israel does have a relation to Christ. If the Jews did not have a relation to Christ, Peter could not be apostle to the Jews. However, Israel’s relation to Christ differs from the Gentiles’ relation to Christ. When Paul touches on Israel’s relation to Christ, he avoids language that conflates the two. The separate but related ways of Jew and Gentile become clear in 3: 30: Israel continues to live by the law, whereas the Gentile life of the spirit - which proceeds from Christ’s faithfulness - effectuates a righteous life in the law. I return to this shortly. For now, and in light of the reading proposed here, it suffices to state that in Romans, God’s righteousness concerns the redemption of the Gentiles, because God’s righteousness is manifested in the faithfulness of Jesus (Paul develops this in the following verses). Gentiles gain the new opportunity to enter the family of Israel through the faithfulness of Christ. Paul perceived the faithfulness of Jesus to be the fulfilment of God’s promise to Abraham. The syntagm ‘for all believers’ (εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας, 3: 22) refers to Gentiles. The dominant theme in these verses concerns the redemption of the Gentiles. God’s divine righteousness reveals itself as that through which God expiates or passes over sins - that is, Gentile sins (3: 25). Romans 3: 21-26 In 3: 21ff., Paul provides the answer to the problem created by the equalization of Jew and Gentile, caused by sin. Now (Νυνὶ δὲ), in those days (of Paul), God’s merciful righteousness towards the Gentiles had become manifest precisely as the inference of the current situation explained by Paul in the preceding chapters, because God wishes to prove himself righteous towards the Gentiles. God’s righteousness to the Gentiles is not the righteousness obtained through the law, even though the law and the prophets bear witness to it. Instead, God’s merciful Romans 3: 21-26 145 <?page no="146"?> 27 I am aware of the πίστις Χριστοῦ debate, and the discussion concerning whether the genitive should be subjective or objective. The decisive point is that the person of Christ is not faith’s object - God is. Paul was a monotheistic Jew, and he would not have believed ‘in’ Christ. Because of the faithfulness of Christ, God vindicated the life of Christ in His death and resurrection. The faithfulness of Christ is what changes the situation for the Gentiles, and by living ‘in’ him they receive the opportunity to become righteous before God. The ‘faithfulness of Christ’ is a shorthand perception for the understanding of ‘Christ’s obedience unto death, Christ’s servanthood and self-giving in obedience to God’. Paul believed that God had regarded Christ’s faithfulness as an act of reconciling those (Gentiles) who were enemies to him. I am convinced that Sam K. Williams and Richard Hays have shown that the subjective genitive is correct (Wil‐ liams 1987, 431-447; Hays 1983) and, hence, that the words concern ‘the faithfulness of Christ’. For the πίστις Χριστοῦ debate cf. Harrisville 2006, 353-358; Schenck 2008, 524- 537; Peterman 2009, 163-168; Hooker 1989, 321-342; Matlock 2002, 300-318; Easter 1994, 265-285; Wallis 1995. The passages generally in view concerning πίστις Χριστοῦ are: Gal 2: 16, 20, 3: 22; Rom 3: 22, 26; Phil 3: 9. 28 That Jews would suffer for evil they did was common to Judaism at the time of Paul, cf. Dan 9: 16; 2 Macc 7: 38. righteousness has come by means of Jesus’ faithfulness. 27 This faithfulness, which Gentiles are supposed to live within by living in the spirit, is not some‐ thing the sinner must do to be saved. Instead, it is a response to God’s justifying righteousness, where he reveals himself as, and proves himself to be righteous through Jesus’ faithful death. Christ is not intended to be the passive object of the believer’s faith; rather, Christ is an agent of faithful and obedient action, in his life, death, and resurrection. Consequently, Paul (of course) expects Gentiles to be faithful, but this faithfulness is not what makes the believer righteous before God. The faithfulness that makes the believer righteous before God is that of Abraham and Christ, and it relates to the way God establishes relation‐ ships with people. Abraham’s and Christ’s faithfulness is salvific, generative, and obedient, and that is what justifies the Gentile. Thus, the faithfulness of Abraham/ Christ is not unrelated to the faithfulness of the believer; rather, they are complementary components of God’s plan to save ‘all Israel’, including the faithful and jewishish Gentiles. This understanding supports the fact that no‐ where does Paul lay any particular weight on faith as a virtue. Also, the term is conspicuously absent from Paul’s discussion of a life in Christ, in chapters 5 to 8. It is important here to neither individualize nor to universalize, but to stick with Paul’s explanation of the existing situation. ‘All’ (πάντες) qualifies Gentiles and unfaithful Jews (3: 3, 5), because there is no distinction (διαστολή) between Israel and the Gentiles. They have all sinned, so not only Jews are worthy of God’s mercy, but also Gentiles. 28 Paul concentrates on the Gentiles, and therefore 7 Romans 3: 1-31 146 <?page no="147"?> 29 I find it puzzling that Stowers can point out that in 3: 25b Paul recalls his warning to the presumptuous Gentile in 2: 5, yet still maintain that Paul debates a Jewish teacher of Gentiles (Stowers 1994, 204). explains that God has passed over the former sins of the Gentiles (τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων, 2: 25). That all 3: 21-26 syntactically depends on, and explicates, ‘now God’s merciful righteousness has been made known’ in 3: 21, sustains Paul’s Gentile focus. To demonstrate his righteousness, God has put forth Jesus as an act of conciliation (ἱλαστήριον). Christ serves as the means for Gentiles to atone, just as the law serves as the means for Israel to atone. Paul upholds separate but related forms of relationships of Jews and Gentiles to the God of Israel, and they have separate means of staying within God’s saving election, even though they function in parallel ways. God has executed this arrangement to show his righteousness and to prove in the present time (ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ, 3: 26) that he is righteous, and that he justifies the one who lives out of Jesus faithfulness (τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησου, 3: 26). God passed over the former sins of the Gentiles because of his forbearance, patience, or self-restraint (ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ, 2: 26 cf. 2: 4). Thus, Paul tells the Gentile that God has used Jesus’ faithfulness to deal with Gentile sin, to demonstrate his righteousness at the right time in history, so the Gentile may be just/ righteous apart from the law. By this action God has set his reputation as righteous at stake, as he has held back his judgement because of his divine forbearance. By echoing 2: 4 and the initial apostrophe to the Gentile in 2: 1-5, Paul invokes God’s attributes of pa‐ tience towards, and goodness (τῆς μακροθυμίας and τὸ χρηστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, 2: 4) to the Gentiles. 29 The above-presented interpretation of 3: 21-26 is further supported by the fact that this passage does not concern justification by faith. This passage con‐ cerns God’s righteousness. This passage concerns the point that God wants to prove himself righteous by extending his mercy to the Gentiles. God’s right‐ eousness is presented five times (! ) in these few verses: in 3: 21 (δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ), in 3: 22 (δικαιοσύνη δὲ θεοῦ), in 3: 25 (τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτου), in 3: 26 (τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ), and again in 3: 26 (δίκαιον). The fundamental point of this passage is that God is righteous and wishes to prove this. God acts through Jesus to prove himself righteous (εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτου, 3: 25). Paul repeats this by stating that God, in his forbearance, proves his righteousness (ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ, πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ, 3: 26) that he may be righteous (εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον, 3: 26). According to Paul, there is no doubt: God can prove himself righteous only by extending his mercy to the Gentiles, just as he had already promised Abraham. Only by keeping his promise to justify the Gentiles can he prove himself righteous, and that is why he brought Romans 3: 21-26 147 <?page no="148"?> 30 Cf. Byrne 1996, 135 forth Christ as a means of expiation. Hence, Paul’s point is not that believers are justified by faith; Paul’s point is that God extends his mercy to the Gentiles by keeping his promises. This interpretation focuses on the character of the relationship between God and the Gentiles, and makes this parallel to God’s covenant relation with Israel, where he proves himself to be righteous by keeping them as his beloved people. Romans 3: 27-31 Earlier scholarship on Romans preferred to read 3: 27-31 as an incongruous di‐ gression. 30 However, I would like to emphasize the continuity of chapters 1-3, and the flow of the text, even at the surface level. According to my interpretation, 3: 27-31 smoothly fits the flow of the discourse, and repeats both themes and style of earlier verses and chapters. In 3: 27, Paul resumes the question-and-answer-style of the (diatribal) dia‐ logue with the fictive Gentile who wants to know what becomes of the boasting (in the law and circumcision)? The question recalls the interlocutor’s claim to boast in God and the law (2: 17, 23) as a Gentile (! ), in contrast to other Gentiles - one of the main reasons for Paul’s exhortations in Romans. This also presents the interlocutor as a consistent character through προσωποποιία in Romans. However, as a specific question at this point in the dialogue, 3: 27 is provoked by Paul’s statements in 3: 21-26 that all have become equal before God. In ad‐ dressing this question, Paul clarifies that boasting is excluded (ἐξεκλείσθη) by the law of faith (διὰ νόμου πίστεως). Thus, the Gentile has lost any basis for boasting in God and the (Mosaic) law before other Gentiles, because of the faithfulness of Jesus. For Gentiles, justification comes through the faithfulness of Jesus, apart from works of the law (χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου), because God is the God of Jews as well as the Gentiles, as God is one (εἴπερ εἷς ὁ θεὸς). Inasmuch as Gentiles are ‘in Christ’, works of the law are futile, and there is no basis for boasting. God will justify the circumcised on the grounds of (ἐκ) faith, and the uncircumcised through (διὰ) faith. Faith renders Jew and Gentile equal before God, because through Christ’s faithfulness the law is fulfilled, and the Gentile is rendered righteous. The Jew must walk faithfully in the covenant, just as the Gentile must walk faithfully in Christ. There is only one God, and he is the God of Jews and Gentiles alike, regardless of the existence or lack of any historic 7 Romans 3: 1-31 148 <?page no="149"?> 31 Cf. Stowers 1994, 215 32 Stowers 1994, 235 33 Rhyne is correct on this point (Rhyne 1981, 70). However, he ascribes the sole purpose of this to the meaning of Christ. I agree with this only partly, because Christ has sig‐ nificance for Gentiles only, whereas the law - if followed faithfully - has a similar function for Jews. God is the God of Jews and Gentiles equally (3: 29), and he will justify both Jew and Gentile if they relate to him faithfully. If Jews follow the law through works instead of through faith, they fail to relate to God correctly. Gentiles relate to God through the faithfulness of Christ, and from this perspective the law is upheld, though, obviously, not as a way to justification. advantage. By means of Christ’s faithfulness, the historical imbalance between Jew and Gentile is eliminated. Paul’s use of νόμος in 3: 27-31 is tricky. In particular, 3: 27 and the staccato-like style pose problems (διὰ ποίου νόμου; τῶν ἔργων; οὐχί, ἀλλὰ διὰ νόμου πίστεως). The RSV translates νόμος as ‘principle’ but that conflicts with Paul’s use in 3: 19, 20, 21, 31, and throughout chapter 4. 31 Furthermore, if νόμος does not refer to scripture or the (Mosaic) law, then οὐχί, ἀλλὰ διὰ νόμου πίστεως just means ‘faith’, without νόμος actually signifying or qualifying anything. The meaning of νόμος must be consistent, and must refer to the Mosaic Law in both instances. Otherwise, the difference would require an unwarranted transfor‐ mation of the meaning of νόμος. Stowers tries to keep the meaning of νόμος as ‘law’, but extends the range of meaning to ‘teaching from the law‘. 32 No matter how we translate νόμος, we must agree that both Paul and his interlocutor are justified in their claims that boasting (potentially) is excluded, either through the law of works or the law of faith. Despite the fact that Paul corrects the interlocutor’s question in 3: 27, and confirms that boasting is excluded through the law of faith, the interlocutor’s question is genuine. Thus, the law must si‐ multaneously encompass works and faith or, more precisely, be qualified by an approach through either works or faith. Consequently, what Paul specifies in this exchange is that the same (Mosaic) law may be viewed from different per‐ spectives, or comprise different approaches. Paul does not hold a dual concept of the law, but he asserts a difference in the ways in which one perceives it (cf. 9: 31-32). 33 The way out of the foregoing impasse lies in recognizing that Paul assumes that Jew and Gentile have similar but different relationships to Christ and the Romans 3: 27-31 149 <?page no="150"?> 34 To me, Garroway seems to construct an inconsistency in Paul’s thinking between 1-4 and 9-11. According to Garroway, 4: 1-12 constitutes the conclusion to 1-4, and Paul’s purpose is this: ‘Paul’s goal in 4: 1-12 is to secure the absolute obliteration of distinction between Jews and gentiles in Christ…’ (Garroway 2008, 148) Thus, according to Gar‐ roway, Paul does not imagine separate though related ways to Christ for Jew and Gentile in 1-4. The problem arises when Garroway wants to make this exact claim concerning 9-11. As he writes: ‘In the wake of faith, actual physical descent no longer matters for Paul, except to the extent that it still does’ (Garroway 2008, 244). 35 Cf. Stowers 1994, 241; Visscher 2009, 130f.; Johnson Hodge 2007, 79ff. According to Hultgren (2011, 172f.) the distinction between ἐκ πίστεως and διὰ τῆς πίστεως is purely rhetorical or stylistic. Hultgren bases this on the observation that up to this point in Romans, Paul has consistently emphasized that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile with regard to justification. Thus, according to Hultgren, it would be unlikely that Paul made such a distinction at this point. law, which corresponds to his use of language regarding faith in 3: 30. 34 The context reveals that in 3: 22 Paul uses διά to announce that God has included believers διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. In 3: 25, he further states that this was a conciliatory act through the faithfulness in his (i.e. Christ’s) blood (διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι). Both examples concern God’s acceptance of Gen‐ tile believers. Thus, the last part of 3: 30 follows logically from the preceding, and means that God will justify the Gentiles (uncircumcised/ foreskin) through their faithfulness (διὰ τῆς πίστεως). Furthermore, in 3: 31 the interlocutor asks whether the law is suspended, annulled, or subverted by this faith (διὰ τῆς πίστεως), and he repeats the statement concerning how the Gentiles become justified. Paul rejects such an inference, and states that, on the contrary, God’s justification of Gentiles διὰ τῆς πίστεως may mean the suspension of the law. But according to Paul, it does not. What, then, about ἐκ πίστεως? In 3: 26, Paul uses ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ about Gentiles, which is clear from the beginning of the sentence, because Paul ex‐ plains that at this time, God sets things straight, that is, through Christ, God resolves the Gentile predicament. In 4: 14, Paul speaks of those who are of the law (οἱ ἐκ νόμου), meaning the historical-ethnic Jews who live with the law. In 4: 16, he explains that God chose the present solution in Jesus to be based on faithfulness, so that it might be a matter of grace (ἵνα κατὰ χάριν). God chose this solution, because he did not want the promise (ἐπαγγελίαν) to be solely for those who are of the law (οὐ τῷ ἐκ τοῦ νόμου μόνον) (i.e. the circumcised and righteous historical-ethnic Jews), but also for those who are, or live out of the faithfulness (ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ἐκ πίστεως) of Christ (and Abraham). Thus, in these instances, Paul plays on the prepositions of lineage from a founding progen‐ itor. 35 God’s promise to the Gentiles ‘springs from’ Abraham’s and Jesus’ faith- 7 Romans 3: 1-31 150 <?page no="151"?> 36 Gager reaches the same conclusion (cf. Gager 2000, 111). fulness (Rom 4: 16; Gal 3: 22). However, Paul does not touch on how Israel fits into this pattern. Surely, Jews are blessed out of Abraham’s faithfulness as well as Gentiles, but Paul does not elaborate on this part of the equation. Thus, Paul’s pattern seems to be like this: Paul employs διὰ τῆς πίστεως consistently to il‐ luminate how Gentiles avoid God’s wrath through Christ’s expiating death. God acts righteously (just and merciful) towards Gentiles through Jesus, διὰ πίστεως. Furthermore, both Jews and Gentiles live ἐκ πίστεως, though in dif‐ ferent ways: Jews live ἐκ πίστεως of Abraham, and Gentiles live ἐκ πίστεως of Christ (and Abraham). Paul does not construct a generic group of ‘Christians’. Hence, in 3: 30, when Paul uses both ἐκ πίστεως and διὰ πίστεως the intent must be to explain that God will justify the circumcised (historical-ethnic Jews) ‘out of ’ faithfulness (ἐκ πίστεως) and not ‘through’ his (i.e. Christ’s) faithfulness (διὰ τῆς πίστεως). Consequently, historical-ethnic Jews still live in the covenant through their relation to Abraham. 36 Additionally, God will justify the Gentiles ‘through’ his (Christ’s) faithfulness (διὰ τῆς πίστεως), whereby he resolves the Gentile predicament, and rectifies his merciful righteousness. Continuity from chapter 3 to chapter 4 As we suggest here, Rom 3: 21-26 should be taken together with 3: 27-4: 25 as the rhetorical culmination of the argument in chapters 1-4. Verses 1: 18-3: 21 argue that God treats Jew and Gentile equally, whereas 3: 21-4: 2 announce how God has now acted impartially towards Gentiles, and made his righteousness known. The theme of God’s impartiality runs through 3: 21-4: 2, because God’s righteousness to all has been manifested through the faithfulness of Christ. There is no distinction (διαστολή, 3: 22) between Israel and the Gentiles, because all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. Paul’s resumed dialogue with the Gentile interlocutor establishes the subjects for the discussion of Abraham in chapter 4. Paul uses Abraham to illustrate how God effectuates his promises by founding lineages that incorporate whole peoples into the blessings made possible by the founding ancestor. Abraham, the founder of a blessed lineage, serves a purpose analogous to Christ, rather than as an example of saving faith. Thus, the continuation of chapters 1-3 into chapter 4 reveals how a group (the Gentiles) establishes kinship with God through Abraham - even a kinship ac‐ cording to the flesh. Continuity from chapter 3 to chapter 4 151 <?page no="152"?> At a linguistic level, the continuity appears obvious, because Paul continues the dialogue by way of Τί οὖν (4: 1). From 3: 1, 3: 9, 3: 21, and 3: 27 we know that Paul argues with a Gentile interlocutor, and he continues the dialogue in 4: 1, and it surfaces again in 6: 1 (Τί οὖν). Consequently, 4: 1-5: 21 present itself as a unit, and should be treated as such. The key figure in chapter 4 of Paul’s argu‐ ment that everything is laid out in the scripture (3: 21ff.) is Abraham. God prom‐ ised Abraham that he would be the father of many Gentiles. The promise to Abraham has now been fulfilled in Christ. 7 Romans 3: 1-31 152 <?page no="153"?> 1 Stowers 1994, 204 2 As claimed by Witherington 2004, 117ff.; Sanders 1983, 33ff.; Stuhlmacher 1989, 64ff.; Thielman 1994, 184; Das 2001, 204, 212; Haacker 1999, 97ff.; Lohse 2003, 146ff., Tobin 2004, 145ff.; Flebbe 2008, 163; Visscher 2009, 192. 3 Cf. the discussion of the history of interpretation in Schliesser (2007, 321ff.) and Visscher (2009, 135ff.). 8 Romans 4: 1-25 Romans 4: 1-12 Again, Stowers has a point when he argues that in 4: 1 Paul resumes the earlier dialogue. 1 But, also again, Stowers may be questioned when he takes the inter‐ locutor to be a Jewish teacher of Gentiles. It seems more appropriate to regard the interlocutor as the same Gentile interlocutor first addressed by Paul in 2: 1. The Gentile interlocutor in 2: 1 emerged from Paul’s description of the Gentile situation in 1: 18-32, and the address to the Gentiles of Rome in 1: 5 and 1: 13. In 4: 23-25, Paul explicitly incorporates the epistolary audience of the dialogue with the Gentile interlocutor by addressing them as ‘we’. Throughout chapter 4, Paul does not present the example of Abraham to discuss justification by faith; 2 Paul regards Gen 15: 6 as indicating the inclusion of Gentiles in the promise to Abraham, so in chapter 4 he discusses patrilineal descent from the founder of a lineage. Paul’s use of terms such as ‘Jews’ (3: 29), ‘the circumcision’ (3: 30; 4: 9), and ‘those of the law’ (4: 14, 16) suggests a focus on status, and not religious attitude or behaviour. By following this line of interpretation, it becomes clearer that Paul is, indeed, arguing with a Gentile interlocutor about the Gentiles’ re‐ lationship to God - as a people, what is their status before the God of Israel? The conclusion in 4: 23-25 supports this view, because Paul addresses the epis‐ tolary audience as ‘we’ (ἡμᾶς), which clearly expresses an ‘I, Paul’ and ‘you Gentile believers in Rome’. Abraham serves to illustrate how God fulfils his promise and incorporates whole groups into the blessings made possible by a founding ancestor. Christ serves a similar purpose for the Gentiles, and because of him, Gentiles become brothers and sisters of Christ, heirs of Abraham, and children of God. Historically, 4: 1 has presented difficulties in terms of interpretation. 3 Scholars have struggled to identify not only what Paul is asking, but also who poses the question - Paul or an interlocutor? Joshua Garroway argues that 4: 12 reads as <?page no="154"?> 4 Garroway 2008, 114-117. As far as I know, Garroway is the only one to present the following argument. 5 Cf. Hays 1985, 84. Schliesser misunderstands this, and regards Rom 4 as offering ‘the foundation of a new definition of the people of God’ in a universalistic sense (Schliesser 2007, 371f.). 6 Rhyne, Tobin, and Lohse take Abraham to have found or gained something (Rhyne 1981, 76; Tobin 2004, 146; Lohse 2003, 145ff.). 7 Hays 1985, 77 8 Gaston also follows Hays, and translates: ‘Have we obtained Abraham as our forefather according to the flesh? ’ Obviously, Gaston imagines a Gentile asking the question (cf. Gaston 1987, 125). 9 Cf. the way Schliesser (2007, 310ff.) sees connections between 3: 21ff. and chapter 4. the (first, cf. 4: 16 and 4: 23-4) culmination of the question posed in 4: 1, and that the answer to the question reveals the questioner. 4 Consequently, by testing the question of 4: 1 with the answer of 4: 12 (and 4: 16 and 4: 23-4), it becomes clear who asks, what is asked, and what the answer is. The overall perspective is that 4: 1-12 does not concern justification by faith, but what it means to be included in the family of Israel and to be part of the Abrahamic heritage. 5 Verse 4: 9ff. supports this reading, because it addresses Abraham’s paternity, not the mode of his salvation. Also, if, through the example of Abraham, Paul can convince the Gentile interlocutor that he should not live like a Jew because he is a Gentile, yet he can still claim Abraham as a forefather - even according to the flesh - then the basis of an incitement to boast of his Jewishness in front of other Gen‐ tiles (and, potentially, Jews) will be in vain. And that is precisely the purpose Abraham serves in Rom 4. When deciphering 4: 1, the first problem encountered concerns the translation of εὑρηκέναι and what it refers to syntactically. Does it refer to something Abraham has found (accusative with infinitive construction), or to what someone has found about Abraham (Abraham as the object of a nominative with infinitive construction)? First, we should consider why Paul would use the per‐ fect tense instead of the aorist to describe something Abraham has found; sec‐ ondly, why would Paul have Abraham finding anything at all? 6 Richard Hays notes that it would be awkward for Paul to indicate something Abraham has found, because nothing leads up to it. 7 Consequently, Hays makes Abraham the object, and the questioner, the finder. I agree with Hays in this, although Hays does not regard the questioner as a Gentile. 8 In order to better understand 4: 1, we need to link it to the preceding and subsequent discussions in a thoroughly consistent way. 9 Verses 3: 27-31 concern Paul’s affirmation that God is one and that he treats Jews and Gentiles even‐ handedly. The logical (although exaggerated) inference of such a proposition for 8 Romans 4: 1-25 154 <?page no="155"?> 10 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν appears an additional five times as a separate question (3: 5; 6: 1; 7: 7; 9: 14; 9: 30). In 9: 30, Paul does not oppose the question with μὴ γένοιτο, because the inference of the question is true. The same applies in 4: 1 11 Garroway dubs γάρ in 4: 2: ‘a post-positive γάρ’ (Garroway 2008, 149). 12 Schliesser’s attempt to explain 4: 1-2 is admirable, but he imputes too much to the text (2007, 325ff.). a Gentile who wants to be a Jew is: ‘have we (the Gentiles) then (also) found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh? ’ The surprising - but ex‐ tremely coherent and consistent - answer is: Yes. 10 Following Paul’s earlier ar‐ gument, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile (3: 22, cf. 10: 12). As Paul explains in 2: 26, if an uncircumcised man (ἡ ἀκροβυστία) keeps the just re‐ quirements of the law (τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου), then his foreskin (ἡ ἀκροβυστία) will be regarded as circumcision (περιτομὴν). Such a claim may lead to the conclusion that an uncircumcised man may have Abraham as a fore‐ father, even according to the flesh. This may reflect a rather fluid or flexible perception of lineage and identity, but it is not implausible. Furthermore, note the appropriateness of the perfect tense in εὑρηκέναι when rendered thus: Christ’s death and resurrection, a past event, has had an effect on the present status of the Gentiles. This event leads the Gentile interlocutor to ask, in the perfect tense, whether he has found Abraham to be his forefather according to the flesh, and, consequently, whether he may be part of the family of Israel, even as a descendant of Abraham. Paul concurs, as he continues with an explanation of the preceding claim by way of εἰ γὰρ. 11 Also, this explanation makes a smooth transition from 4: 1 to 4: 2, and that transition makes the explanation extremely plausible. 12 ‘For’ follows naturally from the preceding verse: ‘Have we (the Gen‐ tiles) found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh? ’ Paul answers: ‘[Yes], for if Abraham were justified by works, then he could boast, though not before God’. In 4: 2, Paul launches a defence of this claim, culminating (provi‐ sionally) in 4: 12. Paul begins an explanation of what it means to be included in the family of Israel and to be part of the Abrahamic heritage. Verses 4: 3-8 follow naturally as an explanation to the Gentile that God reckoned righteousness to Abraham because of his faithfulness. Paul supports this understanding of Gen 15 with Psalm 31. In 4: 9, Paul asks whether the blessing pronounced in Ps 31 corresponds to a circumcised or an uncircumcised Abraham. Paul states that righteousness was reckoned to Abraham before he was circumcised. Circumcision was given to him as a seal (σφραγῖδα, 4: 11) of his righteousness, afterwards. Consequently, Abraham becomes father to all who exhibit faith although uncircumcised, and Romans 4: 1-12 155 <?page no="156"?> 13 The attempts of some scholars to actually account for the two τοῖς in 4: 12 is admirable, but their attempt to solve the problem by making Abraham father of spiritual circum‐ cision belies his physical circumcision of 4: 11 as the grounds for his status: cf. Sweetnam 1980, 110-115; Byrne 1996, 150-151; Lohse 2003, 152; Witherington 2004, 125ff.; Rhyne 1981, 77, 82. Jewett explains the two τοῖς but cannot give a unified interpretation, as is the case with Schliesser ( Jewett 2007, 319ff.; Schliesser 2007, 364 n1033). 14 Cf. Gaston 1987, 124 15 Paul’s creation of a Gentile identity with Abraham as forefather according to the flesh should not be considered problematic, when we reflect on the numerous ways in which kinship and ethnicity were constructed in antiquity. Johnson Hodge’s work is especially illuminating (cf. Johnson Hodge 2007, chapter 1 (19-42)). However, considering her interpretation of Rom 4: 12, it seems tragically ironic that she did not conclude likewise when she reflected so heavily on the possibility (cf. Johnson Hodge 2007, 88 n27). Also, when we consider Paul’s exposition in 9: 6-13, it becomes evident that even if you are a descendant according to the flesh - like both Isaac and Ishmael - kinship according to the flesh is not decisive. Both were children of Abraham, but the promise pertains only to Isaac. These two instances testify to the plasticity and flexibility of ethnicity and kinship terminology in Paul. 16 Garroway 2008, 151 the focus here is Abraham as father, not righteousness through faith. 13 However, this aspect does not make Abraham exclusively a father of circumcision (πατέρα περιτομῆς, 4: 12) to (τοῖς) those who are circumcised. It also (and moreover for Paul’s case) makes Abraham a father of circumcision (πατέρα περιτομῆς, 4: 12) - even according to the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα, 4: 1) - to (τοῖς) those who imitate Abraham’s faith prior to his circumcision. 14 The (formerly problematic) presence of τοῖς twice in 4: 12 supports this explanation, and easily distributes the meaning of the verse, if we accept that Gentiles may have Abraham as their forefather according to the flesh, without being circumcised. 15 The duplication of τοῖς specifies that Abraham is father of circumcision to those who are circumcised, and also to those who emulate his faith although uncircumcised. Thus, 4: 12 states that Gentiles may claim Abraham as a forefather even according to the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα, 4: 1), because they share in his fleshly circumcision when they emulate the faithfulness for which he received that mark as a sign. 16 Faith‐ fulness is what matters (for Gentiles), not physical descent. Faithfulness allows Gentiles to share in Abraham’s circumcision in the flesh, which in turn makes him father of circumcision to them and, consequently, forefather according to the flesh (Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα, 4: 1). Read like this, 4: 1- 12 nicely continues the preceding verses, and repeats a claim already made in 2: 26: Observing the just requirements of the law makes a man’s penis as though it were physically circumcised. In 4: 16 and 4: 23-4 Paul repeats the claim that Abraham is forefather to two distinct groups (οὐ μόνον ἀλλὰ καί), which finally bolsters the unity, coherence, progression, logic, consistency, continuity, and 8 Romans 4: 1-25 156 <?page no="157"?> 17 I disagree with Moxnes that Paul’s frequent use of οὐ μόνον … ἀλλὰ καί indicates a situation of conflict (cf. Moxnes 1980, 48-49). 18 I disagree with Gaston that Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλλην (1: 16) should be translated as οὐ μόνον ἀλλὰ καί (Gaston 1987, 118). In fact, I think the meaning of 1: 16 should be based on the translation of οὐ μόνον ἀλλὰ καί. Paul forges a unity out of Jews and Gentiles by way of οὐ μόνον ἀλλὰ καί, but it is not a unity without distinctions. Chapters 9-11 confirm the higher rank of Jews, and Paul already indicates this in 1: 16, stating that the Jew comes first, and then comes the Greek (Gentiles) Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλλην. In terms of judgement, there is no distinction, but God still chose and showed mercy towards Israel first, and that privileges them in terms of social status. flow of chapters 1-4, and therefore supports my claim that throughout Romans, Paul argues with a fictive Gentile interlocutor through the rhetorical device of προσωποποιία. 17 Another observation that reinforces the foregoing interpretation (of both the Gentile interlocutor as questioner, and two distinct groups in 4: 11-12) is Paul’s restating of the claim in 9: 24 with the exact same terminological construction (οὐ μόνον ἀλλὰ καί). 18 In 9: 24, Paul supports this understanding with the quo‐ tation from Hosea 2: 5 that God will call those who were not his people his people. This argument is made in a passage that Paul begins in 9: 19 by turning directly to the Gentile interlocutor and addressing him - just as in 2: 1ff. - with ὦ ἄνθρωπε and σύ. Paul reiterates the theme of God’s great patience (ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ), which also echoes 2: 4 and the appeal to the Gentile to repent (also cf. 3: 26 and ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ). This theme returns in 11: 22, where the good‐ ness of God will ensure the Gentiles a place on the olive tree among the histor‐ ical-ethnic Israelites, if the Gentiles continue to live in the goodness of God (ἐπὶ δὲ σὲ χρηστότης θεοῦ, ἐὰν ἐπιμένῃς τῇ χρηστότητι). The three words used in 2: 4 to describe the goodness, patience, and forbearance of God (χρηστότης, ἀνοχή, μακροθυμία) return at strategically important places to repeat the initial appeal to the Gentile to repent and to not boast, either before other Gentiles, or before Jews. Consequently, by reiterating fundamental themes about God’s goodness and patience towards the Gentiles, Paul constructs a dialogue where the Gentiles (formerly ‘not-God’s-people’) become part of God’s people by being incorporated into the blessings and promises to Abraham. The two τοῖς in 4: 12 foreshadows the inclusion of ‘not-my-people’ into ‘my-people’. To recapitulate 4: 1-12: The point of this passage is to rule out any possibility of boasting as presented in 3: 27-31, and the culmination presents itself in 4: 12 by distinguishing between two distinct groups (τοῖς). This proceeds perfectly from the Gentile interlocutor’s question in 3: 27, where he asks what becomes of his boasting if justification comes through the faithfulness of Christ, and not Romans 4: 1-12 157 <?page no="158"?> 19 Schliesser rightly sees this, but misses the overall point (Schliesser 2007, 327ff.). 20 Several scholars have taken 4: 14 to be a decisive rejection of the law or salvation by the law. However, the meaning of 4: 14 is: If only adherents of the law are to be heirs, then faith is useless and the promise void. If the promise does not include Gentiles, God has not kept his promise. Paul’s use of οὐ μόνον ἀλλὰ καί, and his insistence on two groups in 4: 12, 16, and 23-24 confirms this interpretation. from observance of the law (i.e. circumcision). 19 Paul explains that Abraham became a father to the Gentiles when they were baptized. He also became a father of circumcision (πατέρα περιτομῆς, 4: 12), and in this sense is a father according to the flesh (προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα, 4: 1), to both (τοῖς) cir‐ cumcised Jews and to (τοῖς) uncircumcised Gentiles. This is the point of the passage - that any boast whatsoever is ruled out, because through the faithful‐ ness of Christ Gentiles have become members of Israel in every sense, even descendants of Abraham, even according to the flesh. Verse 4: 13ff. offers a fur‐ ther development, with a focus on the descendant (Christ) and the fact that they (the Gentiles) become heirs (σπέρματι, 4: 13; κληρονόμοι, 4: 14). Romans 4: 13-25 In 4: 13, the obviousness of the interlocutor’s identity surfaces again. The promise to Abraham or his descendant (ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ἢ τῷ σπέρματι) is not by means of the law, but through the righteousness of faith(ful‐ ness). If adherents to the law were to be the only heirs, faith would be null and the promise void, because for the Gentiles, the law brings wrath (4: 14). 20 Paul made this clear previously. Paul knows that the law is good for the Jews. But the promise to Abraham concerns the righteousness of faith - that is, Christ’s faith‐ fulness - which concerns the Gentile situation. This interpretation of Gen 15, which Paul initiates in 4: 3, follows easily, because Paul is also thinking of the promise of Gen 17: 5, that Abraham would be father of many nations (πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν, 4: 17). Hence, Paul apparently addresses a Gentile, because he points out that the law brings wrath, and the promise is by means of faith. Consequently, in 4: 16 he can repeat the provisional conclusion of 4: 12 con‐ cerning two distinct groups: Because the promise depends on faith, Abraham’s promised seed includes not only Jews (οὐ τῷ ἐκ τοῦ νόμου μόνον), but also Gentiles (ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ἐκ πίστεως). Therefore, we (the Gentiles) may also claim him as forefather (even according to the flesh (cf. 4: 1)), because if the Gentiles are excluded, then God has not kept his promise. Verse 4: 16 plainly states that the promise applies to both those out of the law and those of faithfulness. 8 Romans 4: 1-25 158 <?page no="159"?> 21 Cf. Stowers 1994, 247 22 2: 17, 23; 3: 27; 4: 2 Verses 4: 23-5: 11 presumably serve as the hortatory conclusion to chapters 1- 4. 21 In this section, Paul explicitly turns to the audience of the letter, and draws implications for those addressed in the preceding discourse. The theme of boasting runs through chapters 2-4, 22 and it reappears in 5: 1-11. Throughout, Paul tries to convince the Gentile interlocutor to not seek justification from the law, in order to boast before other Gentiles. The law is not for the Gentiles; Christ is. Verses 4: 23-25 link the faithfulness of Jesus with that of Abraham the fore‐ father (even κατὰ σάρκα) and the prefiguration of the faithful Christ. The bless‐ ings of Abraham affect the Gentiles through Jesus, who was killed for Gentile transgressions, and raised for Gentile justification (4: 25). Paul does not expect anyone to emulate Abraham or Jesus. What Paul asks for is faith in the one God. Also, by sharing in the characteristics of the founding figures, Gentiles are in‐ corporated into a righteous relationship with God, apart from the law. Paul does not speak about the (ontological) believer’s justification by faith; Romans con‐ cerns covenants and promises established by God from the faithfulness of Abraham and Christ to the Gentiles. Gentiles are heirs of Abraham justified by the faithfulness of Christ. Therefore, they should not pursue boasting in the law but in the reconciliation and hope God has made through Christ (5: 1-11). Romans 4: 13-25 159 <?page no="160"?> 1 Cf. Jewett 2007, 344; Stowers 1994, 251; Byrne 1996, 162-163; Fitzmyer 1993, 393; Keck 2005, 142; Lohse 2003, 163; Moo 1996, 290 2 Cf. Stowers 1994, 253; Jewett 2008, Stuhlmacher 1998, 74ff.; Byrne 1996, 164; Moo 1996, 290ff.; Fitzmyer 1993, 405; Keck 2005, 133; Lohse 2003, 165-166 3 Frank Thielman presents a good example of a ‘traditional’ way of reading the passage concerning Adam and Christ: ‘Paul uses this … story in 5: 12-21 to emphasize the depth of the human plight: Adam began the process of disobedience (5: 12a); all humanity followed his lead (5: 12b, 18a, 19a); and the situation grew worse with the coming of the law and Israel’s disobedience to it (5: 20). The result has been ’death” for all (5: 21a), a result that is remedied by the gift of life ’through Jesus Christ our Lord” (5: 21b)’ (Thielman 1995, 181). Cf. further down for more references. 9 Romans 5: 1-21 Adam, but not anthropology Let us now move on to Romans 5, which opens an argumentative sequence that is traditionally related to a unit running to the end of Romans 8. 1 Most scholars regard chapter 5 as composed of two parts, 5: 1-11 and 5: 12-21. 2 The faithfulness of Jesus is revealed in two ways in chapter 5. First, 5: 1-11 concerns Jesus’ faith‐ fulness by speaking of his adaptation to the ungodly, the sinners, and the ene‐ mies of God (5: 6, 8, 10). This adaptation affects their (the ungodly and sinful enemies’) current situation. Second, 5: 12-21 concerns the faithfulness of Jesus by explaining his justifying obedience through, or as an outbidding of Adam, also affecting the ungodly and sinful enemies’ current situation (cf. πολλῷ μᾶλλον, 5: 9, 10, 15, 17; περισσεύω, 5: 15; περισσεία, 5: 17; ὑπερπερισσεύομαι, 5: 20). Also, 5: 12-21 lays the foundation for 6: 1-8: 39 by elaborating on the sig‐ nificance of the concepts of ‘life’ and ‘death’. However, instead of reading 5: 12- 21 in a ‘traditional’ way, where Adam and Christ are presented in an anti-typical relationship, with Adam’s sin explaining ‘the human condition’, 3 I regard Paul as using Adam as a point of departure for the far more important work of Christ - Paul’s real and actual concern in this passage. Thus, from my point of view, Christ is not the anti-type and contrast to Adam, and Adam is less significant than Christ. Adam serves as a point of departure that explains the wide-ranging transfer of merits prompted by Christ’s actions. In my reading, Paul regards Adam as a positive figure; Adam’s and everyone else’s death is obvious or trivial, since Adam is ‘man’ and ‘man’ is mortal. Besides, Adam’s trespass is neither universal nor ontological, nor does it reveal a fall from grace through some <?page no="161"?> 4 Cf. Wisd of Sol, Jubilees, Joseph and Aseneth, Ben Sira. 5 Cf. Jewett 2007, 346 6 According to Stowers, Porter and Jewett, we should take ἔχομεν (5: 1) and καυχώμεθα (5: 2, 3) as subjunctive rather than indicative - i.e. ‘let us boast in hope of glory; ’ ‘let us boast in afflictions’ (Stowers 1994, 249; Porter 1991, 664; Jewett 2007, 351). original sin resulting in the anthropological condition of humankind. Therefore, we should not consider what is presented in chapters 5-8 as a dogmatic ‘scheme’ of sin and salvation, wherein Adam, sin, and death figure on the negative side, and Christ, obedience, and life figure on the positive side. We should avoid re‐ garding Paul as applying forensic language in chapters 1 to 4, and participatory language in 5 to 8. Instead, we should read chapter 5 as Paul’s continued dis‐ course, stretching back to 1: 18ff., where he guides the Gentile interlocutor to an understanding of what Christ means to Gentiles, how Gentiles relate to Abraham, and now, how Gentiles may obtain a life of obedience in Christ without boasting Jewish credentials. Romans 5: 1-11 Verses 5: 1-11 serve as a minor conclusion or transition that repeats the Gentiles reconciliation with God. This minor passage is dominated by words Paul and other contemporary Jewish sources applied to Gentiles: Gentiles are ungodly (ἀσεβής), sinners (ἁμαρτωλός), and enemies of God (ἐχθρός). 4 However, the first part of this minor passage opens by describing the new era or life that Gentiles have entered as a period of righteousness (5: 1, 9), peace (5: 1), the outpouring of God’s love into their hearts through the Holy Spirit (5: 5), and reconciliation (5: 10-11). Hence, this minor passage may be described as ‘the new life in Christ in light of the old Gentile way of living’. Paul’s words in 5: 1a, ‘Therefore, since we are justified by faith’ (Δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως) recapitulate the major point of the previous chapters (cf. 3: 21- 26), and facilitate the movement of the argument to something new. The passage is framed by the use of the word ‘boast’ (καυχάομαι) in 5: 2 and 5: 11, and also the phrase, ‘through our Lord Jesus Christ’ (διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). These verses serve as an inclusio to the section, identifying it as one unit. 5 Following an initial sentence stating that the Gentiles have been set right with God through the faithfulness of Christ, Paul elaborates on the implications of such a conclusion. He again picks up the theme of boasting (καυχάομαι 2: 17; 3: 27; also cf. ἀλαζόνας 1: 30). 6 Previously, this theme was connected to the Gen‐ Romans 5: 1-11 161 <?page no="162"?> 7 Cf. Jewett 2007, 350 8 Stowers 1994, 249 9 Stowers 1994, 249 tile’s wish to show how Jewish he was, to increase his status and gain the respect of other Gentiles. At this point in the discourse, Paul explains to him the right place for boasting: Christ has secured the Gentile a place in Judaism (as Abra‐ ham’s kin) through his own (Christ’s) faithfulness (πίστεως Ἰησοῦ). Therefore, in and through Christ, Gentiles may access God’s grace, mercy, and election. Only from this position is boasting appropriate (cf. also Phil 1: 26). The expres‐ sion ‘to stand in grace’ (ἑστήκαμεν) conveys the impression that grace is a sphere into which one enters. 7 Gentiles may boast because they hope for the glory that awaits those in Christ; they may boast because they endure the final period of testing. They may boast of this suffering, because the suffering engenders en‐ durance, and endurance develops character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint (5: 3-5). The trials and testing these ex-pagan jewishish Gentiles face are part of the existing eschatological situation. Some‐ thing extraordinary has taken place by Jesus’ death, and it has profound con‐ sequences for the present age. However, both realities remain - their former reality as sinners, and their new reality as righteous. They face tribulations in hope, even exulting in them, but they are certain that their present tribulations are not the end of the story. In 5: 2, Paul elaborates on the theme of boasting. Boasting is a major theme of 2: 17-5: 11, and a major concern of the entire letter (cf. the exhortations in 14: 1- 15: 6). Boasting concerns the feature of the fictive Gentile interlocutor (and the ‘weak’ in the Roman congregation) priding himself on his Jewish credentials (identity markers of status). Paul touched on this theme in 2: 17, 23; 3: 27; 4: 2. Stowers has a point, when connecting this marker of identity or status with the speech-in-character of Paul’s interlocutor. 8 Stowers correctly points out that if we ignore the theme of boasting in 5: 1-11, we cut the conclusion from the first part of the letter. 9 However, Stowers argues that ‘the braggart’ is a Jewish teacher of Gentiles who arrogantly boasts in his self-presentation. Consequently, Stowers switches back and forth among a Gentile interlocutor (2: 1-16), a Jewish interlocutor (2: 17-5: 11), and a Gentile audience. The passage in Rom 5 becomes much more accessible and comprehensible if (in contrast to Stowers’ view) Paul debates a fictive Gentile interlocutor throughout - a Gentile interlocutor who wants to boast of his Jewish credentials before other Gentiles - than if we have to imagine a change in character/ persona. This fictitious discussion serves the purpose of presenting the situation of the letter’s audience - the Gentile be‐ lievers in Rome. Paul argues that they should not seek justification in the works 9 Romans 5: 1-21 162 <?page no="163"?> 10 Jewett 2007, 357-358 11 Jewett 2007, 358 12 Jewett 2007, 358 13 Cf. my interpretation of 1: 18-32 and the contemporary examples provided there. 14 Jewett writes that this ‘array of difficulties makes v. 6 difficult to defend as a Pauline composition’ (2007, 359). Porter also discusses this possibility, and refers it to an article by L.E. Keck (Porter 1991, 665-667). of the law - they will be justified through the faithfulness of Christ. Of course, they have reasons to boast, but not because they have earned righteousness by obedience to the law. The Gentile believers have grounds for boasting because of their hope in the glory that awaits those in Christ (5: 2), the honour of enduring the final period of testing before the new age (5: 3), and God’s work of reconci‐ liation through Jesus (5: 11). When commenting on 5: 6, Robert Jewett confesses that he finds several phrases difficult to understand, ‘and even more difficult to accommodate within the usual parameters of Paul’s theology’. 10 Jewett finds it baffling that Paul uses ἀσθενής (weak) here, and also that he uses it in parallel with ‘ungodly’ (ἀσεβής). Jewett writes: ‘It seems problematic that Paul would use the same term here [ἀσθενής] to describe all humans prior to Christ…’ 11 Jewett also calls at‐ tention to the fact that several commentators ignore this obvious dilemma, and that a proper explanation of the phrase ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ‘remains unanswered by the commentators’. 12 However, this problem may be solved by changing one precondition in the argument presented by Jewett and other commentators: Paul is not describing all human beings prior to Christ with these words; Paul is describing jewishish Gentiles or ex-pagan Gentiles. The lives of these Gentiles prior to their belief in Christ may be accurately described as weak and impious. In fact, it was quite common for Jews to perceive Gentiles in such a way. 13 Thus, it is unnecessary to explain away these difficulties by contesting the Pauline provenance of this verse. 14 Paul continues his argument in 5: 7 by noting the absurdity of someone dying for a righteous man. Someone may die for a good man, but not for a righteous man. This explanation further elaborates on the point that Paul addresses Gen‐ tiles. Before Christ, Gentiles were not considered righteous, whereas Jews were, if they lived within their covenant with God. Consequently, Christ did not die for the Jews; Christ died for the Gentiles, because they were considered ungodly and unrighteous (cf. ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν, 1: 18). That Christ died for the im‐ pious and unrighteous Gentiles shows God’s love (5: 8): Although the Gentiles were still sinners (ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων), Christ died. Jews were not considered sinners if they lived within their covenant with God. They were considered Romans 5: 1-11 163 <?page no="164"?> righteous, and the (Mosaic) law and their offerings at the temple provided op‐ portunities for atonement. In 3: 26, Paul explains that a new system of atonement for Gentiles now existed, through the blood of Christ. Paul reiterates this point in 5: 9, by stating that they have now been justified through Christ’s blood (δικαιωθέντες νῦν ἐν τῷ αἵματι αὐτοῦ). The fact that Paul includes himself in the group for whom Christ died (ἡμῶν) should not present a difficulty, consid‐ ering his apostolic strategy of becoming ‘all things to all people’ (1 Cor 9: 19- 23), and his rhetorical strategy at this point in the argument in Romans, where he is constructing a ‘rhetorical family-togetherness’ of Jews and Gentiles united, who are justified (5: 1), are at peace with God (5: 1), and have obtained access to the grace in which they stand (5: 2). This is not to say that Gentiles become Jews; they still remain jewishish Gentiles, but they are adopted as former slaves into the Jewish family (8: 15), and they are grafted onto the family-tree of Israel, as illustrated by the olive-tree metaphor (11: 17-24). The logic Paul applies in his argument in 5: 7 is the ‘lesser to greater’ reasoning (a minori ad maius in the Greek rhetorical tradition and qal wa-chomer in the Hebrew): If it is so unusual to die for a righteous man, how much more so for a godless person (cf. πολλῷ μᾶλλον, 5: 9, 10, 15, 17). By applying this logic, Paul accentuates the miraculous work of Christ, because he died for shameful and unworthy Gentiles. Nevertheless, these actions perfectly illustrate the love, mercy, and goodness of God already described in 2: 4 (χρηστότης, ἀνοχή, μακροθυμία) as the foundation upon which God extends his mercy to Gentiles (5: 8). Even though human reasoning may find it absurd to die for a righteous or a good man, God overbids such logic by having Christ die for undeserving, im‐ pious sinners and enemies of God (ἀσεβής, ἁμαρτωλός, ἐχθρός). Paul also ex‐ plains the consequences of this reasoning by stating that since the Gentiles have now been justified through the blood of Christ, they will surely be saved through him (i.e. Christ) from the wrath of God on the Day of Judgement (σωθησόμεθα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς, 5: 9). First, Gentiles have been reconciled with God (κατηλλάγημεν τῷ θεῷ) through the death of Christ. Therefore, how much more 9 Romans 5: 1-21 164 <?page no="165"?> 15 This point is worth maintaining in reference to a general outlook on Pauline theology: Reconciliation with God comes first, and what follows is ‘much more’ - salvation from His wrath (if one lives accordingly, and works on salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2: 12)). In Rom 6: 22, a similar logic may be detected: Paul argues that the Gentile addressees once had fruits of which they are now ashamed, and whose end is death (6: 21). But now that they have been freed from sin they ‘have their fruits to sanctifica‐ tion’ (ἔχετε τὸν καρπὸν ὑμῶν εἰς ἁγιασμόν), whose end is eternal life. Here, there is no tension between an ‘already’ and a ‘not yet’ of a life in faith. Paul evidently displays an interest in human work or good deeds, which may indicate a perception that human activity produces holiness. This should be taken together with the discussion of the place of good deeds in Romans 2, where I argued that Paul expects a final judgement that may result in either salvation or wrath, and it also connects to 1 Cor 3: 13-14, where Paul states that each person’s work will be tried by fire on the day of wrath. In Phil 2: 12, where Paul asks the Philippians to work out their own salvation in fear and trembling, Paul also uses the a minori ad maius logic by way of πολλῷ μᾶλλον. Also cf. Snodgrass 1986 16 Jewett supports this communal view against an Augustinian interpretation, even though Jewett does not perceive the communal aspect as concerning Gentiles only ( Jewett 2007, 361). will they be saved from the wrath. 15 The joint aspect of salvation applied by Paul to a group of people further adds to the understanding of Gentile salvation. There is no evidence of individual salvation, as construed primarily in the Au‐ gustinian tradition. 16 Paul’s concern is to overcome the shameful status of the Gentiles as a group of impious sinners and enemies of God. By introducing the a minori ad maius logic at this point, Paul has prepared for the logic determining the following sequence about Adam and Christ. In 5: 10, it must again be emphasized that Paul does not characterize Jews as enemies of God. On the contrary, the Jewish background of Paul’s proclamation exhibits a persistent positive view of the Jews. The Gentiles are those tradition‐ ally characterized by Paul and his contemporary Jews as sinful and unrighteous. This description also reverberates throughout Romans, but specifically refers back to the initial description in 1: 18-32 of how the Gentiles were, how they are now, and how Paul’s fictitious interlocutor still is (2: 1-24). Just as in 1: 18-32, Paul mentions God’s wrath towards the Gentiles, as they are his enemies, but they have now received the opportunity to reconcile with God in Christ. In 8: 7, Paul writes something which adds to this point. He explains that the mind of the flesh (τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς) is hostile to God (ἔχθρα εἰς θεόν). Obviously, the fleshly mind is the mind of the Gentile (cf. the description in 1: 18-32 and the soliloquy of the Gentile in 7: 7-25). One who has this mindset is hostile to (ἔχθρα), or an enemy of God. Consequently, Paul uses this vocabulary again, at a later point in the discourse, in a way that supports our perception of 5: 10. Those who are hostile to God have a mind of the flesh, and they may be described Romans 5: 1-11 165 <?page no="166"?> 17 Maccoby 1986, 64; 2002, 80; Collins 2005, 28; Theon 2003, 44 (English) and Theon 1997, 65 (Greek). 18 Maccoby 1986, 66; 2002, 80 19 Theon 2003, 44 (English) and Theon 1997, 65 (Greek) 20 2 Cor 3: 7-8 should also be considered qal wa-chomer reasoning, even though Paul does not use πολλῷ μᾶλλον, but πῶς οὐχὶ μᾶλλον, instead (cf. Muller 1967, 79). 21 Maccoby 2002, 81; Collins 2005, 29 as enemies of God in the time before they received the spirit of God - before they were reconciled with God by the death of his son. Also, the repetition of the theme of the ‘right time’ (κατὰ καιρὸν, 5: 6), which orchestrates the passage from 5: 6-11, reiterates 2: 4 and the concept of ‘the plan of God’, His withheld judgement by way of His ἀνοχή (2: 4; 3: 26) by having allowed the Gentiles to ‘store up wrath’ for themselves (θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ ὀργὴν, 2: 5). The qal wa-chomer reasoning What is the logic of the a minori ad maius or qal wa-chomer argument that Paul uses several times throughout his letters (Rom 5: 9, 10, 15, 17; 11: 12, 24; 2 Cor 3: 9, 11; Phil 1: 23; 2: 12; Phm 1: 16) - and how does it work here, in Romans? First, the qal wa-chomer is a logic of analogy or comparison. 17 This means that it is not a logic of classes or sets, as the Aristotelian logic is, but a logic of similarities between things. The argument is used to consider different situations and decide how alike or unlike they are, and in early rabbinic thinking, the logic was re‐ garded as reasoning appropriate to legal enquiry. 18 In Hellenistic Progymnas‐ mata it was used to make a comparison to something lesser, as differentated from a comparison to something greater, or putting an equal beside an equal. 19 The key phrase in the argument is usually ‘all the more so’ 20 (πολλῷ μᾶλλον, or πόσῳ μᾶλλον), which introduces the conclusion to the argument. 21 If a conclu‐ sion is true in a weak or ‘light’ sense of a situation, it is true ‘all the more so’ in a strong or ‘heavy’ sense of a situation. The formal character of the reasoning demands a relationship of quantitative increase. The argument works only if there are two terms, one of which is ‘heavier’ or ‘stronger’ than the other. Hence, the qal wa-chomer argument is also referred to as the ‘light and heavy’ argument in the Rabbinic tradition, and as the ‘comparison to the lesser’ in the Hellenistic tradition. The biblical source of the argument has been identified in Numbers 12: 14, and refers to the incident of the punishment of Miriam with leprosy, be‐ 9 Romans 5: 1-21 166 <?page no="167"?> 22 R. Jishmael identified ten types of qal wa-chomer reasoning in the Hebrew Bible (Müller 1967, 78 n28). 23 In the Progymnasmata of Aelius Theon, we may read of this example: ‘If the thief is punished for taking men’s money, how much more will this man be punished for looting the possessions of the gods? ’ (Theon 2003, 44 (English); Theon 1997, 65 (Greek)) 24 Maccoby writes thus: ‘Hellenistic writers… often used a fortiori reasoning, but only in a loose, rhetorical way, without regard for precision or formal validity’. Maccoby 1986, 66; also cf. Maccoby 2002, 81. I consider Maccoby’s evaluation here to be more concerned with apologetic concerns for early Rabbinic tradition than with actual evaluation of Hellenistic writers. 25 Maccoby 2002, 89; Collins 2005, 30 cause of her slander of Moses, the representative of God. 22 God conducts the argument, which runs as follows: If her father had but spit in her face, would she not bear the shame for seven days? [all the more so] Let her be shut out of the camp for seven days [since she has offended God], and after that she may be brought in again. The reasoning runs as follows: if offending a father (a relatively light thing) is punished with banishment for seven days, then offending God (a relatively heavy thing) should be punished all the more so with banishment for seven days. It is quite important to understand the logic and the rules guiding the qal wa-chomer argument. For example, the question might be that if a moderately good child deserves a sweet, what does a very good child deserve? Some might answer ‘two sweets’, but this conclusion is wrong in the strict and elaborate sense of the qal wa-chomer reasoning. The correct answer is ‘all the more so, a very good child deserves one sweet’. In the strict and elaborate conduction of the argument it is important to apply the rule of dayyo (‘sufficient for it’). The rule of dayyo ensures that one does not go beyond the terms given in the prem‐ ises, since that would introduce uncertainty to the argument. 23 Hence, if we stick to the foregoing example, it would be important to not argue that the very good child deserves two sweets, but that the very good child ‘all the more so’ deserves one sweet. However, it is also important to note that Paul does not apply the rule of dayyo. He does not adhere to the terms given in the premises. This may have something to do with the fact that the rule of dayyo was never fully de‐ veloped in the Greek or Hellenistic rhetorical tradition in which Paul was schooled, but only in the later rabbinic tradition, which postdates Paul. 24 But according to Hyam Maccoby, the rule of dayyo was not even that strictly applied in aggadic, as opposed to halakhic, reasoning. 25 Maccoby presents several ex‐ amples of qal wa-chomer reasoning where the rule of dayyo does not apply, for example from Mishnah R. Shimon ben Rabbi: The qal wa-chomer reasoning 167 <?page no="168"?> 26 Quoted from Maccoby 2002, 89 27 Collins 2005, 30 28 Collins 2005, 31 29 Collins 2005, 31 30 Müller 1967, 80. This kind of reasoning equals the Hellenistic Progymnasmata on ‘ar‐ gument from opposites’ (cf. Theon 2003, 44 (English), Theon 1997, 65 (Greek)). Abstaining from blood, which causes revulsion, brings reward; all the more, abstaining from robbery and incest, which the souls long for, should bring reward for all gener‐ ations to come up to the end of the world. 26 Maccoby explains that the last part of this reasoning constitutes a breach of dayyo, for nothing was said in the premise about generations to come. However, even though this reasoning is faulty by halakhic standards, the actual terms are not changed from premise to conclusion, but merely intensified. Nina Collins offers another example where the rule of dayyo is not applied: If he that commits one transgression thereby he [the sinner] forfeits his life because of it, is it not logical that if he performs one meritorious deed, shall his life be given to him! 27 The conclusion to this qal wa-chomer reasoning is that ‘life’ is the consequence of a meritorious deed, whereas ‘death’ (to forfeit the life) is the consequence of a transgression or sinning. Apparently, the rule of dayyo is not applied in this example, but if the rule of dayyo was applied, it would make the argument ab‐ surd: ‘If sinning results in the loss of the sinner’s life, all the more so a merito‐ rious act should result in a loss of life’. Such a conclusion would not make sense, and Nina Collins explains that the Jewish commentators of this qal wa-chomer simply assume that it is a formally valid argument. 28 She further explains that Rashi ‘simply remarks [about the argument] that the reward for good deeds is two thousand times greater than the punishment for transgression’. 29 To further enforce the point about omitting the rule of dayyo, Heinrich Müller explains that qal wa-chomer reasoning may also compare concepts that are antithetically related, and not just those directly related. 30 If the concepts related are at the same level, the rule of dayyo applies, but if antithetical concepts are related, or if something further is brought into the conclusion, the rule of dayyo does not apply. However, that does not invalidate the qal wa-chomer reasoning, it merely illuminates a different use of the argument. To get a firm grip on qal wa-chomer reasoning, let us work through the two instances in 5: 9 and 10. In schematized form, the arguments may be presented thus: 9 Romans 5: 1-21 168 <?page no="169"?> 31 Collins does not consider the rule of dayyo as applying to either 5: 9 or 5: 10 (Collins 2005, 39-42). Premise πολλῷ μᾶλλον Conclusion We have been justified by his blood We will be saved through him (from wrath) In this instance, both premise and conclusion are positive features. In one sense, then, the rule of dayyo may be said to apply, but in another sense it does not. 31 If the rule of dayyo applies, it would mean that nothing ‘new’ is added in the conclusion which was not already there in the premise. Thus, if salvation may be said to be implied in justification, the rule of dayyo applies, and Paul presents to us a strict qal wa-chomer argument. However, the mere fact that being justified (δικαιόω) theologically is different from being saved (σώζω) indicates that the rule of dayyo does not apply, and therefore, that Paul does not present a qal wa-chomer argument in the stricter sense of the later rabbis. However, a recon‐ sideration of the traditional Lutheran theological categories may prove illumi‐ nating. Then the extent to which Paul regards justification and salvation as knitted together may stand out more - that is, how closely related salvation and good works are for Paul. Philippians 2: 12 is witness to this, and from a contem‐ porary Jewish perspective it may not be so difficult to argue that good works (which lead to salvation according to Philippians 2: 12) follow naturally from being a member of the covenant. Thus, if Paul argues that his Gentile addressees have already been justified (i.e. they are ‘in’), it may not be so different from arguing that they will be saved ‘all the more so’ (because they do good deeds). Consequently, justification and salvation (being shown mercy and doing good deeds) may be very closely related. What about 5: 10? Premise πολλῷ μᾶλλον Conclusion We were reconciled with God (through Christ) Having been reconciled, we will be saved As in 5: 9, both premise and conclusion are positive features. Then, the explan‐ ation of the reasoning in 5: 9 applies equally to the reasoning in 5: 10. Verse 5: 10 further adds to the theological understanding and relation of reconciliation and salvation. The qal wa-chomer reasoning 169 <?page no="170"?> 32 Cf. the cautiousness of Jewett, Caragounis, Stowers, and Brandenburger ( Jewett 2007, 370; Caragounis 1985, 142-143; Stowers 1994, 254; Brandenburger 1965, 158). 33 I fully agree with Stendahl’s description of an ‘introspective conscience of the West’ (cf. Stendahl 1963), which Dunn (despite his claims) reproduces (cf. Dunn 1998, 51-161). Other scholars who present a ‘traditional’ Lutheran and introspective interpretation of 5: 12-21: de Boer 2013; Westerholm 2013; Davidsen 1995, 258; 259; Ziegler 2013, 123; with some qualifications Barclay 2013a, 59-60. Also cf. the introduction in Noffke 2007, 618. For scholars who address Augustine’s dependence on Paul, on how he read Paul’s letter to the Romans, and read it with the Adam-Christ typology as its centre, cf. Har‐ rison 2006 and Cameron 2012. S. Lewis Johnson Jr. applies an exegetical analysis of this passage to a systematic interpretation of it, which he considers the completion of the exegetical task ( Johnson 1974). 34 For such interpretations cf. e.g. Clifton Black 1984, 421; Strubel 1986; de Boer 2013, 14; Keck 1995, 25; Wright 1995, 47; Cousar 1995, 203; with some qualifications Barclay 2013a, 59. On the perception that Augustine was the first to develop such a psycholo‐ gizing interpretation of Paul, cf. Myers 2013, 41. Myers writes: ‘His [Augustine’s] reading of Paul marks a watershed in Western thought. It was Paul - especially the Paul of Romans 5 - who taught Augustine to link together the personal and corporate di‐ mensions of the self ’ (Myers 2013, 41). I will return to the qal wa-chomer reasoning and the two other instances of πολλῷ μᾶλλον in my treatment of 5: 14c-21. At that point, I will also comment on the consequences of this reasoning for the ongoing interpretation of Romans. Continuity between 5: 1-11 and 5: 12-21 The passage on Adam opens with Διὰ in 5: 12. Thus, this passage continues the previously developed focus of 5: 1-11 on Gentiles. Paul now explains how Adam relates to the Gentiles, just as he previously explained how Christ relates to the Gentiles (5: 1-11), and before that, how Abraham relates to the Gentiles (4: 1-25). However, before beginning on this famous passage, we must openly state that it is crucial to be clear about what the text says and what it does not say. The first six verses (5: 12-17) are packed with qualifications, contingencies, and re‐ strictions. 32 We cannot continue naively to pretend or assume a traditional per‐ ception of the passage if it goes against a religious or cultural perception of Adam, sin, and death at the time of Paul. 33 Nothing in the text indicates that here (or elsewhere), Paul has an interest in developing a timeless psychology or an‐ thropology of sin from the story of Adam. 34 Nor does Paul intend to present some sort of mythological and anti-typical relationship between Adam and 9 Romans 5: 1-21 170 <?page no="171"?> 35 For such interpretations cf. Bell 2002; de Boer 2013, 9; Ziegler 2013, 123; Wright 1995, 47f.; Erickson 1999, 306; Davidsen 1995, 250-262; Hofius 1996, 165; Legarreta-Castillo 2014, 159. Benjamin Myers views Augustine as perceiving Paul in this way: ‘Paul’s Adam-Christ typology becomes, for Augustine, a sort of mythos, a metanarrative within which all human activity is situated’ (Myers 2013, 57). 36 In his commentary on Romans, Robert Jewett refers to an article by Gijs Bouwman, who reads Rom 5: 12-14 as answering an implicit question about why evil exists ( Jewett 2007, 371 n8). 37 Martinus C. de Boer refers specifically to 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch in his treatment of Adam in Rom 5: 12-21, and he considers these ‘representative of the views with which Paul is in dialogue…’ (de Boer 2013, 2). The same applies to Caragounis (1985, 147 n9). 38 4 Ezra 7: 118: ‘O Adam what have you done? For though it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours alone, but ours also who are your descendants’. 2 Baruch 54: 15-19: ‘For though Adam first sinned and brought untimely death upon all, yet of those who were born from him each one of them has prepared for his own soul torments to come, and again each one of them has chosen for himself glories to come… Adam is therefore not the cause, save only of his own soul, but each of us has been the Adam of his own soul’. 39 Cf. Collins 2001, 296-298; Stone 1990, 63-77; de Boer 2013, 11-12 40 Collins 2001, 287 41 John Collins similarly warns against ‘taking traditional interpretations for granted’ when we consider the meaning of the Genesis story of Adam and Eve (Collins 2003, 301). He ends his article, ‘… however pervasive the traditional understanding of the Fall eventually became it is salutary to bear in mind that in the beginning it was not so. Not only does the traditional interpretation of Genesis 2-3 not represent ’the Bible as it was” but it also does not correspond to the earliest recorded understandings of the biblical texts’ (ibid, 308). Christ. 35 Nor does the text affirm the attempt to explain the origin of evil from the actions of Adam in some sort of theodicy. 36 We do find such explanations in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch. 37 Both apocalypses refer the responsibility for evil to Adam’s actions, 38 but both texts post-date the Pauline text, and, more importantly, both are written after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, and reflect this crisis in Jewish self-perception. 39 This defining and schismatic event is absent from Paul’s thinking. He can still consider the worship service (ἡ λατρεία) and the presence of God’s glory in the temple (ἡ δόξα) as privileges and defining ele‐ ments of the historical-ethnic Israel (cf. 9: 4-5). In the Enochic Book of the Watchers, in Jubilees, and in the Qumran Scrolls, which pre-date Paul, the origin of sin and evil is ascribed to the fall of the Watchers (cf. Genesis 6). This tradition is not static, but develops from Book of the Watchers to Jubilees. 40 If Paul’s thinking is consistent with these contemporary perceptions of Adam, sin, and evil, his use of Adam in 5: 12-21 should not be taken as an explanation of original sin or the origin of evil (psychology, anthropology, ontology). 41 Besides, in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature there is a tendency to also discuss a human inclination to sin, as well as a ‘demonic’ influence, as in the Book of Continuity between 5: 1-11 and 5: 12-21 171 <?page no="172"?> 42 Miryam Brand has organized her comprehensive study of sin and evil in Second Temple literature under the two headings of a human inclination to sin and a demonic influence (cf. Brand 2013). 43 Arnold 2009, 10 44 Cf. Millard 1994, 40-41 45 Sharp 2015, 106 46 Sharp 2015, 106 47 Arnold 2009, 58; McKeown 2008, 31 48 Arnold 2009, 58 49 Various scholars have tried to reproduce the wordplay in English: ‘God formed earthling from the earth’ or ‘human from humus’. Cf. McKeown 2008, 31 for references. the Watchers. 42 So, both possibilities - an evil inclination and demonic influence - should also be considered possibilities in Paul’s writing. Before more fully entering the discussion of Adam, sin, and death by Paul and his Jewish contem‐ poraries, we must take a look at the story of Adam in Genesis 2-3 from the perspective of Old Testament exegesis. Genesis 2-3 in Old Testament exegesis The story of Adam in the book of Genesis addresses some of life’s most profound questions. The genealogies in Genesis (e.g. chapters 2-3) provide social identi‐ fication for persons or groups. 43 Also, the aetiology of Israel’s early history sup‐ ports an explanation of situations or names that existed at the storyteller’s time. 44 For instance, the three ‘sister-wife’ stories in Gen 12, 20, and 26 express concerns about the risks of living in the diaspora, and threats to the covenantal promise, posed by the patriarchs themselves. 45 The Golden Calf episode (Ex 32) bespeaks anxiety about cultural amnesia, that the Israelites might forget who brought them out of Egypt. 46 The Primeval History also uses aetiology to explain things such as marriage (Gen 2: 24), pain in childbirth (Gen 3: 16), the name Zoar (19: 22), and many others. These stories helped (the ancient) readers of Genesis to understand why something is as it as. The word translated as ‘man’ in Gen 2: 7 ( ם ָ דאָ / ’ādām) is a common noun comprised of the same consonants as the word ‘earth’ ( ה ָ מ ָ ד ֲ א / ’ădāmâ). 47 In Gen 2: 7, it makes for wordplay: ‘… the Lord God formed man (’ādām) from the dust of the earth (’ădāmâ)’. The purpose of this point of the narrative is to emphasize the connection between man and earth: ‘[H]e was created from it, his job is to cultivate it (2: 5, 15), and at death he will return to it (3: 19)’. 48 Thus, ’ādām comes from, and will return to, ’ădāmâ. 49 The text uses ’ādām as a generic term for humanity, so every individual will see his own life reflected in the life of ’ādām. 9 Romans 5: 1-21 172 <?page no="173"?> 50 Arnold 2009, 61 n120 51 McKeown 2008, 32-33; Arnold 2009, 58 52 John Collins examines the possibility of ‘an immortal destiny, grounded in creation in the divine image’ for the righteous in the Qumran writings and in Wisdom of Solomon (with references also to Ben Sira and 1 Enoch) (Collins 2003, 287-305, esp. 304). 53 I consider Legarreta-Castillo’s attempt to provide an exegesis of Gen 1-3 valuable. However, he does not seem to be able to leave aside a decidedly ‘Christian’ interpreta‐ tion of the passage. Also, he does not actually provide an exegesis of the passage, even though he proposes to do so in the passage ‘Contemporary Exegesis of Genesis 1-3’ (Legarreta-Castillo 2014, 34-38). 54 In particular, Augustine’s interpretation that Adam and Eve’s motivation to eat of the tree of knowledge was superbia (pride) and the urge to be more than human, to tran‐ scend the limitations of humanity and to be like God, has no foundation in the text in Genesis (cf. Augustine, Exp. prop. Rom. 32-34.3 and 46.7 in Augustine 1982). The story simply gives no evidence of the idea that Adam and Eve longed to be as gods. It is true that the snake tells them that their eyes will be opened and they will be like gods in knowing good and evil, but this concerns God’s motivation not to want human beings to be like gods. This does not imply that Adam and Eve were motivated by the desire to be as gods. To interpret the story in such a way is to psychologize Adam and Eve’s motivations. What the story states is that Eve saw that the tree was good for food (nutritious), a delight to the eyes (aesthetic), and could make one wise (educational) (Gen 3: 6); these may be described simply as normal human passions. Nothing here indicates a lust for superhuman status and power, and there is nothing about taking over from God the task of governing the world. In short, the tone of rebellion against God is lacking, and there is no sign of a titanic will to take over the status of the divine. In verses 18 to 25, God provides help for man, first by creating the animals, and then by creating the woman from the ‘rib’ of ’ādām. The words for ‘man’ and ‘woman’ used here are very similar in Hebrew: שׁי ִ א / ’îš and ה ָ שּׁ ִ א / ’iššâ. The ‘man’ in question (’îš) typically denotes an individual male, whereas ’ādām is the ge‐ neric term for humanity. 50 As the discourse unfolds, the common noun becomes the personal name ‘Adam’, the first human being (Gen 4: 25), but at this point in the discourse (Gen 2-3) it merely represents generic ‘humanity’. The first man (’ādām) lived in the Garden of Eden with the woman (’iššâ), and ate of the ‘tree of life’. Scholars generally agree that the tree of life should be interpreted in a Near Eastern context, where holy trees were common. 51 That Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of life resulted in a supernaturally long lifespan, perhaps even immortality (Gen 3: 22). 52 In Gen 3: 1-7, the relationships between man, woman, animal, and God change from their original conditions. 53 It is from this passage that the ‘fall’ of humanity and the concept of ‘original sin’ are usually drawn. 54 However, nowhere here is the Hebrew word for ‘fall’ used, nor is the concept of a fall used anywhere in the Hebrew Bible to relate this passage to humanity’s ‘fall’ from a state of grace, Genesis 2-3 in Old Testament exegesis 173 <?page no="174"?> 55 Arnold 2009, 62 56 Even though ‘transgression’ is better than ‘sin’ or ‘fall’, I prefer to use the word ‘tres‐ pass’. The words ‘trespass’ and ‘blunder’ translate into the Greek παράπτωμα - used six times by Paul in Rom 5: 15ff. concerning Adam’s trespass. The word ‘trespass’ (παράπτωμα) should be distinguished from the word παράβασις, which translates as ‘transgression’. ‘Trespass’ does not necessarily entail a violation of a law, as does ‘transgression’ (cf. Jewett 2007, 379). Hence, Adam ‘merely’ trespassed, and neither sinned nor fell. 57 Arnold 2009, 62 58 Christian scholars often connect the story of Adam and Eve’s trespass with one verse in one of the Psalms: ‘I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me’ (Ps 51: 5). However, this is an isolated example with no other equals in the Hebrew Bible. And since, from a Jewish point of view, the story of Adam and Eve does not concern the origin of evil or the fall of humanity, this verse from Psalm 51 may be the single witness supporting such a perception in the entire Hebrew Bible. However, it should not be taken as supporting such a view, since such a perception is absent from the story of Adam and Eve. Also, as with other Mesopotamian religions, the idea that all persons sinned was widespread in ancient Israelite beliefs. But there is a radical difference be‐ tween stating that all people sin, and expressing a theory of original sin or a fall of humanity. On this cf. Barr 1992, 6-7. infecting all subsequent humans. 55 Nor is the word ‘sin’ used anywhere in this story. The word ‘sin’ does not appear until the account of Cain and Abel (4: 7) - and then in a somewhat obscure phrase. Nor do we find terms such as ‘evil’, ‘rebellion’ or ‘guilt’ in this passage. The story develops simply at the level of practical and mundane actions: ‘If you eat this, then you will die’, ‘God made them coats of skin’, and so on. This is not expressed in terms of sin, fall, or original evil. Consequently, and as a warning against interpreting this passage as focused on ‘fall’ and ‘sin’, Bill Arnold writes in his commentary on Genesis, ‘… we may think of Gen 3 simply as ‘the transgression’, 56 while acknowledging that most of our faith traditions embrace this text as the cornerstone for further theological reflection on the human condition’. 57 Thus, we should be aware of the major difference in the Jewish perception of this passage (at least before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD), and the Christian perception in the Au‐ gustinian tradition. 58 Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible or in the literature predating the destruction of the Temple is the story of Adam and Eve connected to a ‘fall’ 9 Romans 5: 1-21 174 <?page no="175"?> 59 The Old Testament scholar James Barr supports such a conclusion. In his treatment of the story of Adam and Eve in his book, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (1992), he briefly presents his thesis about the story of Adam and Eve from the per‐ spective of Old Testament exegesis: ‘… taken in itself and for itself, this narrative is not, as it has commonly been understood in our tradition, basically a story of the origins of sin and evil, still less a depiction of absolute evil or total depravity: it is a story of how human immortality was almost gained, but in fact was lost. This was, I need hardly remind you, the reason, and the only reason why Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden: not because they were unworthy to stay there, or because they were hopelessly alienated from God, but because, if they stayed there, they would soon gain access to the tree of life, and eat of its fruit, and gain immortality: they would ’live for ever” (Genesis 3.22). Immortality was what they had practically achieved’ (Barr 1992, 4). 60 I intentionally refrain from labelling Adam and Eve’s action a sin, because such a per‐ ception is absent from the story in Genesis. I also intentionally refrain from labelling God’s sanction a punishment or curse. 61 There is nothing in the story indicating that it was an account of guilt and tragedy. Not only is the vocabulary of guilt and revolt lacking, but even more importantly, the at‐ mosphere of catastrophe is absent. Instead, the minor passages concerning the temp‐ tation (3: 1-6) and nakedness (3: 7-13) are more easily associated with comedy than tragedy. This presentation of the story stands in harsh contrast to the story of Cain and Abel, because Cain lamented that his guilt or punishment was too heavy for him to bear (Gen 4: 14). Obviously, God is angry because Adam and Eve disobeyed his commands, but the relationship between God and them does not break down. They continue to talk, God goes on to care for them, and he provides them with the necessary clothes before they leave the Garden of Eden. The tone of rebellion against God is simply lacking in the story of Adam and Eve. 62 I find it very difficult to see how Legarreta-Castillo can claim the following: ‘The nar‐ rative of Genesis 3 describes the story of Adam’s disobedience to God’s commandment (Gen 2: 16-17; 3: 11, 17), but it does not mention that death was the result of his disobe‐ dience…’ (Legarreta-Castillo 2014, 155). According to my perception of this passage in Genesis, one of the main points is that it informs the reader that Adam became mortal precisely because he trespassed. And that is why every individual is mortal. of humanity from a state of grace to an ontological state of sinfulness. 59 The story of Adam and Eve is regarded as simply reflecting a trespass, blunder, or wrongdoing 60 with respect to God’s instruction to not eat of the fruit of the knowledge tree. 61 However, we should pay close attention to the aetiology of this story. Because of Adam and Eve’s trespass or fault, God pronounces a verdict on the serpent (3: 14-15), on the woman (3: 16), and on the man (3: 17-19). And as a fundamental aetiological narrative, God’s sanction explains something about the result of the actions - why something is as it is: We learn why serpents crawl on the ground (3: 14), why enmity exists between humans and serpents (3: 15), why childbirth is painful (3: 16), and, most importantly for our purpose, why death is unavoidable and something that comes to all human beings (3: 19). 62 The simple and straightforward point of this little narrative is that Genesis 2-3 in Old Testament exegesis 175 <?page no="176"?> 63 God’s verdicts on the serpent, the woman, and the man are often referred to as ‘curses’. However, according to the text, only the serpent and the soil are actually cursed. As Arnold writes: ‘The rest are to be seen as logical and natural corollaries of the role played by each transgressor’ (Arnold 2009, 68). It is a natural and logical deduction that humans are mortal because they trespassed God’s instruction. It is neither a ‘curse’ nor a ‘fall’ from a state of grace. 64 Joshua and David open their ‘farewell speeches’ identically, and express the funda‐ mental truth in Genesis: ‘And now I am about to go the way of all the earth…’ ( Josh 23: 14) ‘I am about to go the way of all the earth’ (1 Kgs 2: 2). human beings are mortal, even though they had immortality within their grasp. 63 The story explains to each individual member of the Jewish community that he will face death at some point. 64 Paul says neither more nor less. Because Adam trespassed against God’s instructions, Adam became mortal (i.e. died), and that is why every individual is mortal. If the story of Adam and Eve in Gen 2 and 3 is simply a story explaining human mortality, then it is this simple point about mortality I wish to carry forward to Rom 5. If Paul and his contemporary Jews read the story of Adam and Eve in a similar way to that presented above, we should be cautious about reading Paul’s explanation as concerning the ‘Fall of Man’ or original sin. I will try to establish that Paul did not perceive the story of Adam and Eve as it is regarded in the Christian tradition. First, I will argue that other Second Temple Jewish authors did not perceive Adam’s actions in a negative way. This will bring me to a discussion of Jewish anthropology in the Second Temple period, and also to a discussion of sin and evil. This will then lead to a discussion of a Jewish anthropology (or stereotyping) concerning Gentiles, a concept of which, I argue, Paul makes use in Romans. Second Temple parallels: Adam’s actions are not considered in a negative way In order to better grasp what Paul intends with his use of Adam in Romans 5: 12- 21, we must also - besides the possible meanings explored in the Old Testament exegesis of Gen 2 and 3 - explore contemporary parallels to Paul’s use of Adam. We must try to understand these Jewish perceptions of Adam from their own premises. This may help us to better perceive Paul’s contemporary Jewish con‐ 9 Romans 5: 1-21 176 <?page no="177"?> 65 Benjamin Myers describes quite well the ‘Augustinian position’ that I regard as the ‘traditional Christian’ position: ‘Though he never says so explicitly, I think Augustine sees Romans 5: 12-21 as the real centre of Paul’s Epistle. He reads Romans as a record of the way two great narratives have played out in world history and in the history of each human self. It is Romans 7 that Augustine returns to most frequently throughout his life; but he reads chapter 7 through the lens of chapter 5’ (Myers 2013, 55). 66 Cf. Levison 1988, 33ff. 67 Ben Sira explicitly mentions Adam three times (33: 10; 40: 1; 49: 16), and implicitly, four times (15: 14; 17: 1-7, 32; 24: 28). 68 Jervell 1960, 31-32 69 Levison 1988, 38 70 If one would like to keep the use of ‘universal’ and ‘particular’ in continuation of Lev‐ ison, I would argue that Ben Sira opens with a universal perspective from a Jewish point of view - i.e. an intra-Jewish perspective which understands ‘us’ ( Jews) from the inside as ‘all’ and ‘everyone’. Afterwards, this perspective becomes more nuanced, and dis‐ tinctions are drawn between Israel and the Gentiles. 71 Cf. the introduction to Ben Sira by Legarreta-Castillo 2014, 38-39. text, instead of approaching Romans via a later Christian interpretation in the line of Augustine. 65 In Ben Sira 17: 1-32, we read that God created humankind with a free will, and that the human being is able to discern between good and evil. Besides, God is not made the source of evil, and Ben Sira does not intend to present a theo‐ dicy. 66 However, an important distinction must be made, because Ben Sira’s focus is (primarily) Israel. In 17: 1-32, Ben Sira rewrites the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 and 3, and he further elaborates on Israel’s story. 67 Jacob Jervell has pointed out that Ben Sira’s focus is Israel, because Ben Sira describes the giving of the (Mosaic) law on Sinai without explicitly distinguishing between the re‐ cipients of the (Mosaic) law from those described in 17: 1-10 - that is, a difference between Jews and Gentiles. 68 John Levison has opposed Jervell’s interpretation, because he regards Ben Sira as arguing from the universal to the specific, and therefore, Levison understands Ben Sira as starting his description with uni‐ versal humankind, only afterwards focusing more specifically on Israel. 69 I dis‐ agree with Levison, and follow Jervell, because in 17: 17, Ben Sira starts to specify the difference between Israel and the other nations. When he starts with a de‐ scription of those who descend from Adam, and continues with the giving of the (Mosaic) law on Sinai, the focus is exclusively on Israel. 70 Not until Ben Sira explicitly draws attention to it does he incorporate the perspective of the other nations (the Gentiles) into the story of Israel. From the perspective of the readers of Ben Sira’s work, this conclusion also makes more sense: Ben Sira writes in a specifically Jewish context, 71 and the recipients would naturally perceive them‐ selves as ‘humankind (Adam) created by God’. Not until/ unless it is explicitly Second Temple parallels: Adam’s actions are not considered in a negative way 177 <?page no="178"?> 72 This is what Westerholm and Dunn do: Westerholm 2004, 22-41; Dunn 1998, 51-161. 73 John Collins confirms this view (Collins 2003, 296). 74 Legarreta-Castillo confirms this perception of Adam in Ben Sira: ‘… in this passage [40: 1-41: 13] Adam simply represents the human condition; humans are bound to return to the earth from which they came - that is, they are mortal by nature’ (Legarreta-Cas‐ tillo 2014, 41). 75 Ben Sira reiterates this point in 40: 1, where he stresses the fact that human mortality itself is the major human concern. In 40: 1, he considers the original meaning of God’s verdict on Adam (which corresponds to the Old Testament exegetical interpretation of Gen 2-3 presented above), which comes down to the point that life is not merely a burden; it also ends with what is not only a chronological limit, but also an ineluctable fact: death. stated does the discourse involve other ethnicities (Gentiles) than Israel’s. Con‐ sequently, in Ben Sira we may detect the following elements from Gen 2 and 3, which are also present in a ‘traditional’ Christian interpretation of Rom 5, though in a reverse key, in Ben Sira: the question of free will, the distinction between good and evil, and ‘humanity’ descending from Adam. In the Lutheran tradition, we would interpret these distinctions from universal, ontological, and anthropological perspectives, and most often the tendency is to negatively eval‐ uate human capabilities. 72 However, this is not the case with Ben Sira, and this should make us cautious when we approach Paul. In order to reach a more comprehensive understanding of Adam’s role in Romans 5, which illuminates our cohesive reading of Romans, we must more fully penetrate Ben Sira’s perception of Adam, and ( Jewish) anthropology. In 17: 25-18: 14, Ben Sira recapitulates the various themes addressed in 15: 11-17: 24. His interpretation of Gen 2 and 3 demonstrates that human beings have a free choice (15: 14), that human beings are mortal (17: 1-4), that human beings are able to praise God for his creation (17: 6-10), and that human beings are able to obey God and his law (17: 11-14). Ben Sira recapitulates these themes in a pro‐ visional conclusion where he defeats or overcomes his literary opponents. Ac‐ cording to Ben Sira, the consequence of human mortality is not that human beings are hidden from God (16: 17-22). Instead, human beings become objects of God’s mercy because they are mortal. Also, Ben Sira does not regard human mortality as constituting some sort of ontological and irreparable fall. It is a simple truism: 73 Human beings are mortal because of Adam’s trespass. 74 As he writes in 33: 19, ‘All human beings come from the ground, and humankind [Greek: ‘Adam’] was created out of the dust’. 75 He reiterates this point in 41: 4, where he states that death is ‘the Lord’s decree for all flesh’, and this has nothing 9 Romans 5: 1-21 178 <?page no="179"?> 76 In line with the above-presented interpretation of Gen 1-3 as a text that explains why something is as it is, concerning Ben Sira’s perception of Genesis, John Collins con‐ cludes, ‘Ben Sira, then, represents a line of interpretation of Genesis that took the story as paradigmatic of the human situation rather than as a narrative that explained its origin. … In this reading of Genesis, there is no Fall, in the sense of one fateful event that changed the circumstances of human life. Neither sin nor death can be attributed to the deed of Adam (or Eve). Death is simply the decree of God for all flesh, and sin is the responsibility of every human being’ (Collins 2003, 300-301). 77 A similarly positive picture of Adam is painted by Enoch in the ‘Book of Dream Visions’ (1 Enoch 83-90). In the animal apocalypse Enoch has a vision that begins with the growing of the first man from the earth (i.e. Adam) in the appearance of a white bull, as white as snow (1 Enoch 85: 3). The colour of the bull is symbolic of purity. After Adam comes Eve, and Cain (black) and Abel (red). From Adam and Eve descend both white and black cows - the colours symbolizing goodness and wickedness. Of interest here is that Enoch rewrites the story of Genesis, and represents Adam as a glorious patriarch. There is no mention of the trespass. to do with punishment. 76 Nor is Adam denigrated or vilified because of this fact: On the contrary, Ben Sira writes of Adam, ‘Shem and Seth and Enosh were honoured, but above every other created living being was Adam’ (49: 16). 77 Be‐ sides, human beings still have the option of choosing freely between good and evil (15: 14; 17: 6-10), even though they have become mortal as a consequence of Adam’s trespass. This is reinforced by the claim that God’s forgiveness is given to those ‘who return to him’ (17: 29) of their own free will. Even if the human being is not fully capable of appreciating God’s acts, because the human being is mortal, it is absolutely possible for human beings to turn to God, and to the eternal covenant he made with them (17: 6-11). It is crucial to bring these insights to our interpretation of the Pauline passage, but before we turn to Paul, we must investigate other Second Temple period Jewish authors. According to Philo of Alexandria, humans are mortal because of Adam (and Eve). However, in De Opificio Mundi (152) Philo does not ascribe human mor‐ tality to the consequences of Adam’s trespass. Instead, human mortality enters the world because of the mutual desire between Adam and Eve. Thus, Philo presents a different interpretation of Gen 2 and 3 than the traditional Christian interpretation, and mortality seems irrelevant to his perception of Adam, or at least peripheral or inessential. Love supervenes, brings together and fits into one the divided halves, as it were, of a single living creature, and sets up in each of them a desire for fellowship with the other with a view to the production of their like. And this desire begat likewise bodily pleasure, that pleasure which is the beginning of wrongs and violation of law, the Second Temple parallels: Adam’s actions are not considered in a negative way 179 <?page no="180"?> 78 Philo De Op Mun 152 (Loeb) pleasure for the sake of which men bring on themselves the life of mortality and wretchedness in lieu of that of immortality and bliss. 78 Here, Philo seems to assume the view that Aristophanes propounds in Plato’s Symposium (189C-193D). According to Aristophanes’ account, Zeus divided the originally-created androgynous being in two halves, and their mutual desire is to restore their original unity. Philo regards this desire as entirely adverse, as it brought the primeval couple into mortality and sin. In De Op Mun 167-169, when Philo turns to God’s verdicts on the snake, the woman, and man (Gen 3: 14-19), he considers pleasure to be the cause of God’s verdict. Because of their pleasure, the woman brought upon herself the travails of birth pangs, man incurred la‐ bours and distress, and mortality was their common lot. Consequently, what is important to Philo is not mortality, but pleasure. Mortality is a condition, so it is not a problem, however, pursuit of pleasure is. That Philo could interpret the story of Adam and Eve in this way should be remembered as a possible critical correction to the perception of the Genesis story as a story of sin, guilt, and the fall. Reading the story of Adam and Eve as a story representing the ‘Fall of Humanity’ seems to be the exception rather than the rule. It does not invalidate such a perception, but it makes it very unlikely and implausible. According to Josephus’s interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve, God’s prohibition on eating from the knowledge tree does not concern mortality, but ‘catastrophe’ (ὂλεθρος, Ant 1.40). Josephus does not seem concerned about human mortality, but focuses more on the fact that disobeying God’s command‐ ments brings misfortune (cf. the proem of Ant 1.14). Thus, Josephus shifts the attention from the verdict of death to the loss of the ‘good life’ (cf. the proem and the focus on εὐδαιμονία, Ant 1.14). It is common knowledge to Josephus that humans became mortal because of Adam’s trespass, so Josephus alters the story to address tragic misfortune, rather than death (συμφοραῖς, Ant 1.48; see 1.14). Also, when Josephus reports on God’s verdicts on Adam and Eve, nothing is said of death, sin, or guilt, since they did not lose immortality, but the good life. God simply ‘removed’ (μετοικίζειν) Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, so they lost access to an earthly paradise and immortality. Consequently, what is important to Josephus is neither sin nor mortality, but catastrophe and the loss of the good life. Adam is still a Jewish hero, but he lost the good life. Just as with Philo, then, Josephus’s interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve bears witness to a perception of the story that differs from the traditional Christian one, and Josephus’s perception does not concern sin, guilt, and fall. And Jose‐ 9 Romans 5: 1-21 180 <?page no="181"?> 79 There are three (possibly five) references to Adam in Wisdom: 7: 1-6; 10: 1-11: 1; 15: 7- 13 (2: 23-24; 9: 1-3). 80 Collins 2003, 297 phus does not regard God’s treatment of Adam and Eve as some sort of pun‐ ishment or curse; God simply ‘removed’ (μετοικίζειν) Adam and Eve. In Wisdom of Solomon, Adam is presented as a type of the just person and a wise ruler (10: 1-2). 79 Wisdom protected the first-formed father of the world, when he alone had been cre‐ ated; she [Wisdom] delivered him from his trespass [παραπτώματος] and gave him strength to rule all things. In this passage, Adam is protected by Wisdom, and Wisdom delivered Adam from his trespass. In Wisdom of Solomon there is no sign that Adam is evaluated negatively. Instead, he ruled wisely over all things, and is a positive Jewish type. The author may even go so far as to exonerate Adam of sin, since Wisdom protected him. So Adam is not even considered a sinner - quite a difference from a ‘traditional Christian’ perception. Also, it was not Adam who brought death into the world, but his antitype, Cain. Because of what Cain did to his brother, the flood came upon the earth (Wisd. of Sol. 10: 4; also cf. 1: 13 and 2: 23-24, which indicates the devil as the ‘source’ of death). Wisdom of Solomon seems to simply accept mortality as a human condition. 80 So, just as with other Second Temple Jewish authors, there is nothing in Wisdom of Solomon that indicates that Adam (and Eve) fell from a state of grace into an ontologically sinful state, and Adam is still considered a true Jewish hero. The foregoing works and authors generally regard Adam as an Israelite an‐ cestor who had common human qualities and experiences - death is natural, and people are mortal. The omission of any mention of Adam’s trespass in con‐ nection with his mortality by Ben Sira and Wisdom of Solomon is due to these authors’ view that death and mortality are natural aspects of life. Death and mortality are not the results of a primeval trespass, but are basic human condi‐ tions. The negligent focus on mortality in Philo and Josephus is grounded in their literary purpose of presenting Jewish material in a Greco-Roman way. Pleasure and the loss of the good life were their contextualized way of under‐ standing the story of Adam and Eve. And neither sin nor mortality was in their view. However, if these authors did not consider the story of Adam and Eve to be about sin, guilt, and evil, how then did they perceive these phenomena? Second Temple parallels: Adam’s actions are not considered in a negative way 181 <?page no="182"?> 81 Ben Sira addresses the problem of sin and its origin head-on. Other Second Temple literature works around this problem and does not address the problem directly (Brand 2013, 93). 82 Translation carried over from Brand 2013, 95. 83 Brand 2013, 101 Sin and evil In addition to writing about Adam and anthropology, Ben Sira grapples with the problems of sin and evil head-on - at least for the Jews, as witnessed above, if not in a universalistic sense, for ‘all humanity’. 81 In 15: 11-20, Ben Sira addresses the problem of sin. The whole section reads as an argument for human free will with regard to the decision to sin - at least for Jews. But Ben Sira opens with a question of where the human desire, or inclination to sin originated: Do not say ‘From God is my sin’, for that which he hated he did not make. 82 From Ben Sira’s discussion of sin, it is reasonable to conclude that he was re‐ sponding to deterministic approaches concerning the origin of sin in contem‐ porary Judaism and Hellenistic culture. Ultimately, these approaches would blame a person’s sin and evil actions on God. But according to Ben Sira, God would not create what he himself despises. This is reiterated in 15: 12b-13: … he has no need of the sinful. The Lord hates all abominations; such things are not loved by those who fear him. The deciding factor for Ben Sira is that sin is not created at all - human beings are. It was he who created humankind in the beginning, and he left them in the power of their own free choice. If you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. (Ben Sira 15: 14-15) According to Ben Sira, human beings are capable of making a free moral choice, and this choice reflects the human character - at least if you are Jewish and are supposed to keep the commandments of the (Mosaic) law. This free choice is an inherent part of being human, and has always been a human ability. 83 Conse‐ quently, in 15: 11-20, Ben Sira does not accept a human tendency to sin, or a fallen nature, as does Christianity. God has allowed human beings to act as they please according to their character. The Jewish perception of the human being (i.e. anthropology), addressed by Ben Sira at this point is that it is good, and 9 Romans 5: 1-21 182 <?page no="183"?> 84 John Collins concludes likewise and states that there is ‘no place for a theory of original sin’ in Ben Sira (Collins 2003, 299). 85 Brand 2013, 281 86 John Levison reaches a similar conclusion in his comprehensive study Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism. The perception of Adam at the time of Paul was entirely positive, but concerning 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch Levison concludes: ‘The apocalyptic authors exhibit no independent interest in the original nature of the first man. Any positive statements about Adam’s original state which the authors of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch supply are sub‐ merged under a negative portrait of Adam as the initiator of the present, evil age’ (Lev‐ ison 1988, 154). 87 Brand 2013, 281-282 capable of good and right actions. 84 The human being is not incurvatus se because of any original and deterministic sin flowing from the acts of Adam. Instead, from Ben Sira’s references to Gen 2, 3, and 6 flow the full meaning of 15: 15: If you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. This conclusion resonates well with Miryam Brand’s impressive and recent study of sin and evil in Second Temple literature. She concludes, ‘The idea that humans are sinful because Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden fruit (‘original sin’) is rarely found in surviving Second Temple literature’. 85 Brand surveys Ben Sira, Jubilees, Book of the Watchers, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo of Alexandria, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch. 86 In addition to the conclusion concerning sin as originating in the actions of Adam, she adds, ‘However, only the two works written in the aftermath of the Temple’s destruction, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, explicitly present the idea that the desire to sin originated with the transgression of Adam and Eve’. 87 Consequently, even though Second Temple literature at the time of Paul discussed and acknowledged deterministic interpretations of sin, not until after the destruction of the Temple did anyone ascribe this to the actions of Adam (and Eve). Consequently, this interpretation of Adam’s trespass should be con‐ sidered an anomaly at the time of Paul. Also, as with Ben Sira, it is possible to distinguish between Israel and the Gentiles, which may further clarify Paul’s connection of death with sin. Therefore, I turn again to these Second Temple Jewish authors, to focus more narrowly on the distinction between Jews and Gentiles when it comes to sinning, free choice, and evil actions. Sin and evil 183 <?page no="184"?> 88 Cf. Brand 2013, 144 89 The role of Esau and the Edomites in the Hebrew Bible is complex: Esau is the brother of the patriarch Jacob (Gen 25: 19ff.), and the Edomites are the ‘brothers’ of the Israelites (Gen 36: 1; Deut 23: 7; Amos 1: 11; Obad 10; Mal 1: 2-5). However, Esau and the Edomites are also the enemy of Jacob and the Israelites - an enemy who must be continually removed and estranged from ‘within’ Israel itself. The narratives of Gen 25-36 and Num 20: 14-21 strive to emphasize the archetypical hostility of Edom, and the entire book of Obadiah is devoted to the subject of the destruction of Edom. Also cf. Isa 21: 11-12; 34: 5- 17; 63: 1-6; Jer 49: 7-22; Ezek 25: 12-14; Amos 1: 11-12; 9: 13-15; Joel 3: 19-21; Mal 1: 1-5; Psalm 60; 137; Lam 4: 21-22 for the condemnation of, and hatred expressed for Edom. Also cf. Anderson 2011, and the essays in Edelman (ed.) 1995 on the complex status of Esau/ Edom in the Hebrew Bible. Sin and Gentiles According to the above-mentioned authors who represent Second Temple Jewish views, human free will, free moral choice, and the ability to freely choose between good and evil lie (in principle) with God’s Israel and the Jewish people. The ‘righteous’ inhabitants of the covenant (i.e. the Jews), of course, do not actually want to sin - even though they sometimes do, because all human beings sin. This observation is grounded in the fact that Israel (obviously) loves God, and wishes to stay faithful to the covenant. Also, the Gentiles are not generally evident in the texts, which present the intra-Jewish perspective on Jewish an‐ thropology and Israel’s covenant with God. However, at various points, the in‐ clination to sin - which also dwells in historical-ethnic Jews - is used to explain the sinning antagonistic ‘other’ of the Jew, namely, the Gentile. And when these instances surface, there is no intention from the Jewish perspective to vindicate the sinner. On the contrary, these instances are foregrounded to explain why there are other nations that do not have a covenant with God, and that cause Israel to grieve. Also, the spill-over effect of such explanations is that the Jewish writers demonize these nations as the stereotypical ‘other’ and hostile Gen‐ tiles. 88 They are the sinful ‘others’, and ‘we’ are the righteous and covenant Jews (or ‘humanity’). In Jubilees, the myth of the Watchers is meant to explain the origin of sin. However, when Jubilees explains the sinful nature of Esau - the paradigmatic forefather of Edom and the stereotypical Gentile 89 - it brings in Esau’s inclina‐ tion to sin. In Jub 35: 9, Rebecca pleads with Isaac, and asks him to make Esau swear to not harm Jacob: She went in to Isaac and said to him: ‘I am making one request of you: make Esau swear that he will not harm Jacob and not pursue him in hatred. For you know the 9 Romans 5: 1-21 184 <?page no="185"?> 90 Translation taken over from Brand 2013, 144. 91 According to Elie Assis, the frequency of the hostile references to Edom in the Hebrew Bible is not grounded in a specific hatred of the people dwelling in the south beyond the Jordan, but in the perception that ‘Edom represents and symbolizes all the [Gentile] nations’ (Assis 2006, 6). According to Assis, the work of Ben Zvi on the book of Obadiah also shows that ‘Edom became the symbol of the nations’ (Assis 2006, 7). 92 The hostility toward Edom is not limited to the Hebrew Bible. ‘The Edomites were reviled in 1 Esdras and figured negatively in texts from Qumran, Josephus, and Pseudo-Josephus’ (Graybill 2015, 135 n21). 93 Translation slightly amended. 94 For a similar conclusion cf. Hahne 2006, 70-71. 95 According to Todd Hanneken, it was not clear to the Israelites at the time of Jubilees, nor was it clear from the received sources, that all Gentiles were intrinsically evil, cf. 1 Macc 8: 12 and Sir 39: 4 (Hanneken 2015, 2). Hence, it becomes difficult to draw conclu‐ sions on a specific Jewish anthropology of Gentiles, when not even the Jewish sources agree on a Jewish anthropology of the Jews. A further observation in this line of thinking concerns John Collins’ point that when it comes to the origin of death (human mortality as an anthropological element), Ben Sira is not even consistent in his own thinking (Collins 2003, 298). inclination of Esau - that he has been malicious since his youth and that he is devoid of virtue because he wishes to kill him after your death’. 90 What demands attention in this verse is that Rebecca calls attention to Esau’s fundamentally evil nature. That Rebecca points out that Esau has been evil from his youth is a reference to Gen 8: 21. After the flood, when Noah built an altar to the Lord and burnt offerings on the altar, God said in his heart: ‘I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth’. Consequently, what applies to all humankind in Gen 8: 21, the author of Jubilees refers to Esau alone. 91 In Jubilees, it is evident that Esau’s nature is basically evil, because he is the paradigmatic Gentile, and fore‐ father of the enemy, Edom. 92 This agrees with the perception often found in Jubilees that the actions of the Gentiles are impure, ‘for their ways are defiled and something abominable and detestable’ (Jub 22: 16). 93 Consequently, the de‐ terministic aspect of Gen 8: 21 is specifically transferred to the Gentile Esau - and all Gentiles after him - but the author of Jubilees still maintains the free will of all Jews.  94 Hence, Jews have a free will because of their ( Jewish) nature, but Gentiles do not, because their nature is basically evil. This is an advanced ar‐ gument put forth by the author of Jubilees, and it must walk a thin line of dis‐ tinction to avoid incongruity. 95 Nevertheless, it may prove indispensable when we turn to Paul, who prides himself on being a righteous and ‘perfect’ Jew while preaching ‘the good news’ to ungodly and unrighteous Gentiles. Sin and Gentiles 185 <?page no="186"?> 96 Philo also works with this passage in De Vit Mos 1.239-249, but this interpretation is not as wide-ranging as his interpretation in Quod Deus. Josephus also works with the Edom-Israel incident, but his handling of the passage amounts more to a simple re‐ telling of the story (cf. Ant. 4.76-77). 97 Philo Quod Deus 142 (Loeb) 98 Philo Quod Deus 144 (Loeb) In Quod Deus immutabilis sit 144-180, Philo also has some remarks con‐ cerning Edom and the Edomites. These remarks bear witness to a perception that Israel is radically different from the Edomites, who are ‘the others’, the Gentiles. Philo presents a long excursus on the Edom-Israel encounter reported in Num 20: 14-21, a rather insignificant episode in the Hebrew Bible. 96 Philo develops this incident into fundamental (ontological and anthropological) truths about Israel and Edom, or Israel and ‘the others’. In the passage from Numbers, Moses sent messengers to the king of Edom asking him for permission to travel through his land. Num 20: 18 reports, ‘But Edom said to him, ’You shall not pass through, or we will come out with the sword against you.”’ The passage con‐ cludes by stating, ‘Edom refused to give Israel passage through their territory; so Israel turned away from them’. What matters in Philo’s treatment of the incident between Edom and Israel in Num 20: 14-21 is that it is triggered by humanity’s corruption of God’s way in the story of Noah: ‘God saw that the earth was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth’ (Gen 6: 12). So, Philo uses the story of Israel and Edom in Numbers to interpret the statement in Genesis. Philo explains the passage from Genesis by arguing that in the passage in Numbers, Moses is not merely speaking of the flesh that ‘corrupts its own way’, but ‘of two things, the flesh which is being corrupted, and Another, whose way that flesh seeks to mar and corrupt’. 97 From this distinction Philo unfolds a great contrast between the two sides, the pleasure of the flesh (Edom) and divine wisdom (Israel): Thus those who are members of that race endowed with vision, which is called Israel, when they wish to journey along that royal road, find their way contested by Edom the earthly one - for such is the interpretation of that name… 98 Philo’s treatment of the passage from Num 20: 14-21 essentially consists of an abbreviated quotation of verses 17-21, according to the LXX, followed by an allegorical elucidation of its component phrases. The passage (144-180) is also interspersed with a variety of more or less tangential digressions. Philo’s alle‐ gorical handling of the Edom-Israel incident presents his readers with two con‐ trasting ‘ways’, that of the Edomites, who cling to earthly things, and that of the Israelites, who are intent on following the higher way of wisdom (the King’s 9 Romans 5: 1-21 186 <?page no="187"?> Highway, Num 20: 19). Philo turns the Edom-Israel incident into an illustration of the fundamental differences between two peoples, which characterize their entire histories and relationship (the Gentiles and Israel). He develops his treat‐ ment of the Edom-Israel episode into a discussion of the corrupted ‘way’ of Gen 6: 12, and he further develops it with an allusion to the figure of Balaam, as portrayed in Numbers 22: 1-24: 31. The King of Moab summons the diviner Ba‐ laam to curse Israel (Num 22: 6). So, in the hands of Philo, Edom and Moab stand together as ‘the other’ (or the Gentile nations) who tries to make Israel fall, and who is ‘earthy‘, as opposed to wise. Philo even leaves aside the principals in the story in Num 20: 14-21 (Moses and the king of Edom), in order to focus attention on the two peoples, the opposing ways of life they represent, their anthropo‐ logical realities, and the ethical implications of these. Philo does not simply reproduce the content of the Numbers story; he invests the biblical data with a far-reaching allegorical, anthropological, and moral significance. From this one-time confrontation between two peoples, he elaborates a much fuller sig‐ nificance, where the Edomites appears altogether negative and earthy, and Israel appears positive, wise, and spiritual. Philo transposes the simple story of the encounter between Edom and Israel in Num 20: 14-21 to a transhistorical level, where a moral, anthropological, and ontological opposition between two ways of life - between two peoples or ethnic identities - are to be found in all times and places. Consequently, Philo ascribes justice, wisdom, and free will to Israel/ Jews, and injustice, earthiness, and sin to Edomites and Gentiles. Could it be that Paul is doing the same thing, and describing to his Gentile addressees (as the apostle to the Gentiles) how they became what they are, while not elaborating on the ‘Jewish’ part of the story, since he writes exclusively to Gentiles? I will turn to this below. Another example of an evil Gentile nature or inclination may be found in Wisdom of Solomon. In general, Wisdom of Solomon attributes sinning to fool‐ ishness (12: 23; also cf. 5: 4). However, something different applies to the Gentiles of the seven nations of the land of Canaan. When Israel entered the Promised Land under the leadership of Joshua, they were ordered to destroy the Gentile inhabitants. But judging them little by little you gave them an opportunity to repent, though you were not unaware that their origin [or nature] (ἡ γένεσις) was evil and their wicked‐ ness inborn (ἔμφυτος), and that their way of thinking (ὁ λογισμὸς) would never change. For they were an accursed race (σπέρμα) from the beginning (ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς), and it was not through fear of anyone that you left them unpunished for their sins. (Wisd. of Sol. 12: 10-11) Sin and Gentiles 187 <?page no="188"?> 99 That they are an accursed race refers to the curse laid upon Canaan by Noah in Gen 9: 25-27, after he wakes up from his wine and realizes what his youngest son had done to him: ‘Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers’. He [Noah] also said, ‘Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. May God make space for Japhet, and let him live in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave’. This passage explains two points of interest to the discussion of Rom 5 and the Gentile audience of Romans: First, God’s decree against these Gentiles is severe. Their evil nature will never change, so their destruction would be an example of divine justice. Second, these (Gentile) nations are evil because their nature or origin is evil, because their wickedness is inborn, and because they were an accursed race from the beginning. 99 This description applies - specifically and exclusively - to Gentiles, and specifically not to Jews. Essentially, Israel is con‐ sidered good and righteous, because she lives in a covenant relationship with God. Otherwise with the Gentiles, who are considered evil and impious. Con‐ sequently, the passage in Wisdom of Solomon testifies to the construction of the Gentile ‘other’ as different from the Jew. This is revealed in the xenophobic militarism of Israel’s God, who will righteously destroy the unrighteous Gen‐ tiles. Besides, the construction of the Gentile ‘other’ in this passage of Wisdom of Solomon develops as ethnic-cultural violence directed at the erasure of foreign Gentile bodies, social or political perceptions, and relationships that represent incorrect religio-cultural actions from a Jewish point of view. These Gentiles are simply and fundamentally ‘wrong’ - and God will punish them for that. Jubilees bears witness to a more literal demonization of Gentiles than that resulting from an innate human inclination as described above, concerning Esau/ Edomites. Generally, Jubilees presents ‘the Watchers’ as the demonic source of sin - this applies equally to Israel and the Gentiles. However, like Belial, the Gentile nations can cause Israel to sin simply by ruling them (1: 19- 21), and the Gentile nations are often themselves ruled by sin-causing spirits. In 15: 30-32, Jubilees gives this account: [The Lord] did not choose them [Ishmael and his sons and his brothers and Esau] because they are the children of Abraham, because He knew them, but He chose Israel to be His people. And He sanctified it, and gathered it from amongst all the children of men; for there are many nations and many peoples, and all are His, and over all hath He placed spirits in authority to lead them astray from Him. But over Israel He did not appoint any angel or spirit, for He alone is their ruler, and He will preserve them and require them at the hand of His angels and His spirits, and at the hand of all His powers in order that He may preserve them and bless them, and that they may be His and He may be theirs from henceforth forever. 9 Romans 5: 1-21 188 <?page no="189"?> 100 A similar point with anthropological consequences seems to be expressed in chapter two of Jubilees, concerning the Sabbath: ‘God separates a people unto himself and they shall keep the Sabbath’ (2: 19). However, this point is made in explicit opposition to the other peoples and nations: ‘And the Creator of all things blessed it, but he did not sanctify all peoples and nations to keep Sabbath thereon, but Israel alone: them alone he permitted to…’ (2: 31). Different rules apply to Jews and Gentiles, and God’s blessing is not bestowed on all humankind, but on Israel only. This theme develops throughout the rest of Jubilees - the separation of Israel from ‘the others’ through the observance of the (Mosaic) law, particularly the keeping of the Sabbath. 101 Cf. the description of this in Brand 2013, 281. It is obvious from this account that Jubilees perceives demonic angels and spirits as ruling the Gentile nations. And these demonic forces cause the Gentiles to sin. But Israel is different. God did not appoint any angel or spirit to rule Israel, because he alone is their ruler. Consequently, these demonic forces do not cause Israel to sin in the same way as they do the Gentile nations. Israel is different from the Gentiles, and even though they may sin (unintentionally), they are not ruled by demonic forces, nor are they evilly inclined. 100 A similar perception applies to the War Scroll from Qumran. Here, Belial’s army is described as con‐ sisting of those Gentile nations that are portrayed as the enemies of Israel in the Hebrew Bible (Edom, Moab, the sons of Ammon, Philistia and troops of the Kittim of Ashur, 1QM 1.1-2). The War Scroll suggests that the Gentile nations are fundamentally sinful, and possibly emissaries of powerful demons. 101 Also, if these Gentile nations rule Israel, they will cause them to sin. Consequently, Israel is perceived as fundamentally different from the Gentiles, and the Jews have no problems concerning free choice. However, the Gentiles are ruled by evil, deterministic spirits, who cause them to sin and live unrighteously. To sum up the distinctions between Jews and Gentiles, the main point to emphasize is that according to ancient Jewish authors before 70 CE, Gentiles are different from Jews when it comes to sinning, free will, and moral choice. The elaboration of these anthropological distinctions springs from the same percep‐ tions in the Hebrew Bible, but the conclusion and deductions drawn are different for Jews and for Gentiles. According to Jubilees and the War Scroll from Qumran, Jews may be influenced by external demons, causing them to sin or choose a moral evil, but Israel is not considered fundamentally sinful or evil, because God alone is their ruler; the Gentiles, however, are considered fundamentally sinful and evil. According to Wisdom of Solomon, Jews are free to turn from sin through their own intellectual capacities and nature, because they have the law and live in a covenant with God, and they are not fundamentally sinful; the Gentiles are, because their origin was evil, their wickedness inborn, and they were an ac‐ cursed race from the beginning. Also, the variant perception that ‘the human Sin and Gentiles 189 <?page no="190"?> 102 Cf. the similar conclusions drawn by Hanneken 2015, 18, and Brand 2013, 146. The same applies to the literary intent of the ‘oracles against the nations’ in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Carolyn Sharp writes that the oracles against the nations ‘may have functioned as oracles of promise intended to bolster the morale of the prophet’s own people’ (Sharp 2015, 96). Kalmanofsky perceives the rhetorical purpose of the ‘oracles against the na‐ tions’ in similar ways (Kalmanofsky 2015, 110). heart is evil from youth’ (Gen 8: 21), which applies to Jew and Gentile alike, is primarily applied to the Gentile nations by these authors. For instance, this is evident in the perception that Canaan was ‘an accursed race from the beginning’ (Wisd. of Sol. 12: 11; Gen 9: 25-27). Thus, these Second Temple texts present Jews and Gentiles in an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ dichotomy governed by opposites, such as righteous-sinful, heavenly-earthy, spiritual-fleshly, good-bad, free-slave, governed-by-evil-spirits-governed-by-God. One of the ethnic-rhetorical strat‐ egies inherent to this presentation is that the Gentile ‘other’ serves the constit‐ utive purpose of explaining the Jew to himself as fundamentally different from the sinful. The fundamental sinfulness of ‘the other’ does not apply to ‘us’, the righteous Jews. Apart from the simultaneously generalized and specified perceptions of Jews and humankind, Gentiles are born with an innately sinful nature. However, in neither Jubilees nor Wisdom of Solomon does this perception apply to all Gen‐ tiles. The reason for this is a simple literary intent: Hostile Gentile nations that currently suppress or persecute Jews, as did Edom (Esau) or the seven Canaanite nations, may be identified by the addressees of the work written/ read. 102 Thus, what these Jewish authors engage in may be regarded as an expression of ‘re-reading’ the dominant Jewish culture, with its hegemonic pronouncements of monolithic authority. The theorizing of the Gentile ‘other’ becomes a con‐ stitutive feature of Jewish identity formation and boundary maintenance. Thus, by providing such descriptions of the ‘close/ nearby other’ (the enemy who may suppress Israel ‘right now’), the author could justify Jewish readers’ application of a similar perception (and judgment) to their own current ‘close/ nearby other’. This is not what Paul is concerned with, since he perceives his specific mission to be precisely to these impious and unrighteous Gentiles. Paul is concerned with bringing these fundamentally wrong people into some sort of relationship with the Jewish people and the God of Israel. So he sets out to explain to these Gentiles, simply, what went wrong, and more importantly, how they may be made right. The negative background of these Gentiles is somehow always present in the background, but Paul is much more concerned with explaining how they may be made right - what Christ means for them. By way of intro‐ duction, in the next paragraph we turn to how he manages to do this. By first 9 Romans 5: 1-21 190 <?page no="191"?> 103 I am aware that the word ‘sin’ is not used in the Genesis passage about Adam, but is first used of Cain’s action towards Abel. However, Wisdom of Solomon seems to apply the same understanding of Adam’s trespass as ‘sin’ as Paul does (cf. Wisd. of Sol. 10: 1- 2). Wisdom of Solomon designates Adam’s action as a ‘trespass’ (παράπτωμα), but si‐ multaneously explains that Wisdom ‘delivered’ (ἐξαιρέω) Adam from this, which may mean that Wisdom exonerated Adam from sin. Paul uses the same word as does Wisdom of Solomon (παράπτωμα) about Adam’s trespass in 5: 15-21 (six times), and some kind of synonymity is necessarily implied, since Paul switches back and forth between ‘tres‐ pass’ and ‘sin’. Consequently, in 5: 12 ‘sin’ may simply mean ‘trespass’, ‘blunder’, or ‘wrongdoing’, just as Gen 3 describes it. This means that ‘sinning’ may not imply an ontologically sinful state of human beings, but merely that every human being at some point trespasses God’s instructions. considering how Paul could use a genuine Jewish hero, Adam, as an example to explain to Gentiles their impious nature and actions, we must maintain that Paul perceives everything written in the Jewish scripture as a key to understanding current conditions. In Rom 15: 4, he explicitly states: ‘For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope’ (my italics, cf. 4: 23- 24 for the same idea). Paul simply assumes that whatever was written is relevant to his own situation, and that it can and should be used to instruct his Gentile audience. Now, after having illuminated crucial traces of the Hellenistic-Jewish debates about anthropology, let us turn to the famous passage on Adam in Rom 5: 12-21. First probing - the limitations of the analogy: Romans 5: 12- 14 Paul opens the passage on Adam and Christ with a crude Jewish truism: Adam trespassed against God’s instructions, and therefore he became mortal. This statement is consistent with the Genesis passage itself, and the widespread per‐ ception of Adam in Second Temple Jewish literature. 103 Paul further explains, because everyone sinned (i.e. trespassed against God’s instructions or com‐ First probing - the limitations of the analogy: Romans 5: 12-14 191 <?page no="192"?> 104 I am aware of Joseph Fitzmyer’s very impressive study of the meaning of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ in 5: 12d (Fitzmyer 1993a). However, Fitzmyer’s main motive for looking for another meaning of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ besides the ‘traditional’ and causal one (cf. point no. 10 in Fitzmyer 1993, 325- 326 and his list of scholars who support this reading) is that the causal meaning would ‘seem to make Paul say in 5.12d something contradictory to what he says in 5.12a-c’ (Fitzmyer 1993a, 327). However, this contradictory statement made by Paul would be contradictory only if sin/ death could have just one cause or reason (i.e. Adam’s original sin). But a survey of contemporary Jewish authors does not seem to suggest a problem with referring the origin of sin and death to multiple reasons. Jubilees confirms that Gentiles sin both because they have an evil inclination and because they are governed by evil forces. Hence, Paul’s statement in 5: 12d should not be regarded as contradictory. Also, if we adhere to the causal meaning of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, it matches Paul’s use of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ in 2 Cor 5: 4; Phil 3: 12 and Phil 4: 10. 105 Clifton Black seems to understand the passage in a similar way, even though he adds further nuances (Black 1984, 420-421). 106 Caragounis 1985, 143; Davidsen 1995, 248; Brandenburger 1965, 158; Stowers 1994, 254 107 Hofius describes 5: 13-14a as a ‘Zwischenbemerkung’ (Hofius 1996, 165). 108 Erickson and Kirby explain that the line of thought in 5: 12-14 is quite straightforward: ‘… after stressing the role of the one man… Paul simply goes on to explain his rationale in vv. 13-14’ (Erickson 1999, 290 n11; also cf. Kirby 1987). mandments), everyone became mortal. 104 At this point, Paul has uttered nothing but truisms: Adam sinned/ trespassed and became mortal; everyone else sinned/ trespassed and became mortal. There is nothing new or radical in these state‐ ments, from a Jewish point of view. 105 These were simple Jewish truisms at the time of Paul, validated by the above-presented readings from contemporary Jewish authors. Scholars often complain that Paul breaks off the sentence in 5: 12, and never finishes the sentence begun in 5: 12. 106 Instead, Paul digresses 107 and turns to an explanation of sin and its relation to the (Mosaic) law. In 5: 13, Paul explains that sin was in the world until the law [came/ was given] (ἄχρι νόμου), but sin cannot be reckoned or imputed (ἐλλογέω) if there is no law (μὴ ὄντος νόμου). The question is whether this (and the following) qualification should be taken as important information for understanding Paul’s message, or as merely paren‐ thetical and irrelevant information, as Paul’s ‘real’ point and focus is the an‐ tithesis between Adam and Christ. 108 But the reason Paul elaborates on the qual‐ ifications and further descriptions in 5: 13 is that the point of the subsequent comparison (5: 15-17) is limited. The most important constraint on the compar‐ ison is that Adam’s relationship to the many and Christ’s relation to the many are merely comparable in the period from Adam until the law (5: 13) (or from Adam to Moses (5: 14)). In 5: 13-14, Paul explains that sin was in the world before the (Mosaic) law, but sin cannot be counted when there is no law. Before the giving of the (Mosaic) law, death was merely a result of the sentence passed on 9 Romans 5: 1-21 192 <?page no="193"?> 109 Jewett explains that the syntax of 5: 14 suggests that ‘transgression’ and ‘sin’ are not synonymous, because all sinned, but not in a way resembling Adam’s transgression. However, since παράπτωμα (trespass) appears six more times in the passage, and refers equally to Adam’s and his descendants’ actions, the distinction between ‘trespass’ and ‘sin’ remains murky ( Jewett 2007, 378). Adam for his disobedience. After Moses, people became accountable for their own transgressions, because sin could now be reckoned through the law. Pre‐ sented as a diagram or figure, it looks like this: Adam → Moses/ the law Sin ↓ Dying/ mortality In 5: 14, Paul explains that death (or mortality) also reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in a similar way to Adam’s transgression (καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντας ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς παραβάσεως Ἀδὰμ). Here, Paul simply affirms that in the interim, people sinned. From Adam to Moses, people sinned. From Adam - to Moses. As a result of their transgressions, death continued to come to all. This means that death came to those who sinned or transgressed between Adam and Moses, even if they did not sin in a way similar to Adam. 109 Again: from Adam to Moses. The point is to clarify how sin could exist in the period between Adam and Moses, when no concrete or written ex‐ pression of God’s commandments/ will existed and, hence, sins could not be reckoned. Adam had violated a specific instruction given to him by God in the Garden of Eden, but after Adam, no written document delivered God’s com‐ mandments. Nevertheless, the people who lived between Adam and Moses died anyway, even if they sinned differently than Adam, so what Paul wishes to illuminate is the connection between sinning and mortality. However, this state‐ ment implies that after Moses, another opportunity emerged, since Paul focuses explicitly on the period between Adam and Moses. This is emphasized in 5: 13 where he focuses on the coming of the law (ἄχρι νόμου) as a watershed. Had Paul wanted to explain that sinning resulted in mortality up to his own day, or forever, or in an ontological or anthropological sense, he would not have re‐ stricted the period of time to the epoch between Adam and Moses - the first man and the giver of the (Mosaic) law. Paul has only explained that from Adam to Moses, people died because they sinned, even if their transgressions did not First probing - the limitations of the analogy: Romans 5: 12-14 193 <?page no="194"?> 110 Legarreta-Castillo seems to miss the restriction of the period to the time between Adam and Moses. When he comments on 5: 13-14 he concludes: ‘… despite the distinction between Adam’s sin and the sinning of those after Adam, the end result was the same, death. Thus, Paul shows that the Law was ineffective to prevent sin and death from ruling over humankind…’ (Legarreta-Castillo 2014, 158-159). According to 5: 14, death merely exercised dominion from Adam to Moses. However, Legarreta-Castillo regards the dominion of death as continuing after the time of Moses, but that is not what the text says. 111 This point goes against a comment made in Davidsen 1995, 249: ‘The typologization must be considered as the main question to Paul. That digression, which concerns the law (vv. 13-14), has to be seen as the anticipation of the objection, that the law should disperse the typology’. Obviously, I consider it the other way round: The qualifications made by Paul in 5: 12-14 are more important than the typology, because they determine the typology. match Adam’s. 110 However, by stating this, he similarly explains that from Moses onwards something else - a new logic, opportunity, or possibility - has emerged, since the period of ‘dying’ ends with Moses. This means that another possibility emerged after Moses, and that the subsequent comparison between trespass/ grace (παράπτωμα/ χάρισμα) and one man’s sinning/ grace-gift (ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος/ δώρημα) applies exclusively to the period between Adam and Moses. What grace and the grace-gift equal or correspond to, in the comparison in 5: 15-17, is trespass and sinning before Moses. For the comparison to be valid after Moses, Paul would have had to extend the period to after Moses’ time. But he did not do that. He explicitly states that death/ mortality reigned from Adam to Moses (ἐβασίλευσεν ὁ θάνατος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ μέχρι Μωϋσέως). What grace and the grace-gift are supposed to annul or equalize is the reign of death/ mortality in the period between Adam and Moses. Paul does not say anything about the period after Moses. Even though this information comes as something resem‐ bling a digression, its correct understanding is crucial to perceiving what Paul intends with his comparison of Adam and Christ. Hence, it should neither be neglected nor treated as negligible. The qualifications provided in 5: 12-14 de‐ termine, control, and restrict the comparisons in 5: 15-17, and they constitute the foundation upon which the comparison may be made. 111 They are not in‐ significant digressions, but pivotal conditions. Paul does not explicitly state what new possibility or logic emerged in the time of Moses, even though in 5: 13 he mentions the coming of the law (ἄχρι νόμου). However, it is easy to determine, considering Paul’s Jewish background, and the discussions from the other contemporary Jewish authors: From Moses onwards, God had a covenant with Israel, which made atonement and the ex‐ 9 Romans 5: 1-21 194 <?page no="195"?> 112 As a (former) Pharisee, Paul believed in the resurrection of the dead on the Day of Judgement. Consequently, Paul could be said to believe that death or mortality was already conquered for (Pharisaic) Jews, with the giving of the (Mosaic) law. According to the Pharisees, Jews living after Moses would be resurrected on the Day of Judgement and, hence, mortality did not ‘reign’ over Jews from Moses onwards. However, Gentiles stood outside the covenant between God and Israel, so death still reigned over them. Consequently, from Paul’s pharisaic perspective, it makes sense to still speak of the reign of death and sin over Gentiles. But now that Christ has come, the Gentiles have the opportunity to atone for their sins, and be victorious over death through partici‐ pation in Christ. Cf. Josephus’s remarks about the Pharisees (Ant 18.13-16), and Lür‐ mann’s interpretation of Paul’s background as Pharisaic (Lühmann 1989). 113 When I emphasize the communal aspect, it relates to the fact that Paul’s is not concerned with individuals, but with groups, ethnicities, and peoples. Therefore, he can simulta‐ neously uphold the view that some individual Gentiles can do what the law requires (2: 12-16), while claiming that the Gentiles ‘as a group’ or stereotype cannot. What Paul’s discourse generally delineates is something like an ethno-history of the Gentiles. But that does not controvert the fact that some individual Gentiles may be able to be a law to themselves, and do what the law requires. oneration of sin or trespass (ἁμαρτία and παράπτωμα) possible. 112 This oppor‐ tunity applied only to Israel or the Jews, so the Gentiles did not have the op‐ portunity to atone, since they were not included in God’s covenant with Israel. As a consequence of this, the Gentiles revelled and indulged in impious and unjust behaviour - reproducing the description of the thoroughly sinful Gentiles and their inclinations - storing up wrath for themselves on the Day of Judge‐ ment (cf. 2: 5: θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ ὀργὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς). This recalls some‐ thing well-known, besides the description in 1: 18-32: Just as Ben Sira focuses his attention in his reading of 17: 1-32 primarily on Israel/ the Jews with the giving of the (Mosaic) law, and the Gentiles are in the background, Paul takes for granted two different stories from the time of Moses: Israel has a covenant with God that does not include the Gentiles. Israel lives with God, and ‘Israel is the Lord’s own portion’ (Ben Sira 17: 17). The iniquities of Israel ‘are not hidden from him, and all their sins are before the Lord’ (Ben Sira 17: 20). To those who repent, ‘he grants a return’ (Ben Sira 17: 24). Of course, Jews have free will, since God ‘showed them good and evil’ (Ben Sira 17: 7), and God forgives ‘those [ Jews] who return to him’ (Ben Sira 17: 29) of their own free will - just as God ‘left them in the power of their own free choice’, so if they choose, they ‘can keep the commandments’ and act faithfully, as a matter of their own choice (Ben Sira 15: 14-15). The fundamental Jewish perception of Ben Sira is that Jews can fulfil the requirements of the (Mosaic) law of their own free will. Paul can also describe himself in such a way (cf. Phil 3: 4-6). However, Gentiles cannot do what the Jews can. It is not a possibility for Gentiles as a group or collective to live ac‐ cording to the (Mosaic) law. 113 According to the stereotypical Jewish perception First probing - the limitations of the analogy: Romans 5: 12-14 195 <?page no="196"?> - which I regard Paul as extending and expounding here - Gentiles are thor‐ oughly evil, unrighteous, ungodly, and sinful, and only because of Christ can they live a justified life and make peace with God (5: 1). Only because of Christ can they stop living in sin (6: 1). This perception of the Gentiles (as different from the Jews) matches and corresponds to Philo’s explanation (and interpretation) of the incident between Edom and Israel in Num 20: 14-21. The Jews are wise and spiritual, whereas the Gentiles are earthy, fleshly, and corrupted. Philo uses the incident between Edom and Israel to explain the Edomites’ or the Gentiles’ corruption of God’s way - that God saw that the earth was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth (Gen 6: 12). Philo uses the story from Numbers to ascribe justice, wisdom, and free will to Israel, and injustice, earth‐ iness, and sin to the Gentiles. The Gentiles have an evil inclination, just as Wisdom of Solomon described those who lived in the land of Canaan when Joshua entered the land. Their origin was evil and their wickedness inborn. Their way of thinking cannot change, since they were an accursed race from the beginning. Both the War Scroll from Qumran, and Jubilees describe the Gentiles as sinful and evil, even though this is the result of demonic forces (spirits and angels). God placed spirits in authority to lead the Gentiles astray, but he did not appoint any angel or spirit over Israel, for he alone is the ruler of Israel. He will preserve them and bless them, so they may be his and he may be theirs forever. Conse‐ quently, free will, wisdom, and blessings cling to Israel (quintessentially ex‐ pressed in the giving of the (Mosaic) law as the sign of the covenant), whereas sin, injustice, and deterministic demonic forces describe the Gentiles. These are plain Second Temple Judaism truisms - and this is what Paul expounds on, and distributes to his Gentile addressees: With the giving of the (Mosaic) law, two different stories (and ethnicities and anthropologies) run along parallel to each other in the history described in the Hebrew Bible. This may be presented in a figure: 9 Romans 5: 1-21 196 <?page no="197"?> Could this distinction between Jews and Gentiles from the time of Moses further be strengthened? Yes, if we look at one of the final verses from the passage on Adam and Christ, 5: 20: ‘Law came in, in order that the trespass multiplied’ (νόμος δὲ παρεισῆλθεν, ἵνα πλεονάσῃ τὸ παράπτωμα). Does any ancient Jewish writer perceive the (Mosaic) law as a booster, intensification, or amplification of trespasses? Hardly. Jews considered the (Mosaic) law a blessing and the quin‐ tessential expression of God’s covenant with Israel. The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good (cf. Rom 7: 12). But the law was given specifically and exclusively to Israel and the Jews. The law was not for the Gen‐ tiles - even though the law is the most perfect expression of God’s will, and the right way of life. Consequently, up to this point in the discourse, Paul’s rhetorical handling of the passage on Adam and Christ should not be considered to be riddled with insignificant digressions and unintelligible detours. He opens the passage with a well-known description of how humans became mortal, and how all died because they trespassed, until the coming of the law (ἄχρι νόμου, 5: 13) at the time of Moses (ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ μέχρι Μωϋσέως, 5: 14). However, at the time of Moses, Israel received another opportunity - an opportunity well-known to all who are familiar with the Hebrew Bible, but on which Paul does not care to elaborate, since he directs his message to Gentiles. That opportunity had fatal consequences for the Gentiles. But that is not a problem for Paul - it is just the way it is: The (Mosaic) law is for Israel and Christ is for the Gentiles. So, the (Mosaic) law was given so the trespasses of the Gentiles would multiply. But where sin increased, the grace of God abounded much more (ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἡ χάρις). That is why Paul specifically restricted the period of mortality to the period between Adam and Moses. Israel had an alternative that was unavailable to the Gentiles, but now that Christ has come it is evident that God planned it in this way, in order for grace to abound much more. The law increased the trespasses of the Gentiles - not the Jews - but where sin increased, grace abounded much more. Paul knows that Israel received the law as part of a covenant that included forgiveness and atonement for sins. Paul knows that Moses was an authoritative figure through whom Israel received unique blessings and responsibilities, and a justified relationship with God. However, Paul ignores this positive role of the law for Israel, because it is irrelevant to his discussion of Gentile redemption. As he initially explained in 1: 18-32, the law meant only that God began to keep track of good and evil, in view of the world to come, and it is in this sense that the law increased the Gentile liability for sin - not because every human being is ontologically and anthropologically a depraved sinner. Before moving on to the next verses in Romans, concerning the comparison between Adam and First probing - the limitations of the analogy: Romans 5: 12-14 197 <?page no="198"?> 114 Cf. Levison 1988, 152 Christ, we should consider some other aspects of Adam addressed in contem‐ porary Jewish sources, and the relationship of ancestors to their descendants. This will be seen to have a great influence on our perception of the comparison between Adam and Christ. The perception of Adam in Second Temple Jewish literature is specifically positive From a historical-contextual perspective, it is neither odd nor accidental that Paul shows no interest in speculating about the ‘original’, ‘psychological’, or ‘universal’ nature of Adam, as most Christian interpreters do. Hence, we should try to refrain from such views when we read that Paul calls Adam a type (τύπος) of Christ, and juxtaposes Adam and Christ throughout 5: 12-21. Ben Sira refers to ‘the first man’ twice (24: 28; 49: 16), and both instances serve the overall literary purpose of Ben Sira’s text. 114 In 24: 28, he develops a discourse on the exaltation of Wisdom. When he describes Adam as lacking Wisdom, it serves the purpose of pointing out the incomprehensible character of Wisdom (24: 29), but Adam is not disparaged for this reason. In 49: 16, Ben Sira exalts Adam as an Israelite hero and patriarch, in order to exalt the status of Israel with respect to the surrounding nations. Nothing in these instances indicates that Ben Sira draws on an Adam mythology or wants to speculate about Adam’s nature. On the contrary, Ben Sira presents two different portraits of Adam to reinforce the message of the particular point he is trying to prove. Furthermore, Ben Sira considers Adam a genuine Jewish hero even though he may, in the first example, use Adam as a negative foil to explain something else. The course of the world did not change in an adverse direction with Adam’s trespass; Adam was a Jewish forefather and hero. Concerning Adam, Philo exhibits the same kind of reasoning as does Ben Sira. However, Philo is actually one of the only Early Jewish authors to speculate about the nature of Adam. But Philo’s speculation about the nature of Adam serves his overall philosophical purpose of exploring his composite nature as comprising a rational and an irrational element, not his responsibility for orig‐ inal sin (De Op. 134-150). Adam’s body was formed from pure and fresh soil, and Adam’s soul was God’s breath, a copy of the logos (139). Thus, Adam was entirely virtuous, and he redeemed the image of a Stoic sage who ruled by means of virtue. However, this description of Adam should be considered neither 9 Romans 5: 1-21 198 <?page no="199"?> 115 Philo De Op. Mund. 139 (Loeb) unique, nor as reflecting any Adam mythology. Philo presents Adam as one character in a long list of biblical figures who illustrate and exemplify the Stoic sage as a world citizen: Such was the first man created, as I think, in body and soul, surpassing all the men that now are, and all that have been before us. For our beginning is from men, whereas God created him, and the more eminent the maker is, so much the better is the work. 115 Philo’s interest in Adam’s original nature is secondary to his primary philo‐ sophical intention of presenting the Jewish patriarchs as Stoic sages. Just as with Ben Sira, Adam is presented as a positive figure - a genuine Jewish hero. The fact that Philo is a highly sophisticated thinker makes it reasonable for him to speculate about Adam’s original nature, but Philo’s speculations differ signifi‐ cantly from Paul’s presentation of Adam; I do not regard Paul as speculating about Adam’s original nature, or presenting him negatively. Another example offered by Philo further supports the perception of a posi‐ tive picture of Adam. In De Op Mun 148 Philo writes: Quite excellently does Moses ascribe the bestowal of names also to the first man (Gen 2: 19): for this is the business of wisdom and royalty, and the first man was wise with a wisdom learned from and taught by Wisdom’s own lips, for he was made by divine hands; he was, moreover, a king, and it befits a ruler to bestow titles on his several subordinates. And we may guess that the sovereignty with which that first man was invested was a most lofty one, seeing that God had fashioned him with the utmost care and deemed him worthy of the second place, making him His own viceroy and lord of all others. Adam’s characteristics, as described by Philo in this passage, mirror Philo’s per‐ ception of the Stoic sage, in whom wisdom and dominion are inextricably bound together. The superiority of the first man reflects Philo’s perception of Adam as Stoicism’s ‘world citizen’. Neither trespass nor mortality is important to Philo in this passage - only Adam’s superiority, and the fact that he redeems the perception of the ideal human being, as perceived by the elite surrounding Philo. This passage clearly illustrates Philo’s interpretation of the biblical narrative by way of Greek philosophical concepts and virtues. Philo simply uses Adam to prove a point - just as Ben Sira does - but nothing indicates that Adam’s ‘orig‐ inal’ nature ‘as a sinner’ played any part in Philo’s choice of example. The perception of Adam in Second Temple Jewish literature is specifically positive 199 <?page no="200"?> 116 Translation taken from Wise, Abbeg & Cook 2004, 275. 117 The expression ‘multitude of days’ should be understood as eternal life, cf. CD 3.20. This passage also describes how God has destined all the glory of Adam for certain members of the sect. 118 4Q381 may bear witness to the perception in Qumran that when Adam was originally created by God, the angels were made to serve and worship Adam. Some of the writings from Qumran also exhibit a very positive picture of Adam. In 1QS 4.22-23 it says: Thereby He shall give the upright insight into the knowledge of the Most High and the wisdom of the angels, making wise those following the perfect way. Indeed, God has chosen them for an eternal covenant; all the glory of Adam shall be theirs alone. Perversity shall be extinct, every fraudulent deed put to shame. 116 This text explains how, at the end of time, God will put an end to evil, judge all the nations, purify some of the righteous of their iniquity, while giving them perfect knowledge and all the glory of Adam. No mention is made of Adam’s trespass. Instead, his glory establishes him as similar to the angels, in terms of perfect knowledge and his close relationship to God. Those who follow ‘the perfect way’ will receive ‘all the glory of Adam’ and no mention is made of Adam’s trespass, and nothing about him being a ‘sinner’ is indicated. There is no speculation about his ‘original’ nature, and he is a thoroughly positive figure. In another text from Qumran we find a similar positive description: … you will free and assist them that serve him with faith, so that their posterity will be before you every day: you will answer them and raise among them … purifying them of their transgression, sending far away all their iniquity and making them par‐ ticipants in all the glory of Adam and for a multitude of days. (1QH 31.14-15) This passage explains how the glory of Adam comes to those who persevere in God’s covenant with Israel. Furthermore, these individuals will receive eternal life. 117 Consequently, the perception of Adam in the Qumran community is very positive. Adam possesses a glory that is transferred to the true Israel, which God will vindicate on the Day of Judgement. This honour is not simply a human honour or dignity; it is a glory that is God’s own glory. 118 Is it possible that Paul also perceived Adam in such a positive way, even though he starts from the premise that Adam trespassed against God’s instruction and became mortal? Jubilees also presents Adam as a Jewish hero and patriarch, primarily because he observed the (Mosaic) law. Like the other patriarchs (Enoch, Noah, and Abraham), Adam offered incense to God. However, Adam is distinguished (pos‐ itively) from the other patriarchs, because he offered incense in (or in front of) 9 Romans 5: 1-21 200 <?page no="201"?> the Garden of Eden. According to the author of Jubilees, the garden is God’s sanctuary (3: 12-13), the holy of holies (8: 19), so Adam acts as a priest, perhaps even a high priest, in the holy of holies. These offerings in the holy of holies were priestly prerogatives of Aaron’s posterity alone (2 Chron 26: 16-20; Num 16: 39-40). So the fact that the author of Jubilees presents Adam as bringing offerings in the holy of holies tells us something about how highly this author evaluates Adam. Also, when Jubilees describes the trespass and subsequent ac‐ tions, Adam does not hide from God. Nor does Jubilees mention the aspect of mortality, only the aspect of hard labour. For sure, eating of the forbidden fruit did not lead to universal sin; instead, the consequence of the trespass seems to be that the animals lost their ability to speak (3: 28). Besides, Adam and Eve are depicted as leaving the garden rather peacefully (3: 26-27). Clearly, they are not being cast out. In conclusion, the author of Jubilees vindicates Adam’s actions, and presents him as the first Israelite patriarch, rather than the first trespasser against God’s commandments. Even though the author of Jubilees is clearly aware that Adam trespassed against God’s instructions, this is not held against him. What the foregoing examples tell us is that Jews at the time of Paul regarded Adam as a hero and an important forefather, despite the fact that he trespassed against God’s instruction, became mortal, and had to leave the Garden of Eden. Even though Paul goes from Adam’s trespass and sin to the grace and gift of God in Christ, Paul’s perception of Adam may not be negative, but merely a starting point for explaining something far more important (for Gentiles). Adam per se may not be perceived negatively, and Paul may not be speculating about any original ‘negative’ nature of Adam. Adam may merely serve as a point of departure for Paul’s explanation of how God acts graciously and caring, now also towards the Gentiles, as he has acted before against Israel. And just as E.P. Sanders explained all the positive consequences of ‘covenantal nomism’ for Is‐ rael and the Jews, so may we also understand that in Christ, God is a loving, caring, and gracious God for the Gentiles, and that his benevolence far exceeds his punishment. Death and sin may have entered the world through Adam, but God is far greater than both sin and death, and his benevolence always exceeds his punishment. God’s benevolence is greater than his punishment In 5: 12-21, Paul is concerned with showing that, for better or for worse, God allows the deeds of an ancestor to affect the fate of the descendants, rather than God’s benevolence is greater than his punishment 201 <?page no="202"?> 119 Two of the most famous examples of a group of people being punished because of the actions of an individual, are Josh 7 and 2 Sam 21. In Josh 7, Joshua and all Israel took Achan son of Zerah, together with his sons and daughters, his oxen, donkeys, and sheep, and his tent and all that he had, and stoned them to death. In 2 Sam 21, David hands over seven descendants of Saul to the Gibeonites to be impaled, because of the bloodguilt on Saul’s house for his killing some of the Gibeonites. In this connection it should be mentioned as a curio that David specifically spared Mephibosheth, because he wanted to show kindness to the descendants of Jonathan (cf. 2 Sam 9). Consequently, 2 Sam 21 witnesses both the negative and positive sides of the retributive (divine) actions fol‐ lowing from the merits of ancestors, and how corporate responsibility works as a certain way of reasoning in the Hebrew Bible. 120 According to Sanders, most Rabbis followed the rejection of this statement in Ezekiel 18, and favoured individual responsibility (Sanders 1977, 194). However, the reason for this is found in the negative consequences expressed in Ex 20. The logic seems to be confirmed by the majority when it comes to the positive effects of meritorious acts of forefathers. Also cf. Kaminsky 1995, 11-12 121 According to Marmorstein, there are merits of the fathers and merits of the righteous (Marmorstein 1920, 5). Also cf. Sifre Deut. 96 (157; to Deut. 13: 18 [17]); Sifre Deut. 184. using the figure of Adam to present a theory of the origins of evil, or how hu‐ mankind fell because of original sin. The idea of ‘corporate responsibility’ and ‘merit of ancestors’ are ancient concepts known from various places in the He‐ brew Bible, and an expression of Second Temple Jewish theology. 119 In Ex 20: 5- 6, God says of himself that he is a jealous God, and that he is ‘visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing kindness to thousands [of generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments’. 120 This kind of reasoning also appears in Deut 12: 28: Observe and obey all these words that I command you, that it may go well with you and with your children after you forever, because you will be doing what is good and right in the sight of the Lord your God. We also find this logic expressed in 2 Sam 9: 1-13, where David shows kindness to Mephibosheth, simply because he is a descendant of Jonathan (and Saul): ‘David asked, ’Is there still anyone left of the house of Saul to whom I may show kindness for Jonathan’s sake? ”’ The logic underlying these statements concerns the fact that divine reward and punishment (i.e. retribution) are effective now, and these divine actions also apply to one’s descendants. Consequently, because of his love for the fathers of Israel, God would show their descendants special favour or indulgence for the sake of his affection and esteem to the fathers. 121 A logic similar to that in the abovementioned passages is found in Ben Sira 3: 14-15: ‘For kindness to a father will not be forgotten, and will be credited to you against your sins; in the day of your distress it will be remembered in your 9 Romans 5: 1-21 202 <?page no="203"?> 122 Cf. Marmorstein 1920 123 Cf. Kister 2007, 395; Collins 2005, 31-42 124 For a discussion of these, cf. Sanders 1977, 188ff.; also cf. Collins 2005, 39-42. 125 Levenson 1985 126 ‘…the Lord will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings. But I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever’ (2 Sam 7: 11b-16). 127 ‘’Far be it from us that we should forsake the Lord to serve other gods; for it is the Lord our God who brought us and our ancestors up from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, and who did those great signs in our sight. He protected us along all the way that we went, and among all the peoples through whom we passed; and the Lord drove out before us all the peoples, the Amorites who lived in the land. Therefore we also will serve the Lord, for he is our God”. But Joshua said to the people, ’You cannot serve the Lord, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions or your sins. If you forsake the Lord and serve foreign gods, then he will turn and do you harm, and consume you, after having done you good”. And the people said to Joshua, ’No, we will serve the Lord! ” Then Joshua said to the people, ’You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen the Lord, to serve him”. And they said, ’We are witnesses”’ ( Josh 24: 16b-22). favour [by God]; like frost in fair weather, your sins will melt away’ (also cf. 44: 13). The Ben Sira text is probably an inversion of Ps 109: 14, which says: ‘May the sin of his fathers be remembered before God, and the iniquity of his mother not be wiped out’. Arthur Marmorstein considers the Ben Sira passage an early form of the well-known rabbinic concept of the ‘merit of ancestors’. 122 Marmor‐ stein elaborated on this concept in his book, The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rab‐ binic Literature (1920). Some scholars consider the Ben Sira 3 passage one of the earliest formulations of the concept of the ‘treasure of merits’ (explicitly men‐ tioned in Sir 3: 4), 123 the view that ‘merits offset demerits’ (cf. Sir 3: 3, 15), and possibly also of the idea of ‘transfer of merits’ from ancestors to their descend‐ ants. 124 Jon D. Levenson has usefully understood the foregoing kind of reasoning as two sides of God’s covenantal relationship with his people (Zion and Sinai). 125 Levenson describes one side of this relationship as Zion, and he identifies God’s relationship to David and his progeny as the primary example of this (2 Sam 7). 126 The other side he identifies as Sinai. This reflects the more general cove‐ nantal idea of God’s special relationship with his people, Israel ( Josh 24). 127 Both covenants are essentially corporate, and apply synchronically (or horizontally) God’s benevolence is greater than his punishment 203 <?page no="204"?> 128 Kaminsky 1995, 47 129 Other examples of God’s corporate promises include God’s promise after the flood (Gen 8: 21; Is 54: 9-10), Israel’s election, especially as it relates to the promises of the patriarchs (Deut 9: 4-5), and God’s willingness to restore Israel after the exile (Deut 4: 29-31). 130 The work of Joel Kaminsky supports the point about the general corporate outlook and theology of the Hebrew Bible (cf. specifically Kaminsky 1995). In one article, Kaminsky writes: ‘In fact, it should be acknowledged that … the Hebrew Bible’s theology is fun‐ damentally corporate in its outlook…’ (Kaminsky 1997, 327). to everyone of the present generation, but they are also diachronical (or vertical), and apply to all those who are not yet born, and not yet actually present (cf. Deut 29: 9-14). These two patterns of covenantal thought, with a corporate out‐ look throughout generations operate throughout the history of the Hebrew Bible, 128 and they may well have inspired Paul in his theology of the inclusion of the Gentiles into the family of Israel. 129 If a righteous Jew does good deeds, these will be counted as merits that may bring blessings to his progeny. Conse‐ quently, both merits and demerits (blessing and condemnation) may be handed down or transferred to descendants: Adam passed on his mortality to his de‐ scendants, but God’s blessing and promises to David were also passed down through generations, just as Christ’s actions have meritorious effects for the Gentiles. Thus, what Paul may be outlining in Rom 5: 12-21 is that the role of Christ for the Gentiles equals or matches God’s promise to David that he will allow the meritorious acts to affect the descendants. A quite striking parallel of the transfer of merits is found in the Tannaitic Midrash (Sifre: Parashat Vayyiqra Dibura Dehobah Parashah 12: 4A-E). When we compare Paul’s letter with this rabbinic passage, it becomes clear how deeply Jewish Paul was, and how inspired by traditional Old Testament theology his theology was. 130 The anti-nomistic attitude often identified in Rom 5: 20 is mis‐ perceived, when we realize that Paul addresses his message exclusively to Gen‐ tiles, and that he remains faithful to Israel. Rabbi Yose says, ‘If you wish to know how great a reward will be given to the righteous in the Age to Come, you may learn this from Adam: He was given only one com‐ mandment, a prohibition, which he transgressed, and see how many deaths Adam was condemned [to suffer]: his own, and those of all his descendants and his descendants’ descendants to the end of all generations. Now, which divine measure is more abundant, the measure of divine benevolence or the measure of divine punishment? Certainly, the measure of benevolence is greater [or more abundant], while the measure of punishment is the lesser of the two. Now see how many deaths Adam and his descendants and his descendants’ descendants were condemned to. The measure of divine benevolence is greater: one who merely refrains from consuming sacrificial meat that has been sub‐ 9 Romans 5: 1-21 204 <?page no="205"?> 131 Parashat Vayyiqra Dibura Dehobah Parashah 12: 4A-E (slightly amended translation from that of Jacob Neusner, in Neusner 1988, 327), original Hebrew in Finkelstein (ed.) 1989, 2.206-207; also cf. the translation by M. Kister in Kister 2007, 395. My italics. 132 This statement is very common in Midrashic literature, cf. t. Sotah 4: 1; Mekhita de-Rabi Yishma‛el ba-hodesh 6; Sifre Numbers 8; Sifre Deuteronomy 40; Eccl. Rab. 4: 1. However, it also expresses a fundamental truth about the theo-logy of the Hebrew Bible. For instance, consider Genesis 18, where Abraham appears to appeal to God’s sense of justice (18: 25), but in fact is arguing for mercy. Abraham pleads with God for a whole city to survive on the merit of a few righteous men. And God accepts Abraham’s rea‐ soning - in principle being more benevolent than just - but Abraham fails to produce enough righteous men to merit saving the wicked inhabitants. Also cf. Ps 25: 6-11; 103: 8-14; 130: 3-8. 133 For an exposition of the qal va-chomer reasoning as used by the rabbis, cf. the lecture given by Hyam Maccoby (1924-2004) at the University of Manchester in 2001: ‘Some Problems in the Rabbinic Use of the Qal Va-Chomer Argument’ mostly reused in Mac‐ coby 2002. Also cf. Daube 1949, 251ff. and for Rom 5 specifically Müller 1967. 134 Also cf. Num 14: 18; Neh 9: 17; Ps 103: 8; 145: 8; Jer 32: 18; Joel 2: 13; Jon 4: 2; Nah 1: 3. jected to an improper intention on the part of the officiating priest and from meat that is left over [beyond the time allotted to it], and who fasts on the Day of Atonement, how much more does such a person acquire merit for himself and for his descendants and all his descendants’ descendants to the end of all generations! 131 This passage in the Sifra not only shares the same general idea about merits and demerits, but also the same literary setting and formulations as the passage in Romans concerning Adam. It also adds a new dimension to the difference be‐ tween sin and grace (Christ and Adam), which further elaborates on Paul’s and the other Second Temple Jewish authors’ use of Adam: The measure of divine benevolence is much greater than the measure of divine punishment. 132 How‐ ever, since these measures merely constitute two sides of divine activity, Adam’s punishment is not strictly understood as the diametrical opposite, and definitely not as the anti-type (to Christ). Adam’s punishment is also - and more so - conceived of as a case from which the generous reward may be inferred by deduction a minori ad maius. This reasoning is well-known and attested to in both the Hebrew Bible and the early Rabbis as the qal va-chomer. 133 Evidently, God is more merciful than he is vindictive, that is why he is described thus in Ex 34: 6-7: The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin… 134 The theo-logia (words about God) expressed in this quotation is very profound, and envisions a God who is not always equitable, but who emphasizes mercy God’s benevolence is greater than his punishment 205 <?page no="206"?> 135 Jewett 2007, 380. The square brackets and the italics are my additions. 136 Cf. Jewett 2007, 378 n98 and Schellenberg 2014 more than justice, just as in the Book of Jonah. I believe this is exactly what the Tannaitic Midrash intends to illuminate and, I believe, what Paul intends to explain with his presentation of Adam and Christ. Thus, from the concept of a ‘treasure of merits’ and ‘transfer of merits’ in Ben Sira and the Hebrew Bible - along with the passage in the Tannaitic Midrash - we may be able to do away with the perception that Paul uses Adam as an anti-type to Christ, and as a decidedly negative figure. If Paul may be said to extend the perceptions of other contemporary Jewish authors, with their positive view of Adam as a Jewish hero and forefather, and lack of speculation concerning his ‘original’ and ‘sinful’ na‐ ture, it becomes probable that Paul intends another reading of the Adam-Christ typology than the one traditionally promoted in the Christian tradition: Paul presents Adam as a point of departure, a representative parallel figure to Christ, from whom merits and mercy may be transferred. Paul works from the a minori ad maius principle (or the qal va-chomer), in order to show how ‘much more’ (πολλῷ μᾶλλον, 5: 9, 10, 15, 17) and ‘all the more so abounding’ (ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν, 5: 20) God’s mercy through Christ will be transferred to those living in and through the faithfulness of Christ. Even though Robert Jewett intends another reading of the passage than the one I present here, his overall description is straight to the point: ‘… Paul has no interest in developing a con‐ sistent doctrine of sin or even of Adam’s fall; his main concern is to show the all-encompassing and surpassingly glorious effect of Christ on those [Gentiles] who belong to him, and the Adamic comparison merely serves that end’. 135 Paul turns to Adam because he serves his literary, rhetorical, and theological purpose at this point in the discourse. Paul could have turned to another figure than Adam, because the point and centre of this passage is not Adam, but Christ. Paul merely uses Adam as a point of departure from which he can deduce effects passing from a forefather to his descendants. Let us turn to the passage in Ro‐ mans, and work further through these fascinating verses. Romans 5: 14c-17 Paul concludes 5: 14c with a sentence that has presented problems for some in‐ terpreters. 136 A direct translation is, ‘a type of the one to come’ (ὅς ἐστιν τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος), but the difficulty pertains to what ὅς refers, and what τύπος actually means or indicates. Does Paul intend to say that Christ is the ‘second’ 9 Romans 5: 1-21 206 <?page no="207"?> 137 Cf. e.g. Hofius 1996, 168f.; Davidsen 1995, 250-262 138 Jewett 2007, 378 139 Jewett 2007, 370 the square brackets represent my interpretation of the passage - not Jewett’s. 140 Cf. Theon 2003, 44 (English); Theon 1997, 65 (Greek). 141 John Barclay makes a similar point, but his focus is more on the incongruity of the gift of grace than on the incongruity of the comparison between Adam and Christ (Barclay 2013a, 59). Adam, that Adam was the ‘first’ Christ, or does he mean something else, since τοῦ μέλλοντος could be taken as a neuter and, hence, refer to an event yet to come? Because of the contrast developed later in the passage (5: 15-19), many scholars have regarded Adam as representing the antithetical correspondent to Christ. 137 However, such an antithesis is not inherent in the term τύπος itself. The basic meaning of τύπος is ‘the hollow impression made by a flow or a form’ with other related meanings, such as ‘a mould for producing a shape, a seal to make engravings, or a model for subsequent copies’. 138 Paul’s primary interest seems to be that both Adam and Christ determine the fate of their subjects, and, therefore, that Adam is a ‘type’ of Christ. In this sense, both Adam and Christ affect their descendants and, therefore, Adam is a ‘type’ of Christ. Robert Je‐ wett’s statement, which condenses the meaning of the typology, describes this quite suitably: ‘… Christ’s life (v. 10) defines the future destiny of [Gentile] be‐ lievers just as Adam’s life defined the future of his descendants [until the law came]’. 139 Thus, Adam is a type of Christ because he affects many, but not in any messianic sense. Therefore, the point Paul makes about Adam being a τύπος is merely that Adam’s actions affected many, just as Christ’s actions affect many. The major point to emphasize in the comparisons in Rom 5: 15-17 is that the effects of Adam’s and Christ’s actions are exclusively analogous in the sense that both had an impact on many people. Paul goes out of his way to underline that the actual comparison is improper and inept, because the effects of Christ’s obedience (ὑπακοή, 5: 19) are so much greater than the effects of Adam’s diso‐ bedience (παρακοή, 5: 19). Paul uses the phrase ‘much more’ (πολλῷ μᾶλλον, 5: 15, 17) twice, to emphasize that no direct comparison or straightforward re‐ lationship exists between Adam and Christ, and twice he uses a variant of something abundant, either as a noun or verb (περισσεία, περισσεύω, 5: 15, 17). In the Hellenistic rhetorical tradition of the Progymnasmata this amounts to a ‘comparison to the lesser’. 140 Christ is ‘so much more’ than Adam in this com‐ parison that it almost amounts to a categorical fallacy to even make the com‐ parison. 141 In this passage, Paul’s point is that Christ’s obedience affects the many in a way merely analogous to the effect of Adam’s disobedience in the period before Moses. However, the analogy or comparison breaks down even Romans 5: 14c-17 207 <?page no="208"?> 142 I do not follow Jewett, Porter, and Caragounis in regarding 5: 15a as a rhetorical question ( Jewett 2007, 379; Porter 1991; Caragounis 1985). Verse 5: 15a cannot be a rhetorical question, since πολλῷ μᾶλλον invalidates the ‘post-positive’ εἰ γὰρ. If 5: 15a had been a rhetorical question asking, ‘Is the free gift not (precisely) like the trespass? ’ it would invalidate the logic of πολλῷ μᾶλλον (5: 15, 17) and ὑπερπερισσεύω (5: 20), in order to make the relationship between Adam and Christ equal. But Paul’s point is that the comparison is not equal. Legarreta-Castillo regards the passage as I do (Legarreta-Cas‐ tillo 2014, 159-160). 143 Cf. Theon 2003, 44 (English); Theon 1997, 65 (Greek). before it has really been set up, because it is a ‘comparison to the lesser’. Paul begins the comparison by stating that the free gift is not like the trespass, that is, it does not really make sense to compare the two (Ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς τὸ παράπτωμα, οὕτως καὶ τὸ χάρισμα). 142 He follows this statement with the further qualifica‐ tion that the grace of God and the gift of grace (ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἡ δωρεὰ ἐν χάριτι) of Jesus Christ abounds or overbids (ἐπερίσσευσεν) the one man’s trespass. So the comparison does not really act as a one-to-one relationship. In the Hellenistic rhetorical tradition, a one-to-one comparison would amount to ‘putting an equal beside an equal’ but this is not what Paul does. 143 In 5: 16, Paul also goes on to state, again, that any comparison of the two will be invalid; he states that the gift (τὸ δώρημα) is not like the one man’s sinning (καὶ οὐχ ὡς δι᾽ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος). Consequently, we must take seriously Paul’s qualifica‐ tions of, and restrictions on the comparison: The free gift (χάρισμα/ δώρημα) is neither like the sinning (ἁμαρτήσαντος) nor like the trespass (παράπτωμα), and the grace of God in Christ is much more (πολλῷ μᾶλλον) than many peoples’ dying through one man’s trespass, and abounds or overbids (περισσεύω) the one man’s trespass. In 5: 17, Paul further supports the general outline of this claim and states that ‘if death through one man’s trespass reigned through this one man, much more will those who received the abundance of grace (τὴν περισσείαν τῆς χάριτος) and the righteous gift (καὶ τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης) reign in life through this one man Jesus Christ’. Grace constitutes an overflowing or abundance (περισσεία) that is ‘much more’ (πολλῷ μᾶλλον) than death’s reign through Adam. Thus, only by persistently emphasizing that the analogy amounts exclusively to the fact that both Adam’s and Christ’s ac‐ tions had an effect on many does it make sense to compare the two. And when the restriction of the significance of the typology has been settled, then the comparison should be considered a ‘comparison to the lesser’ or as a qal va-chomer argument as explained above. 9 Romans 5: 1-21 208 <?page no="209"?> 144 Jewett 2007, 385 my italics and square brackets. 145 Jewett 2007, 385 n195 146 Brendan Byrne explicates this view quintessentially in a 1981 article: ‘Verses 13-14 only serve to make the point that the absence of law between Adam and Moses did not disturb the basic pattern that death ’reigned” because of sin’ (Byrne 1981, 561). 147 Otfried Hofius interprets this passage similarly to Jewett and Tobin. Hofius defines 5: 13- 14a as a ‘Zwischenbemerkung’, and considers 5: 14b (ὅς ἐστιν τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος) as ‘den beherrschenden Grundsatz’ (Hofius 1996, 168). Adam and Christ compared Once we have emphasized how the comparison between Adam and Christ is annulled almost before it even begins, we must also state that Paul does make a comparison between Adam and Christ. ‘One’s trespass’ in 5: 15 (τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι) refers to Adam’s trespass. The ‘one man Jesus Christ’ in 5: 15 (τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) matches or corresponds to the ‘one’ Adam. The same about the ‘one’ (Adam) applies to 5: 16, 17, 18, and 19, whereas Christ does not figure in 5: 16, but in 5: 17, 18, and 19. This correspondence leads Robert Jewett to state that Paul ‘resumes the straightforward [! ] comparison between the ’one” Adam and the ’one” Christ’. 144 Jewett also refers to Thomas Tobin, who identifies this correspondence as paria ex paribus (‘comparison between equals’). 145 However, given the preceding analysis of these verses, I find it dif‐ ficult to define this comparison as either ‘straightforward’ or as a ‘comparison between equals’. To define this comparison as either ‘straightforward’ or ‘be‐ tween equals’, one would have to interpret the entire passage from one or more of the following perspectives: • The qualifications in 5: 12-14 are unimportant. 146 • τύπος actually means ‘anti-type’ rather than ‘type’. 147 • The logic of the comparison in 5: 15-17 is defined by neither πολλῷ μᾶλλον nor περισσεύω. • The conclusion to the comparison in 5: 18-21 is not defined by ὑπερπερισσεύω, but exclusively by the comparison of Adam and Christ in 5: 18-19. In order for the comparison to be either ‘straightforward’ or ‘between equals’, one would have to understand 5: 15a and 5: 16a as rhetorical questions answered with a confirmative ‘yes’, and 5: 18-19 without 5: 20 as the exclusively defining statements of the passage 5: 12-21. However, such an interpretation would un‐ dercut the flow of the passage from 5: 1-11 with the use of πολλῷ μᾶλλον in 5: 9 and 5: 10 as the logic of the entire chapter, and it would also refrain from seeing 5: 20 as the culmination of 5: 18-19, with its explicit focus on ‘super-abundance’ Adam and Christ compared 209 <?page no="210"?> (ὑπερπερισσεύω), which defines the relationship between Adam and Christ. What this amounts to is reading the entire passage with a narrow focus on 5: 18- 19, looking for neither the internal logic guiding the passage (πολλῷ μᾶλλον) nor the rhetorical flow of the passage culminating in ὑπερπερισσεύω, because the comparison and the anti-typology in 5: 18-19 fits a one-to-one relationship: ‘Since just as one’s trespass is to condemnation for all men, so also one’s right‐ eous deed is to life’s vindication (εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς) for all men; just as the many were made sinners through one man’s disobedience, so also the many will be made righteous through one’s obedience’. However, something else happens in 5: 20, which disqualifies or displaces such an interpretation. In 5: 20, Paul recapitulates the entire logic of the passage by referring to the law, which played a role in 5: 12-14, and by using the verb ὑπερπερισσεύω, which recalls both πολλῷ μᾶλλον from 5: 15 and 5: 17, and περισσεύω from 5: 15. By bringing the law back into the conclusion of the entire passage, Paul reiterates the qualifications of the comparison between Adam and Christ, a comparison that pertains exclusively to the period before the coming of the (Mosaic) law, namely the period between Adam and Moses. By using ὑπερπερισσεύω, Paul reiterates the abundant character of grace (περισσεύω, περισσεία), but simul‐ taneously reiterates the ‘much more’ (πολλῷ μᾶλλον) by adding the ‘super’ (ὑπερ) part to περισσεύω. The consequence of this is that in 5: 20, with the use of ὑπερπερισσεύω, Paul once again disqualifies and displaces the ‘straightfor‐ ward’ comparison or the ‘comparison between equals’, in order to emphasize the superabundant character of God’s grace. The comparison or typology con‐ necting Adam and Christ merely serves a pedagogical purpose, because in this passage Paul’s intent is to show how God’s benevolence always exceeds his punishment. The presumed (or human, cf. 5: 7-8) correspondence between sin and punishment (trespass and condemnation) is exceeded by the superabun‐ dance and ‘much more’ of God’s grace and gift, because he demonstrated his love for the Gentiles through Christ ‘while we were still sinners’ (ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων ἡμῶν, 5: 8). It does not make sense to human reason to die for unrighteous sinners, but this is exactly what God did for the Gentiles, through Christ - hence the ‘much more’ and ‘superabundance’. This kind of reasoning applies to God’s love for his people, Israel, as witnessed in the Hebrew Bible through the cove‐ nant, and now, through Christ, this kind of reasoning also applies to God’s love for the Gentiles. It is evident from Paul’s presentation of these verses that Adam caused some‐ thing. But the point of this passage is much more the results of Christ’s actions. In this understanding of the passage, the significance changes from two equally important centres (Adam and Christ), to the much more important significance 9 Romans 5: 1-21 210 <?page no="211"?> of the effects of Christ’s actions, which merely use Adam as an example to work from, rather than modelling a strict and tight symmetry between Adam and Christ. Paul could also have used another Jewish hero, because the point is not Adam; the point is the effect of someone’s actions (merits), just as the point is the effect of Christ’s actions (God’s actions in Christ). Adam is relevant only to the extent that Christ brings life where Adam brought death. But what Christ did is far more relevant, since everyone knows that human beings are mortal, and Adam is a hero even though he brought about this mortality. That is why the type-antitype presentation of Adam and Christ is misunderstood. The point is not contrasting; the point is overbidding, superabundance, and transfer of merits. Neither sin nor death is a mythological or cosmological force that has invaded the human cosmos as an alien intruder. In one sense they are, but that is not what Paul intends here. Instead, the story of Adam reflects the fact that Adam trespassed against God’s commandment (i.e. sinned), and as a conse‐ quence he became mortal (i.e. death came to all who descend from the generic human being (’ādām)). However, this applied only to those who lived during the period from Adam to Moses, since God gave Israel the law through Moses. Now that Christ has come, the mortal effects of Adam have been erased even for Gentiles, if they respond to the mercy of God, and repent of their evil and sinful lives (cf. Rom 2: 4-5). Romans 5: 12-21 in a broader perspective The parallels to Rom 5: 12-21 from some eminent pieces of Second Temple lit‐ erature give us better clues to an improved understanding of several details of this passage, especially concerning how Adam is related to his descendants, and how Christ is related to believers, but also concerning the underlying logic of the argument. In this passage, ancient ideas from the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature about the relationship of ancestors to their descendants, and the notion that someone’s righteous deeds and sins will affect that individual’s descendants, underlie Paul’s thinking regarding the relationships between Adam and his descendants, and between Christ and the believers. What must be kept in mind throughout this passage - and throughout Rom 6 - is Paul’s focus on Gentiles. If we adhere to a universal message of Paul - based on a ‘traditional’ and ‘Christian’ interpretation of 1: 18-32 and 5: 12-21 - then the Christ-event emerges from an avalanche of sin. Both Jew and Gentile are sinners, sin grips every individual’s life, and disqualifies every natural ca‐ pacity because of some ‘original sin’, and all we can do is to wait for God to Romans 5: 12-21 in a broader perspective 211 <?page no="212"?> intervene. But this story is only partly correct. Paul did perceive Gentiles as ineluctably trapped in sin, as quintessentially expressed in the stereotypical presentation of Gentiles in 1: 18-32. But if Paul’s outlook on the world resembled that of the other Second Temple Jewish authors examined above, Jews did not have that problem, and they were perfectly capable of fulfilling the requirements of the law, even though they also sinned. Paul’s perception of Christ-believing Gentiles was that they were able to turn away from their sinful lives - his letters testifies to that. He wrote the letters to help these Gentiles to stop living as they used to. Paul continuously draws attention to the resurrection of Christ in the subsequent chapters (6: 4, 5, 8, 9; 7: 4; 8: 11), because he wants to make it clear that this ‘newness of life’ (6: 4; cf. 7: 6) is a new way of living for these ex-pagan Gentiles. They are no longer dead and crushed by the weight of the law, but live a life from the dead in and through the faithfulness of Christ. They ‘live to God’ (6: 11) in a new creation of life which begins here and now. Paul repeatedly emphasizes the mortality of their bodies (6: 12; 7: 24; 8: 10, 11), but whereas Christ has finished with death (6: 9), they have not. They are dead to sin (6: 11), but they are not dead to death. They are bound to death, as is every individual human being, as a descendent of Adam, but they are also alive in a life from the dead in and through the faithfulness of Christ. For Paul, the scope of sin was probably universal, in a rather vague and ob‐ vious-phenomenological way. Everyone sins, just as everyone dies - because Adam sinned, and because everyone sins. In 3: 10-20, Paul proved, by means of a scriptural catena that everyone sins, both Jew and Gentile. However, sin was not a defining characteristic of Jews and their condition, and they always had the opportunity to repent and atone through the covenant and the temple. A regular Jew probably sinned several times during a lifetime, but this sin was not considered severe. It is otherwise with the Gentiles. The Gentiles were defined in contrast to the righteous Jews. They were impious, idolaters, sinners, and enemies of God. Consequently, sin may be an omnipresent element for all human beings, but it defined only the pagan condition as specifically sinful. Christ was the one and only remedy for this problem - and he was far more important than Adam. Continuity between Romans 5 and 6-7 Chapters 6 and 7 answer questions that might be said to flow from the conclusion in 5: 20-21 (‘where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’). Romans 6: 1 poses the question of whether the Gentiles should continue to live in sin, since 9 Romans 5: 1-21 212 <?page no="213"?> grace abounds all the more. Verse 6: 15 follows up on the conclusion in 6: 11-14, and asks whether the Gentiles should continue to sin, since they are no longer under law, but under grace. Verse 7: 7 poses the question of whether the law is sin. Consequently, even though scholars have discussed baptism and lordship in chapters 6 and 7, Paul sets out to answer questions concerning Gentiles’ re‐ lationship to sin in a persistent and ongoing manner. He continues the argument and discussion with the fictive Gentile interlocutor begun in 2: 1, and there is an immediate continuity and progression throughout chapters 5, 6, and 7. Continuity between Romans 5 and 6-7 213 <?page no="214"?> 1 Cf. Barclay 2013a, 60 10 Romans 6: 1-7: 6 Gentiles in chapter 6 Romans 6 spells out the phenomenology of the new life in Christ for Gentiles living in the faithfulness of Christ. 1 Paul is quite clear about the fact that he addresses Gentiles, since he explains what their lives were like before they be‐ came Christ-believers: ‘you were once slaves of sin’ (ἦτε δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας, 6: 17; cf. 6: 6); ‘you once yielded your members to impurity and lawlessness for the purpose of lawlessness’ (παρεστήσατε τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν δοῦλα τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ καὶ τῇ ἀνομίᾳ εἰς τὴν ἀνομία, 6: 19); ‘when you were slaves of sin … what fruit did you get? Things of which you are now ashamed’ (ὅτε γὰρ δοῦλοι ἦτε τῆς ἁμαρτίας … τίνα οὖν καρπὸν εἴχετε τότε; ἐφ᾽ οἷς νῦν ἐπαισχύνεσθε, 6: 20-21). Nothing in these verses indicates that Paul addresses Jews. In 5: 6, these descrip‐ tions continue the descriptions of the Gentiles’ former lives (ἀσεβῶν), 5: 8 (ἁμαρτωλῶν), 5: 10 (ἐχθροὶ), and recalls the original stereotypical description of Gentiles in 1: 18-32. It also evokes the question posed in 3: 8 by the Gentile in the first minor dialogical exchange between Paul and the Gentile interlocutor (3: 1-9). In 3: 8, the Gentile asked whether it would be acceptable to ‘do evil so that good may come’. At that point in the conversation Paul was aiming at jus‐ tification by grace (3: 21-26), and dismissed the question rather quickly. But at this point in the conversation he returns to the question, because the right place for the question of living in or with sin is in the justified life, where peace with God is attained (5: 1ff.). From the preceding descriptions of Gentiles (primarily 1: 18-32), we know that when Paul uses certain words they reflect a stereotypical Jewish perception of ‘the other’ - the Gentiles. So, when Paul urges the Gentile addressees to not let sin rule their mortal bodies, to not obey the body’s desires (ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις, 6: 12), it reiterates 1: 18-32 (also cf. 7: 7-8; 13: 9). In 1: 24, God handed over the Gentiles to their hearts’ desires (ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῶν καρδιῶν αὐτῶν). Paul also urges the Gentile addressees to not offer their members to sin as weapons of unrighteousness (ὅπλα ἀδικίας, 6: 13). Instead, they should offer themselves to God as though having been brought from death to life, and their members to God as weapons of righteousness. This call reverses or contradicts the descrip‐ <?page no="215"?> 2 Cf. e.g. Tsui 2013 tion in 1: 18 and 1: 29, where Paul described how the Gentiles suppressed the truth by their unrighteousness (τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων), because they were filled with every kind of unrighteousness (πεπληρωμένους πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ). Once, they were slaves of sin (ἦτε δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας, 6: 17), but now they have become obedient from the heart. Once, God handed them over to the lusts of their hearts (παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας), but now they have become obedient to the pattern of teaching to which they were handed over (παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς). The difference between chapter 1 and chapter 6 involves an almost complete reversal of the description in 1: 24, 26, and 28, and both chapters point out that the life from which they turned was shameful (1: 27; 6: 21). However, even though they already turned away from their former lives, and now live and walk in the ‘newness of life’ (6: 4), Paul is still compelled to speak to them in human terms (Ἀνθρώπινον λέγω, 6: 19), owing to the weakness of their flesh (διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν, 6: 19). Consequently, they once were like the Gentiles described in 1: 18-32, but now they are different - even though the ‘menaces’ of 1: 18-32 continuously hover over their (Gentile) lives. Already walking in the newness of life, but also not yet The Gentile association with, and participation in Christ is not complete: They are united with Christ in his death and burial, but they await their resurrection with him (6: 5, 8). There is a tension in the Gentiles’ lives, between their present participation in Christ and the coming resurrection with him. In Christ, the new age has come, but this present age has not yet gone; the Gentiles still live with sin and death alongside righteousness and life. Consequently, Paul challenges his Gentile addressees to live life in the new age of Christ, and to present them‐ selves as instruments of righteousness, and to not let sin exercise dominion over their mortal bodies (6: 12-13). How does he do this? Scholars have often discussed why Paul turns to the imperative in 6: 11-14, when he has just explained to the addressees that they actually are free of sin (6: 2-10). 2 If their bodies really have been crucified with Christ, and their body of sin really has been made inoperative (6: 6), why would they need to be en‐ couraged to continue in this (6: 12-14)? If they really are free of sin, it should not be necessary to ask them to not let sin reign in their mortal bodies (6: 12). How‐ ever, what is often overlooked is that Paul merely reminds his addressees of this: Already walking in the newness of life, but also not yet 215 <?page no="216"?> 3 Cf. Esler 2003, 216; Engberg-Pedersen 2000, 228-232; Black 1984, 423 4 Cf. Elliott 1990, 239 5 Cf. the description in Boers 2001, 664-671; Petersen 2015, 162-165. 6 Cf. the descriptions in Petersen 2015, 163; Wedderburn 1987, 3-5. 7 Schnackenburg 1950, 106; Dinkler 1974, 83ff.; Sanday & Headlam 1898, 156; Black 1973, 93-94; Esler 2003, 212. ‘Or do you not know that…? ’ (ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε ὅτι, 6: 3); ‘knowing this that…’ (τοῦτο γινώσκοντες, 6: 6); ‘knowing that…’ (εἰδότες ὅτι, 6: 9). These are all cognitive verbs expressing some sort of understanding. And they all point to the conclu‐ sion in 6: 11 (and 6: 12-14) that the addressees should ‘think of themselves’ (λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς, 6: 11) in a certain way. Consequently, what Paul asks of his addressees in the imperative mood is that they think of themselves in a certain way - as people who are dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus (6: 11). However, this does not explain why Paul turns to the imperative after having argued from the indicative. But if we look more closely, we have to admit that even if Paul argues that they really and already have died to sin, this is only the beginning, since their bodies have not literally and physically died. Paul argues that they already have died, but he must imply in this proposition - at least partially - some sort of metaphorical understanding of death. 3 And this matches precisely how Paul speaks of their dying with Christ - in the ‘likeness’ or ‘anal‐ ogously’ (ὁμοίωμα, 6: 5). 4 Similarly, in 6: 13 he states that the addressees must present themselves to God ‘as though’ or ‘like’ (ὡσεὶ) someone who has been brought from death to life. What must be concluded about this ‘already-not yet’ or ‘indicative-imperative’ discussion is that somehow, these Gentiles already have died to sin, but they still need this to come about completely and finally. Through baptism they have come to identify themselves with Christ living for God, but there remains a need to make this identification complete. The old man has been crucified and died with Christ, but there is still room to deepen this identification with Christ, hence there is need for the imperative. They are sinless, but they need to be reminded of this. The question, meaning, and function of baptism in 6: 1-14 The history of the interpretation of 6: 1-14 has been complex. 5 Various repre‐ sentatives of the ‘Religionsgeschichtliche Schule’ considered the meaning of the passage to be centred on the ritual of baptism, 6 and later scholars also considered 6: 1-14 to be a uniquely Pauline interpretation of baptism. 7 From an initial look this may seem plausible, since the passage provides the most specific informa‐ 10 Romans 6: 1-7: 6 216 <?page no="217"?> 8 Cf. Tannehill 1967, 7; Boers 2001, 665; Jewett 2007, 391; Fitzmyer 1993, 430; Moo 1996, 355. Clearly, this passage is valuable for an understanding of Paul’s perception of the baptismal ritual (as these scholars concede), but the passage should not be taken as reflecting an exposition of Paul’s teaching on baptism. 9 Cf. Rom 7: 4, 6; 2 Cor 5: 14f.; Gal 2: 19; 5: 24 10 Wedderburn seems to recognize that the passage is not an exposition of Paul’s teaching on baptism, but nevertheless, he regards baptism as governing the logic of the passage (cf. Wedderburn 1987, 49-50). 11 Cf. Johnson Hodge 2008, 67-68. 12 For the role of the Spirit cf. Rom 8: 5-17. 13 Cf. Johnson Hodge 2008, 105. tion on Paul’s perception of baptism. However, scholars now widely agree that Paul does not present baptism as a topic of discussion. 8 Instead, he introduces baptism as a point from which to argue in support of his negated rhetorical question in 6: 2. Paul could just as well have argued the same point about dying with Christ without mentioning baptism, as he in fact does in a number of other passages. 9 Therefore baptism should not be considered the primary theme of 6: 1-14, nor the hidden logic governing his reasoning in this passage. 10 In fact, despite the surplus meaning of baptism, which could be infused into the entire passage, in 6: 3-4 baptism merely has the function (and is merely explicit) of underscoring the point Paul makes in 6: 2. Nevertheless, it still makes sense to ask what baptism meant to Paul, and why it would make sense for him to present it at this point. From a traditional Jewish point of view, Gentiles were not considered right‐ eous, and they constituted ‘the other’ to the in-group identity of ‘we, the Jews’. However, because of the eschatological turns of time, God extended his mercy to the Gentiles. Through Christ, Gentiles were given the opportunity to be ‘linked’ to Israel or engrafted onto the family tree (cf. 11: 17-23) as descendants of Abraham (cf. 4: 1-12) and co-heirs with Christ (cf. 8: 14-17). Baptism in Christ (and receiving the Spirit) constituted the solution to the problem of the oppo‐ sitional ethnic division of ‘us versus them’, Jews versus non-Jews. 11 For Paul, baptism became the tool he could use to create a collective identity for Gentiles, where their ‘old life’ was buried with Christ, and they could walk in the newness of life. 12 In this way, Paul could use baptism to argue for a new status of Gentiles as adopted sons of God. Through baptism, Gentiles could enter ‘into Christ’ (εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, 6: 3, also cf. 1 Cor 12: 13), and forge a kinship between them‐ selves and Christ. Just as descendants could share the same ‘stuff ’ as ancestors, Gentiles could be ‘of Christ’, since they took part in his Spirit. 13 However, Gen‐ tiles did not become descendants of Christ; they became ‘heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ’ (κληρονόμοι μὲν θεοῦ, συγκληρονόμοι δὲ Χριστοῦ, 8: 17), The question, meaning, and function of baptism in 6: 1-14 217 <?page no="218"?> 14 Dunn and Fitzmyer regard 6: 1-12 as a unit (Dunn 1988, 1.335; Fitzmyer 1993, 444). and Christ became the ‘firstborn among many brothers’ (εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, 8: 29). In 6: 3-4, Paul asks his Gentile addressees to imagine that through baptism they broke away from a way of living, so they could become a part of the life of the world to come. What Christ did when he died voluntarily and was raised up, was to prefigure resurrection from the dead. And even though Christ is the only one yet to have risen from the dead, the Spirit of God (and Christ) will give the Gentiles a foretaste of the life to come. Sin and enslavement to passions characterized their old way of life, but through baptism they can imagine them‐ selves as dead with Christ and living in the newness of life. Thus, the idea of sharing in Christ’s atoning death is fundamental to the perception of baptism. In 2 Cor 5: 14, Paul explains that ‘we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died’. In Gal 2: 19-20, he states, ‘I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me’. In Rom 6 he uses ‘co-buried’ (συνθάπτω, 6: 4) in reference to baptism, to refer to sharing in Christ’s death (he also uses ‘co-crucified’ (συσταυρόομαι) in 6: 6). The point is that by sharing in the death of Christ, those who believe in Christ have received a new status and a new selfhood or identity where Christ lives in them. In Rom 6: 2-3, Paul implies that they already know this, which makes his question so much more emphatic: ‘How can we who died to sin still live in it? ’ When he moves on through the passage, he further develops this line of reasoning by applying the term ‘the old man’ (ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος, 6: 6) and ‘the sinful body’ (τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, 6: 6). By arguing thus, he refers back to the previously developed perception of the stereotypical Gentile, where the descriptions of the unrighteous, the ungodly, the sinful, and the enemies of God ‘bleed into’ the ever-evolving nomenclature (cf. 1: 18-32; 5: 6-10). Romans 6: 1-14 The first minor unit of chapter 6 is 6: 1-14. 14 This passage constitutes one con‐ tinuous answer to a question or elaboration of a theme presented in 6: 1-2: ‘Should we continue (to live) in sin that grace may abound? No, how can we who died to sin go on living in it? ’ Paul elaborates on this theme in 6: 3-10, and concludes on it in 6: 11, ‘You must consider yourself dead to sin and alive to God in Christ’. The conclusion in 6: 11 recalls and answers the rhetorical question of 6: 2. In 6: 12-14, Paul further develops the conclusion with a paraenetic remark, 10 Romans 6: 1-7: 6 218 <?page no="219"?> 15 Paul repeats the verb πλεονάζω, cf. Elliott 1990, 250; Jewett 2007, 395. 16 Jewett designates this ‘the libertinistic option’ and considers it as lying ‘at the heart of some of the misunderstanding of sin in Rome’ ( Jewett 2007, 395). 17 Jewett confirms the colloquial character of Paul’s language at this point, and considers it a ‘laughable quality of this diatribal exchange’ ( Jewett 2007, 395). 18 Cf. Jewett 2007, 400; Boers 2001, 677 ‘Do not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies, and do not present your members to sin as weapons of unrighteousness, but present yourselves as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as weapons of righteousness’. Paul opens chapter 6 with a question from the fictive Gentile interlocutor, just as he has done previously (Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ). In doing this, he continues the ongoing explanation to the Gentile on how he should live and behave after he has turned to the God of Israel in Christ, and away from his former unjust and unrighteous life. The previous passage on Adam and Christ (5: 12-21) explained this history and background to the Gentile, why he behaves as he does (cf. 1: 18- 32). Now, Paul has the Gentile ask whether he should continue to live in sin so the grace of God shown to the Gentile in Christ may abound (ἐπιμένωμεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἵνα ἡ χάρις πλεονάσῃ, 6: 1). This question emerges from the conclusion in 5: 20b that grace abounds more than the increase of sin, 15 thereby indicating the closeness and continuance of the discourse in chapter 5 to 6. The question implies a proportionality between sin and grace, which Paul strongly opposes, just as he did in 3: 8. 16 In 6: 2, Paul answers the Gentile that of course he should not continue to live in sin (μὴ γένοιτο). A part of Paul’s answer consists of a rhetorical question posed to the Gentile - something he (of course) knows: ‘Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? [Of course you know that, but allow me to further explain]’ 17 (6: 3). Paul then goes on to explain this to the Gentile interlocutor, primarily in the indicative tense. In 6: 11-14, he shifts to the imperative tense and hortatory style. What matters in Paul’s argument about baptism in 6: 3-4 is not so much bap‐ tism itself, but the consequences of baptism. 18 Paul sets out to explain to the fictive Gentile interlocutor what the implications are of the ‘ritual death’ in baptism, in terms of the kind of life the addressees now live. Paul does not intend to provide the addressees with information about baptism. Instead, he draws on baptism as an established practice, to inform his readers (what they already know) that Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, and therefore, they should also walk in the newness of life. Consequently, they should not continue to live in sin, because just as Christ was raised to a new life, Romans 6: 1-14 219 <?page no="220"?> 19 Boers 2001, 680 20 Clifton Black surveys several different perceptions of death as related to this passage (Black 1984, esp. 421-424). so too should they walk in the newness of life. Ever since their baptism, they have left their former sinful lives, and they should already be walking in the newness of life. Paul assumes that they know this, because he asks the rhetorical question in 6: 3, and because he can refer to their actual baptism, which they share as a common experience. Paul focuses on answering the rhetorical ques‐ tion in 6: 3 as a further development of the question in 6: 1-2, and he does that by pointing out Christ’s resurrection. He further develops this answer in 6: 5- 11, by bringing sin - which is not mentioned in 6: 3-5 - back into focus. In 6: 5-11, Paul further develops his argument about participation in Christ’s death and resurrection. The central concern is whether one lives in sin or dies to it. The thrust of the argument is directed at the point in 6: 6-7 that the sinful body should be destroyed, so enslavement to sin may be broken, because who‐ ever has died is free from sin. By stating this, Paul has actually accomplished what he intends with his answer to the question in 6: 1. However, he further adds to the point in 6: 10 by claiming that the death Christ died he died to sin ‘once for all‘ (ἐφάπαξ), but the life he lives he lives for God. Thus, the statement in 6: 7 (‘whoever has died is free from sin’) becomes grounded in Christ’s death to sin. What Paul accomplishes by grounding 6: 7 in 6: 10 is to be able to turn explicitly to his addressees, and ask them to imitate this: ‘So also you must consider your‐ selves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus (6: 11)’. Nevertheless, the purpose of this explanation is not paraenetic, even though Paul turns to the imperative and hortatory style in 6: 11-14. 19 The purpose is to answer the theo‐ retical or theological question from 6: 1, about living in sin. Paul’s return to the theoretical answer to the question in 6: 14 bolsters this perception of the passage: ‘Sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace’. The purpose of this statement is not exhortation, but theoretical explan‐ ation. This explanation brings Paul once again to the initial question asked by the Gentile interlocutor in 6: 1 about living in sin. And it also generates the in‐ terlocutor’s next question in 6: 15, whether he should continue to sin, since he is not under law but under grace. Clearly, Paul’s addressees are not dead in a biological or physical sense, but, nevertheless, Paul encourages them to perceive their actual life in such a way: 20 ‘You must consider yourself dead to sin…’ (ὑμεῖς λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς [εἶναι] νεκροὺς μὲν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, 6: 11). Paul stated something similar in 6: 5, when he used the expression ‘in the likeness of his death’ (τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, 6: 5). Paul’s point seems to be that life in Christ rests on the premise of 10 Romans 6: 1-7: 6 220 <?page no="221"?> 21 Cf. Petersen 2015, 175-177; Jewett 2007, 398 22 Jewett is right to connect ‘the desires’ (ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις) in 6: 12 with the description in 1: 18-32 and 5: 18-21 ( Jewett 2007, 409). However, I do not regard Paul as speaking universally of ‘all humanity’, as does Jewett. I consider Paul’s use of ‘the desires’ as specifically - and exclusively - connected to his perception of the Gentiles. 23 Jewett 2007, 416 24 Rom 6: 16 is the only place in the NT where ἤτοι appears. It is often found in classical sources as ‘either… or’ (ἤτοι … ἤ) ( Jewett 2007, 416 n22). the death of the old self, and the ‘likeness’ (τῷ ὁμοιώματι) becomes the instru‐ mental means by which Paul expresses this death. What Paul does is to merge the story of Christ’s death and resurrection with the addressees’ experiences and perceptions of baptism. 21 And by doing this, he envisions a new life for them - a life dead to sin. Because they have died with Christ through baptism, they should not let sin rule their mortal bodies, since they are no longer enslaved by sin (6: 6). Sin no longer rules their lives, since they are no longer under law, but under grace (οὐ γάρ ἐστε ὑπὸ νόμον ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ χάριν, 6: 14). By arguing thus, Paul comes full circle with the question from the Gentile interlocutor in 6: 1, concerning remaining in sin: They should not remain in sin and let desires con‐ trol their bodies, 22 and they should not yield their members to sin. Sin does not rule them, since they are under grace. Romans 6: 15-7: 6 Our reading suggests that in Romans, Paul addresses Gentiles consistently. How does he continue to do that in 6: 15ff.? The preliminary conclusion in 6: 11-14, that the Gentiles ‘are not under law but under grace’, leads the Gentile inter‐ locutor to ask again, ‘Would it be acceptable to sin, then, since we are no longer under law, but under grace? ’ Paul answers: ‘Of course not! ’ (μὴ γένοιτο), and goes on to elaborate on this with a slave metaphor. Hence, 6: 15-6: 23 (and 7: 1- 6) further develop what Paul already established during the argument in 6: 1-14 through examples and analogies. Paul argues that the one to which you present yourself as an obedient slave is the one you must obey, whether this is sin, which leads to death, or obedience, which leads to righteousness (6: 16). Here, Paul probably refers to the widely understood reality of slavery in the first century. 23 This argument does not turn on the question of serving God or someone else; what Paul states is that those who yield themselves as slaves actually become slaves - whether to sin or obe‐ dience. They have a choice: either (ἤτοι) 24 staying in their former circumstances as slaves of sin (ἁμαρτίας), or (ἢ) embracing their new circumstances as slaves Romans 6: 15-7: 6 221 <?page no="222"?> 25 Here, I do not consider Paul to take a Lutheran position towards arguing that human beings are always and constitutively under the lordship of either God or evil powers. From a general and stereotypical point of view, Gentiles are subject to, and slaves of, sin. The contextual comparisons of Jewish perspectives on Gentiles in relation to the Adam-Christ typology in 5: 12-21 confirmed this. But in chapter 2 Paul also argued that some Gentiles can actually fulfil the requirements of the law and become a law unto themselves (2: 14-16). Consequently, what he argues at this point in chapter 6 should be understood within the rhetorical strategy of his argument. He is not arguing that there are no pockets of neutral independence for Gentiles, since Gentiles are determined to act sinfully. The wording in 6: 16 supports this: The word ‘obedience’ (ὑπακοήν) may be first associated with slavery to sin, and afterwards with the new relationship to righteousness. Thus, Paul’s use of this word here actually means that it is possible for the addressees to voluntarily place themselves at the disposal of another. For an opposite stance cf. Barclay 2013a, 60. 26 I am aware that there is no temporal adverb or conjunction in 6: 17a to mark the contrast to 6: 18. This absence literally makes 6: 17 sound as though Paul thanks God that they had previously been slaves to sin. However, I insert ‘once’ because Paul obviously in‐ tends to praise God for their freedom, which they did not have when they were slaves to sin. 27 Paul’s use of τύπος here supports the interpretation of 5: 14 presented above. When commenting on 5: 14, I argued that Paul’s use of τύπος should not be taken to actually mean an anti-type. To further add to that point, it would make no sense if he shifted the meaning of the word here from ‘anti-type’ to ‘type’. Commentators generally agree that in 6: 17, τύπος means ‘type’, ‘pattern’, ‘imprint’, ‘mould’, or ‘seal’ (cf. Jewett 2007, 418). of obedience to God and Christ (ὑπακοῆς). 25 There are no other options, and the slave metaphor is meant to reinforce that. But according to Paul, the addressees have already chosen, since he thanks God that ‘you were (once) 26 slaves, but have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were handed over’ (ἦτε δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὑπηκούσατε δὲ ἐκ καρδίας εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς, 6: 17). 27 Once, they presented their members as slaves to impurity and lawlessness, but now - a shift has occurred. Now they must present their members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification. How‐ ever, the fact that earlier, they presented their members as slaves to impurity recalls 1: 24, where Paul explains that God gave up the Gentiles in their hearts’ lusts to impurity (εἰς ἀκαθαρσίαν). In 6: 19, Paul still focuses on his Gentile ad‐ dressees, so he recalls the initial circumstances, by stating that they once pre‐ sented their members as slaves to impurity (τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ). This interpretation is further supported by the fact that Paul has to speak to them in human terms (Ἀνθρώπινον λέγω) because of the weakness of their flesh, or because of their natural weakness (διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν). This weakness is nothing more than the quintessential expression of the Gentile as the sinful ‘other’ of the Jew. Gentile weakness is embodied, in the sense that the entirety 10 Romans 6: 1-7: 6 222 <?page no="223"?> 28 E.g. Jewett 2007, 420; Fitzmyer 1993, 451; Dunn 1988 346-347. 29 See Hippocrates Morb. 6.3.1; Demosthenes Orat. 21.19.4; Dionysius Halicarnassus Antiq. Rom. 19.5.2 30 Cf. Ep. Arist. 166; 3 Macc 2: 17; Philo Leg. 2: 29. 31 Jewett 2007, 420. 32 Paul provides a similar line of reasoning in 12: 1-2; he argues that the addressees should not be conformed to this world, but should present their bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God. He summons his audience to transform their lives in ab‐ solute contrast to the Gentile condition described in 1: 18-32. 33 I follow Jewett in his perception of the punctuation and translation of 6: 21 ( Jewett 2007, 422). Jewett argues that the contrast between the fruit of freedom from righteousness in 6: 21a and the fruit of freedom from sin in 6: 22, and the placement of ‘then’ (τότε) and ‘now’ (νῦν), in separate clauses provides the best understanding and translation of the verse with regard to the question mark: ‘Consequently what fruit were you having then? Things of which you are now ashamed, for the outcome of those things is death! ’ of the description in 1: 18-32 is expressed as ‘their flesh’s weakness’ or ‘their natural weakness’. But thanks to God, they have become obedient from the heart. Commentators widely agree that Paul’s language in 6: 19 describes a thor‐ oughly pagan or Gentile-ish situation. 28 Greco-Roman authors could use ‘im‐ purity’ (ἀκαθαρσία) to depict dirtiness, ceremonial impurity, or depravity. 29 However, Paul’s use of it in Rom 1: 24, and its frequent use in Jewish criticism of Gentile behaviour, 30 indicate that in 6: 19, Paul presents a stereotypical Jewish description of Gentiles as alienated from the God of Israel. Robert Jewett further adds to this point by drawing attention to the fact that Hellenistic Jewish criti‐ cism of paganism often used the expression ἀνομία εἰς ἀνομίαν (‘lawlessness resulting in lawlessness’) to describe Gentiles’ state of living. 31 Thus, there is no doubt about the ethnic identity of the addressees here - they are Gentiles. But the reason Paul points this out is that they must no longer live as they did previously. Instead, they should present their members to righteousness for sanctification (τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ εἰς ἁγιασμόν). They should no longer continue (to live) in sin, since they are dead to sin (6: 1-14), and they should no longer sin, because they are not under law, but under grace. Hence, they should present their members to righteousness for sanctification. 32 They are now ashamed of the fruits they received from their former lives (ἐφ᾽ οἷς νῦν ἐπαισχύνεσθε, 6: 21). 33 The end of those things is death. But now that they have been freed from sin, they have the fruits that lead to sanctification (ἔχετε τὸν καρπὸν ὑμῶν εἰς ἁγιασμόν), and the end of this is eternal life (τὸ δὲ τέλος ζωὴν αἰώνιον, 6: 22). Even though humans are not set right with God by their works, Paul displays an interest in human work or good deeds, because these are the fruits that define Romans 6: 15-7: 6 223 <?page no="224"?> 34 Cf. my discussion of a similar problem in connection with 5: 9-10, above, and 1 Cor 3: 13-14 for the perception that the individual work of anyone will be tried through fire. 35 The marriage analogy in 7: 1-4 has caused some confusion, on which scholars have not been slow to comment (Little 1984, 84, 86, 90; Räisänen 1983, 62 n93; Gieniusz 1993, 393; Boyarin 1994, 165-167; Rehmann 2000, 94; Thimmes 2004, 192; Johnson 1997, 106; Fitzmyer 1993, 455). However, the analogy expresses quite well what Paul intends to say, even though it muddles what he actually says: Death liberates a person from the law (even if the person somehow remains alive). And Paul draws only one conclusion from the analogy: Death invalidates the relationship between a man (or woman) and the law. Hence, the analogy works quite well from a general perspective, to illustrate Paul’s point, even if the specifics do not quite match. I find John Earnshaw’s explanation of the analogy rather speculative (cf. Earnshaw 1994, 71ff.). 36 According to Jewett, the formulation in 7: 4 about the addressees being put to death with respect to the law picks up on the theme in 6: 2, and thus confirms that it is not only baptism, ‘but the entire process of ending a former existence that is in view’ ( Jewett 2007, 433). who one is. 34 They have the fruits (now, already) that lead to sanctification, and the free gift of God (τὸ δὲ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ) is eternal life in Christ Jesus. In 7: 1, Paul continues the diatribal style with a rhetorical question intended to elicit the answer, ‘of course’. He addresses someone who knows the law (γινώσκουσιν γὰρ νόμον λαλῶ, 7: 1), and he further elaborates on the argument developed in 6: 1-14 and 6: 15-23: They know that the law is binding on a person only during that persons’ lifetime. 35 But Christ died once and for all to sin (τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀπέθανεν ἐφάπαξ, 6: 10), and since the Gentile addressees died to the law through the body of Christ (ὑμεῖς ἐθανατώθητε τῷ νόμῳ διὰ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 7: 4), they belong to him who was raised from the dead (7: 4). In 6: 9 Paul argued that they were freed from death, and in 6: 14, that they were freed from sin; now Paul places the law in a parallel category, from which they have been freed. 36 While they were living in the flesh, their members bore fruit for death, but now that they have been discharged by the law (7: 6), they are dead to that which held them captive. Thus, Paul’s general intention in this minor passage and analogy lies in the extension of the argument begun in 6: 1. He wants to refute the Gentile interlocutor’s question regarding the freedom to live either in sin (6: 1-14) or under grace (6: 15-23). He wants to demonstrate that ‘freedom from’ (sin and law) must be perceived as ‘freedom for’ (a new obedience), the former ending in death, and the latter in eternal life. The outcome of this theo‐ retical or theological dialogical exposition from 6: 1 to 7: 6 leads the Gentile in‐ terlocutor to come forward and present his own experiences of the topics dis‐ cussed (7: 7-25). 10 Romans 6: 1-7: 6 224 <?page no="225"?> 1 Sanders identifies continuity from 6: 5, and the question of the relationship between law and sin (Sanders 1983, 77). 2 Dunn locates an Adamic allusion in chapter 7 (Dunn 1988, 382f.) as do Keck and Black (Keck 1995, 25; Black 1984, 425). Wright states that Paul regards the arrival of the law as a recapitulation of the sin of Adam (Wright 1992, 227). Wasserman states that, on the contrary, there is no justification for reading Adam into chapter 7 (Wasserman 2008, 4). 3 Collins 2001, 287-300. Also cf. Jervis 2004, 193-196. 4 Cf. Wasserman 2008 5 Cf. Wasserman 2008, 8. Wasserman seems to be faintly aware of the distance from the Pauline discourse, since she points out that Paul does not use the term ‘soul’ (ψυχή) anywhere in Romans. Nevertheless, she notes that the possibility of being able to iden‐ tify the speaker as the soul is one of the advantages of her reading (ibid. 76). 11 Romans 7: 7-25 Romans 7: 7-25 Romans 7 depicts the hopeless situation of Gentiles under law, sin, and the flesh. With ingenious exactitude, Paul phrases a question that announces the theme of the monologue of Romans 7 in two words: What is the relation of the law to sin for the Gentiles (ὁ νόμος ἁμαρτία, 7: 7)? Tradition has set off chapter 7 as a separate unit because it encompasses a discussion of bondage to, and freedom from, the law. However, Paul already began this discussion in 6: 14 (ἁμαρτία γὰρ ὑμῶν οὐ κυριεύσε), so chapter 7 continues the preceding discourse, rather than stand aside it. Also, Paul’s dis‐ cussion with a Gentile about the law and sin establishes continuity, more than isolation. Thus, the confinement of chapter 7 should not be considered conclu‐ sive. Instead, continuity with, and progression of, the discourse should be pro‐ moted. 1 We should also refrain from reading the story of Adam into chapters 1 and 7 of Romans. 2 Such a reading amounts to a retrojective and Christianizing theological imperialism. John J. Collins has demonstrated that hardly any texts dating prior to the destruction of the temple make Adam’s disobedience the foundation of the origins of evil. 3 Another reading of chapter 7 about which we should have reservations is that recently presented by Emma Wasserman. 4 Even though Wasserman presents an impressive argument, the hypothesis that 7: 7- 25 depicts the plight of reason or the mind imprisoned by the passions and appetites, and that 7: 7-25 reads best as a monologue of reason or the mind is too far removed from Paul and his Gentile interlocutor. 5 However, 7: 7-25 may <?page no="226"?> 6 The RSV, NIV, TEV, and KJV use ‘me’. So does Jervis 2012, 144. very well tap into the Platonic moral discourse Wasserman presents. However, reading the text as the Gentile interlocutor’s monologue - a character already established as a voice in the letter - reads better. Consequently, we should imagine the story of the morally-struggling Gentile peoples from a Jewish per‐ spective, and as a part of Israel’s story, because Paul already established this discourse in 1: 18. The context of chapter 7 reveals several things about both content and style. In 4: 23, Paul turns to the epistolary audience for the first time since the prescript, by using the first-person plural. In chapter 6, he continuously builds on this intimacy. When referring back to the former lives characterized by the Gentile sins, Paul draws the audience close to himself by reiterating their victory and transition to a new life in Christ, free from sin and death. The gradual develop‐ ment of closeness between Paul and the audience reaches a (provisional) climax in 7: 1 and 7: 4, because Paul addresses them as ‘brethren’ (ἀδελφοί). The rhetoric of intimacy may be said to either fade away in 7: 7-25, or to reach another climax, depending on the perspective. From one point of view, the audience disappears and the intimacy is on hold until 8: 1ff. From another perspective, the intimacy and inclusiveness culminate in 7: 7-25, because the perspective of the discourse becomes personal to the extent of an inner monologue that portrays the inner struggle of an individual. Whether one treats 7: 7-25 as a separate unit set apart from the surrounding context by way of the personal perspective, or one reads the flow of the discourse as a continuing progression of intimacy and inclu‐ siveness, Paul returns to the hortatory and dialogical style in 8: 1ff. From a stylistic point of view, 7: 7-25 stand out because of the first-person-sin‐ gular perspective. Paul used the rhetorical device of προσωποποιία in chapters 2-6, but chapter 7 differs (or further elaborates), in that it presents an extended inner monologue or an ‘actual’ and extended speech-in-character. The Gentile interlocutor carries on an internal dialogue with himself, because he responds to a question he probably poses himself, in 7: 13. From this perspective, Romans 7 may be said to be a Pauline elaboration on the Hellenistic moral tradition of using internal monologues and speech-in-character to portray self-division, be‐ cause in 8: 2 the Gentile interlocutor (σε) becomes the object of moral exhorta‐ tion. 6 Just to reiterate some of the main insights concerning προσωποποιία from the introductory chapter, Theon specifies that the characterization that the au‐ thor stages must fit the person or type imagined, and it must be consistent throughout the discourse. The personality of the speaker must be clearly de‐ 11 Romans 7: 7-25 226 <?page no="227"?> 7 Grammarians and rhetoricians describe the change of voice as ἐναλλαγή or μεταβολή, cf. Stowers 1994, 191. 8 Besides the guidelines from Theon, cf. the guidelines on προσωποποιία in the Progym‐ nasmata of Hermogenes of Tarsus (Hermogenes 2003, 85) and Aphthonius the Sophist (Aphthonius 2003, 116). 9 For an ancient argument confirming this cf. Quint. 9.2.30-33. Also cf. Stowers 1994a, 191ff.; Jewett 2007, 441-445. picted, and it should reflect the occasion and social status of the speaker. Ap‐ propriate words must be chosen, because different words belong to different stages of life, and different ways of speaking also belong by nature to different persons, social positions, activities, origins, and states of mind. The point is to have the speaker use the right words, so they fit his status, age, origin, position, and personality. In this way, a strictly stereotyped characterization with easily decodable attributes materializes, and it will be easy for the audience to classify the speaker as precisely this kind of person. Consequently, if Paul stages a certain type through προσωποποιία, we must read 7: 7-25 with close attention to the form, style and consistency of the speaker. When read thus, the Gentile inter‐ locutor introduced in 2: 1, against the background of the description of the Gen‐ tile situation in 1: 18-32, fits the speaker of the monologue in 7: 7-25 perfectly. Paul opens 7: 7 with an abrupt change of voice and the characteristic Τί οὖν (ἐροῦμεν), which transitions into a first-person perspective (ἔγνων). 7 The pas‐ sage is marked by great passion concerning the experience of coming under the law, learning about desire and sin, and being unable to do what is wished for. The passage presents a distinctive and coherent characterization of a particular person’s situation in life. In a school-like way, the passage opens with a de‐ scription of the speaker’s past, before he learned about the law (7: 7-14). Then the speaker elaborates on his present misery (7: 14-23), and finally, he comments on his future dilemma (7: 24). The speaker’s exposition of the sequential periods of life is perfectly attuned to the rhetorical rules of προσωποποιία. 8 Students who wrote these exercises were to have the person respond to features of the existing situation, and imagine the consequences of the current situation for the future, while reflecting on the person’s past as a contrast to the present situation. Furthermore, since the tragic characterization in 7: 7-25 offers explicit self-re‐ flection and takes the form of a monologue, it inscribes itself perfectly in the ancient patterns of προσωποποιία. 9 Paul also employs all three different tenses to reflect different points in the character’s life and circumstances. The general outline of 7: 7-25 reads like a person testifying to the statement from 7: 5: ‘While we were in the flesh, our sinful passions worked in our bodily parts through the law’. Romans 7: 7-25 227 <?page no="228"?> 10 Stowers 1994, 270; also cf. Jewett’s discussion of several possibilities ( Jewett 2007, 444). 11 Räisänen proposes that Paul’s presentation in chapter 7 constitutes a generalized ev‐ eryday experience (Räisänen 1983, 149). Das draws the same conclusions as Räisänen, and writes about ‘the failed daily struggle to do what the law requires’ (Das 2001, 228). Gaventa proposes that the ‘I’ of Romans 7 is shaped by the ‘I’ of the Psalter, though here it has been reshaped or perhaps even distorted through the lens of the gospel (Gaventa 2013, 78). Sanders regards 7: 14-25 as explaining that humanity without Christ cannot fulfil the requirements of the law (Sanders 1983, 78). Barclay expresses a somewhat similar perception by claiming that the speaking ‘I’ describes life in the flesh without Christ (Barclay 2013a, 66 n15). Schreiner regards Rom 7 as expressing something like the ontological sinfulness of all humans (Schreiner 1993, 84ff.), as does Haacker (1999, 141ff.), Hübner (1996, 207), and Lohse (2003, 213ff.). Engberg-Pedersen regards the ‘I’ as being a general I ‘that stands for Jews living before and under the law’ (Engberg-Ped‐ ersen 2000, 243). Black regards Paul as referring to himself as well as his readers (Black 1984, 425 n33). Concerning the identity of the speaker in 7: 7, Stanley Stowers wavers: ‘[P]er‐ haps it is Paul, perhaps the person characterized in what follows, perhaps an anonymous objector’. 10 On the basis of the information provided by the ancient theorists concerning προσωποποιία, I confidently conclude that Paul allows the Gentile interlocutor, with whom he has been arguing all along, a chance to speak about his ambiguous situation as a Gentile. The Gentile wants to be and call himself a Jew, but this identification is not without problems. The incentive or motivation for the Gentile interlocutor to speak out at this precise point in the letter is to be found in Paul’s rhetorical strategy: From 6: 1 to 7: 6 he has addressed problems concerning living in sin and living under the law/ grace. Now, he makes room for the Gentile interlocutor to present his own experiences of living under these circumstances. Paul does not employ προσωποποιία in chapter 7 to characterize the typical Jew, or every human being, or himself, or to outline a philosophical anthro‐ pology, as many scholars suggest. 11 Paul employs προσωποποιία to characterize the Gentile, who tries to live by works of the law. In 1: 18-32, Paul described the Gentile mind as governed by lust (ἐπιθυμία) and passion (πάθημα). The Gentiles were impious (ἀσέβεια), unjust (ἀδικία), and dishonoured their bodies (εἰς ἀκαθαρσίαν τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς). Therefore, God gave them over to a base mind (εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν). These ideas reappear in chapter 7, together with the concept of sin: The passions are sinful (7: 5), the law causes sin (7: 5, 7-13), sin seizes an opportunity (7: 8, 11), sin incites desires (7: 8), sin comes to life (7: 9), sin deceives and kills (7: 11), sin works death in me (7: 13), sin enslaves and dwells in me (7: 14, 17, 20), my mind is at war with sin, I am made captive by sin, and I serve as a slave to the law of sin (7: 23, 25). Consequently, sin, passion, and desire commingle in chapter 7. However, being a Jew of the 11 Romans 7: 7-25 228 <?page no="229"?> 12 This contradicts Käsemann, who regards the speaker in 7: 7-13 as mankind under the law, and specifically the pious Jew (Käsemann 1980, 195). 13 Nowhere does Paul praise his Israelite kinsmen, the law, and Judaism more than in Romans (cf. 3: 31; 6: 15; 7: 7; 8: 3-4; 9: 1-5; 9: 31-10: 4; 10: 1; 11: 15-21, 26-28). Jews, Paul never conceived of Jews as captives of their appetites. In Romans 11: 1 and Philippians 3: 5-6, Paul proudly describes himself as circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews, as to the law, a Pharisee, as to righteousness under the law, blameless. In Galatians, Paul describes Peter and himself as Jews, and not Gentile sinners (Gal 2: 15). Jews never spoke of a time in their lives when they lived without the law, as the speaker does in chapter 7 (ἐγὼ δὲ ἔζων χωρὶς νόμου ποτέ, 7: 9). 12 On the contrary, such a perception of Gentiles constituted an essential stereotype among Jews at the time of Paul. Therefore, it is not a Jew speaking in 7: 7-25, nor the universal human being, nor Paul himself, but the Gentile interlocutor. 13 Sin, the (Mosaic) law, and another law Let us briefly reiterate how Paul depicts the interconnection between law and sin in Romans. We will base this on our previous interpretation, which aims to develop a coherent and continuous reading of Romans in light of the radical new perspective. The reason for this minor reiteration is that Paul’s connection be‐ tween sin and law in 7: 5 has proved challenging for interpreters, because some sort of generative interaction seems to be at stake. Paul writes that the sinful passions, aroused by the law, worked in the members to bear fruit to death. A question (7: 7) then serves as a transition for the Gentile interlocutor to elaborate on his experiences with sin and the law. The Gentile knows that the law is not sin, but he explains how the law revealed sin and prompted it. Scholars have struggled to find a historical context for this experience in 7: 8 and 7: 11 - that sin found an opportunity in the commandment (ἀφορμὴν δὲ λαβοῦσα ἡ ἁμαρτία διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς), and how this sin-engendering role of the law could be com‐ bined with the goodness of the law. Some scholars appeal to the idea of sin as a cosmological force, whereas others cite the story of Adam as the foundation for the law-sin synergy. However, from my perspective of a consistent and con‐ tinuous reading of Romans, it makes more sense to read Romans 7 as the mono‐ logue of a Gentile experience under the law, in extension of 1: 18-32. Verse 3: 20 established that the law had a negative effect on the Gentile - that is, it led to an awareness of sin. Verse 3: 31 established that Paul did not overturn the law, but upheld it. In 5: 20, Paul writes that the law increased the trespass. Sin, the (Mosaic) law, and another law 229 <?page no="230"?> 14 Wasserman argues forcefully for the historical implausibility of ascribing to Paul an idea of sin as an apocalyptic power (Wasserman 2008, 84-88). 15 Wasserman 2008, 84 16 Wasserman discusses a metaphorical use of death in ancient moral discourses, and I find her argument convincing. She comments on Sir 22: 11 and Philo’s discussion of Cain and Abel (Det. 48). Abel is said to have both been put to death and to live on (cf. Was‐ serman 2008, 97). I see no reason to dismiss such a metaphorical (yet obviously con‐ tradictory) explanation as nonsensical. Therefore, it also works in Paul. That could, potentially, merely be a reiteration of 3: 20 and 4: 15 (the law brings wrath). But 7: 5-11 goes beyond the earlier statements about the law, because Paul writes that the law arouses evil passions (7: 5), and that there is another law in my members (δὲ ἕτερον νόμον ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου, 7: 23). In 7: 7-11, Paul explains that the commandments of the law somehow make sin alive. The law actively encourages sin and increases accountability for it, rather than just bringing knowledge about it. The reason for this may be found in Paul’s con‐ ception of God’s earlier acting with the Gentiles (1: 18-32). God punished the Gentile nations by delivering them over to the desires of their hearts, because they refused to worship God as God, and instead glorified idols (1: 21-23). There‐ fore (Διὸ, 1: 24), God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity. God condemned the Gentiles to obey their evil impulses, and in this way the law actually stimulates sin. Because of their bondage to evil impulses, the Gentiles are bound to obey their passions, which command the opposite of the law. This enslavement to evil impulses is what Paul calls ‘another law’ (ἕτερον νόμον, 7: 23), and he equates it with the law of sin (τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, 7: 23). 14 Personifying sin and desire with another law means that Paul represents the adverse outcome of trying to live up to the law as an indwelling appetitive ruler in the Gentile. 15 The law re-evaluates the Gentile’s situation, so that he comes to know that in reality he is imprisoned, enslaved, and killed by sin. This is what precedes and explains the internal struggle in chapter 7. Works of the law cannot be done consistently by Gentiles when they try to live as historical-ethnic Jews. Therefore, they should stop trying to do so, and instead turn to Christ. The meaning of χωρὶς γὰρ νόμου ἁμαρτία νεκρά in 7: 8 is down-to-earth and metaphorical, without demanding too much speculation - something like the ordinary uses of metaphors we live by. 16 Through the law, sin prompts a radical disempowerment, analogous to being dead. Because of this disempowerment, the Gentile cannot put his good judgements into action with the law of his mind (τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ νοός μου, 7: 23), which is the Mosaic, spiritual, holy, and just law. The Gentile doubtlessly knows good and desires to do it (τὸ γὰρ θέλειν παράκειταί μοι, τὸ δὲ κατεργάζεσθαι τὸ καλὸν οὔ, 7: 18). In 7: 15 and 16, the speaker is confused about what he knows and does, but from 7: 17 onwards he 11 Romans 7: 7-25 230 <?page no="231"?> 17 Cf. Deut. 30: 15-16; 4: 1; 6: 24; Lev 18: 5; Sir 17: 11; 45: 5; Wis 6: 17-20. 18 Cf. the Jewish-Hellenistic work Joseph and Aseneth. Aseneth’s conversion is conceived of as becoming alive: ‘God… who gave life to everything and called them… from death to life… You, Lord, bless this virgin, renew her by Your spirit, refashion her by Your hidden hand, make her alive again by Your life’ (Burchard 2003, 118-121 (8: 9); 188 (15: 5); 254 (20: 7)). For a discussion of these passages in Joseph and Aseneth, cf. Chesnutt 1995. achieves increasing clarity about the cause of his situation. Nevertheless, he is powerless in putting the right will into action because of the indwelling sin (τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοὶ ποιεῖν τὸ καλόν, ὅτι ἐμοὶ τὸ κακὸν παράκειται, 7: 21). Consequently, this powerlessness or disempowerment illuminates the use and meaning of νεκρά in 7: 8. Also, such a straightforward and simplistic metaphorical interpre‐ tation dovetails with Paul’s encouragement to the addressees in 6: 13 that they should present themselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life (παραστήσατε ἑαυτοὺς τῷ θεῷ ὡσεὶ ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῶντας). Clearly, they have not died in a literal sense, but it is not difficult for them to conceive of themselves as those who have been brought from death to life. Such a conception fits an understanding of the (Mosaic) law as the embodiment of knowledge and wisdom, and the association of law with life. 17 Here, death need not be made into some apocalyptic or ontological force. Also, such a figurative or metaphor‐ ical use of death to describe the wicked or the outsiders was quite widespread in ancient Judaism (as was the idea of becoming alive by conversion). 18 The perception of a life before conversion as equal to death is evident here in this Pauline passage. When the speaker in chapter 7 complains, ‘the law is pneumatic, but I am fleshly, sold as a slave under sin’ (7: 14), ‘nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh’ (7: 18), ‘I see another law in my members at war with the law of my mind’ (7: 23), ‘wretched man that I am, who will rescue me from this body of death? ’ (7: 24), and ‘with my mind I serve as a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I serve as a slave to the law of sin’ (7: 25), these statements cohere as statements about sin’s domination of the body. Body and flesh are naturally allied with passion and desire, because it is a Gentile who is speaking. This further supports a metaphorical understanding of νεκρά, where death corre‐ sponds to disempowerment. In 2: 14, Paul employs another metaphor, which may support the understanding of death as a metaphor. He refers to the law - as in 7: 21, 23 (ἕτερον νόμον) - to say that Gentiles may become a law to themselves. Thus, it is not far-fetched to suppose that Paul applies a simple metaphorical use of ordinary concepts to explain the experience of dying and coming to life. Nevertheless, scholars seem to disagree concerning the two laws in 7: 21-25. I regard the interlocutor as speaking metaphorically about another law, based on Sin, the (Mosaic) law, and another law 231 <?page no="232"?> 19 Räisänen observes that the ‘general tone’ of chapter 7 reminds one of chapter 2; he also detects ‘an irreconcilable tension’ between the two (Räisänen 1983, 110). However, Räi‐ sänen infers that Paul is inconsistent and self-contradictory, whereas I find continuity and consistency in Paul’s discourse, by way of a rhetorical analysis. the double allegiance described in 7: 14-20. The Gentile is determined to observe God’s law, but when he formerly lived as a Gentile according to Gentile ways of life (1: 18-32), he enslaved himself to passions and desire. So, when the Gentile hears the command of God’s law, he also hears the analogous but more power‐ fully-opposed voice or law of his Gentile passions and desires. This is the law of sin (ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, 7: 23, 25). The final cry in 7: 24: ‘Who will rescue me from this body of death? ’ (τίς με ῥύσεται ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου) summarizes the Gentile’s disempowerment (or metaphorical death), and prepares for the ensuing argument that God has provided a solution through Christ (8: 1-13). In 7: 9-10, the Gentile tells about life before trying to be a Jew: ‘I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died; the very commandment that was for life, brought death to me’. The meaning of ‘I was once alive apart from the law’ implies that the Gentile was in control, and managed to live a respectable, good, or decent life before knowing about the (Mosaic) law and wanting to become a Jew. That the Gentile confesses to this kind of life illuminates Paul’s statements from 2: 14-15 and 2: 26-29: Some Gentiles who live without the (Mosaic) law actually live according to the law - they live good lives. In 1: 19-20, Paul also explained that it was possible for Gentiles to have a knowledge of God, because God had made it clear to them. They clearly perceived the truth and knowledge about God, but in 1: 21 Paul explains that although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God. This interpretation supports a non-ontological and non-universalistic understanding of sin. Sin came into the world with Adam, but not sin as ontological power enslaving all mankind. If that was the case, it would not be possible for some Gentiles to live good lives, which Paul testifies is possible (cf. 2: 14-15). Romans 2 and 7 - an inversion Scholars apparently fail to see the unmistakeable correspondence and consis‐ tency between chapters 2 and 7. 19 However, that comes as no surprise, since most scholars do not regard Paul as continuing the dialogue with the Gentile interlocutor in 2: 17ff. Therefore, more traditional interpretations of Romans do not perceive Paul as still engaged with this interlocutor in chapter 7. In contrast, 11 Romans 7: 7-25 232 <?page no="233"?> what does our attempt at a consistent and continuous reading of Romans bring to light? In light of the interpretation proposed here, Romans 7 appears to be an inversion of Romans 2. Let me start by turning to Romans 2. In 2: 17ff., Paul approaches the person who thinks of himself or wants to call himself a Jew. Paul employs the well-known topos from Hellenistic moral phi‐ losophy of someone who pretends to be something he is not, that is, the incon‐ sistency between knowing/ being and doing. Paul addresses someone who relies on the law (ἐπαναπαύῃ νόμῳ, 2: 17), who knows the will of God, and can deter‐ mine the essential or suitable things (γινώσκεις τὸ θέλημα καὶ δοκιμάζεις τὰ διαφέροντα, 2: 18), who has in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth (ἔχοντα τὴν μόρφωσιν τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, 2: 20), yet because of this Gentile, the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles (2: 25). The Gentile says something about himself, but acts contrariwise. He acts sinfully, despite the appearance to the contrary (2: 2). This account is reversed in chapter 7. In 7: 7-25, it turns out that the Gentile was either already aware of this habitual inconsistency displayed in chapter 2, or has become aware of it (because of Paul’s explanations in 6: 1-7: 6), so he can tell his true story. Let me show how. The passage of 7: 7-25 functions structurally as an inversion of 2: 1-29, be‐ cause Paul has been able to explain to, and convince the Gentile of his situation. Through rhetorical finesse, Paul has turned the tables on the Gentile. The focus of chapter 2 was on external signs and how the Gentile presented himself out‐ wardly. The mode of discourse in chapter 7 is that of internal reflection and confiding incapacity. The external signs that the Gentile presented throughout chapter 2 are explained by means of the internal dialogue in chapter 7. In 2: 1- 5, the Gentile judged (κρίνω) and taught (διδάσκω) others; in 7: 7 he has learned or realized (γινώσκω), and now knows for real (οἶδα). In 2: 17, the Gentile relied on the law (ἐπαναπαύῃ νόμῳ); in 7: 10 he has grasped that the commandment that promised life proved to be death for him (εὑρέθη μοι ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωήν, αὕτη εἰς θάνατον). The law is still holy and true (2: 20 and 7: 12), but now the Gentile confides that Paul called his bluff, and the law of sin had enslaved him. He was just a pretender, and sin controlled his life. The ‘you’ addressed in 2: 1ff. has turned into the confessing ‘I’ in 7: 7ff., and it is still a Gentile speaking. Recapitulating the interpretation of 7: 7-25 In 7: 7-11, Paul has the Gentile interlocutor witness that he tries to establish his life on works of the law. Even though the law exposes desire as sin, it cannot Recapitulating the interpretation of 7: 7-25 233 <?page no="234"?> 20 Cf. the earlier reference to Epictetus, when I discuss the meaning of ἐπονομάζω in 2: 17. 21 Cf. Gal 5: 16, 24; Rom 6: 12-13; 7: 5; 8: 3. change the character of the Gentile, which is dominated by ἐπιθυμία. The Gentile experiences the law as a deceitful condemnation, and instead of controlling de‐ sire, the law provokes it. The Gentile does not understand what happens to him, and why he is acted upon, rather than acting himself (7: 15, 17) - also a topos from Hellenistic moral philosophy, just as in chapter 2. 20 Verse 7: 14 depicts the Gentile as a prisoner sold under, or handed over to sin (πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν), thereby reverberating with God’s punishment of the Gentiles in 1: 18-32 (cf. αἰχμαλωτίζοντά in 7: 23). The Gentile’s soliloquy presents the sit‐ uation as though different agents of the soul purposely mislead each other. Ac‐ cording to Paul, the passions and desires reside in the flesh, or the body and its parts. 21 The mind understands and wants to follow the law (7: 22), but since it has been perverted by the turn to idolatry (1: 21ff.), the desires of the flesh over‐ whelm it. The Gentile wants to live as the Jewish law teaches, but finds himself overpowered by desires that thwart his attainment of the objective. Conse‐ quently, the law is neither the problem nor the answer (7: 9-13). The problem stems from God withholding his spirit from the Gentiles, who are not related to him as children (8: 12-30), and cannot control the flesh (8: 2-11). Christ consti‐ tutes God’s way of redeeming this Gentile situation, because Gentiles are in‐ corporated into Christ’s way of life by infusion with God’s or Christ’s spirit. Verses 7: 7-25 witnesses that Paul simultaneously applies two registers of the law - one suspended, another upheld. The Gentile speaking in 7: 7ff. knows that the (Mosaic) law is good and holy, but he testifies to an inability to act on it. This situation serves as an example that anticipates Paul’s exhortation to ‘the strong’ and ‘the weak’ in chapters 14-15: The law is good and holy. But the law is not for the Gentiles. Therefore, ‘the strong’ are right in their claims about not fol‐ lowing the law, and Paul even positions himself among ‘the strong’, and thereby validates their position (15: 1). However, Paul does not want ‘the weak’ to ex‐ perience the same failure as the fictive Gentile interlocutor describes in 7: 7-25. The (Mosaic) law is not for the Gentiles. But the law is still holy and good and, therefore, Paul also makes room for ‘the weak’, by admonishing ‘the strong’ to not despise them (14: 3). 11 Romans 7: 7-25 234 <?page no="235"?> 22 Cf. Stowers 1994, 282; Jewett 2007, 474 23 Black regards 8: 1-11 as the first passage, and 8: 12-30 as the second (Black 1984, 426- 427). Continuity between chapter 7 and chapter 8 We now move on to chapter 8 in our consistent and continuous interpretation of Romans. There is a clear continuity between chapters 7 and 8, and we should not make too much of any separation of the two chapters. On the contrary, and in continuity with the reading proposed here, we should read Romans 8 at the surface level of the letter, as Paul continues the discourse, and continues the conversation with the fictive Gentile interlocutor. After the Gentile interlocutor has finished his monologue in 7: 25, Paul declares that there is now no condem‐ nation of those who are in Christ Jesus (Οὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν κατάκριμα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, 8: 1). He then goes on to address the Gentile interlocutor as ‘you’ (σε, 8: 2). 22 Paul further comments and concludes on the themes treated from chapters 5 through 7. Also, scholars have long agreed that chapters 6 through 8 go together, with chapter 5 as a bridge. The passage on Adam and Christ func‐ tions as a kind of foundation upon which the discussions of sin and the law occur. When we continue our reading at the surface level of the letter, we notice that chapter 8 divides into three passages, of which the first (8: 1-17) and the last (8: 31-39) go together. 23 The second passage (8: 18-30) is still thematically linked to what has been previously developed, but in this passage, Paul is more con‐ cerned with apocalyptic themes. Continuity between chapter 7 and chapter 8 235 <?page no="236"?> 1 Cf. Stowers 1994, 281 2 Dunn argues for something ‘more or other’ than circumcision, Sabbath, food laws, etc. as pertaining to ‘the just requirements of the law’ (Dunn 1988, 421). 3 Paul uses the expression ‘to walk/ live according to the spirit’ (περιπατοῦσιν κατὰ πνεῦμα, 8: 4), and also ‘to think the spiritual (things)’ (φρονοῦσιν… τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, 8: 5). Those who think the spiritual things have ‘a spiritual mind(-set)’ (τὸ δὲ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος, 8: 6), and a spiritual mindset ‘is’ or ‘results in’ ‘life and peace’ (ζωὴ καὶ εἰρήνη, 8: 6). ‘Think’ (φρονέω) and ‘mind(-set)’ (φρόνημα) appear four times within three verses. Also cf. Paul’s use of this in Philippians 2: 2-5; 3: 15-21. 12 Romans 8: 1-39 Romans 8: 1-17 As we saw earlier in our interpretation, the Gentile interlocutor revealed his ‘true’ identity through the soliloquy in 7: 7-25, in contrast to his ‘pretended’ appearance in 2: 17-24. It follows clearly from his confiding confession in 7: 7- 25 that he needs a new mindset to replace the mindset corrupted by idolatry (1: 21, 22, 28), 1 and his assumed appearance as a ‘good’ Jew (2: 17-24). He must ‘come clean’ about what he is and how he acts. Paul addresses him directly as ‘you’ in 8: 2, and tells him that he is now freed from condemnation, and from the law of sin and death (τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου) through the Spirit of Christ Jesus. The Spirit of Christ will effect a renewed mindset in him, and in 8: 1-11, Paul explains how this works. In 8: 3-8, Paul provides an explan‐ ation for the statements established in 8: 1-2, and in a nicely arranged rhetorical fugue, he turns from the ‘you’ (singular) addressed in 8: 2, to the epistolary ad‐ dressees (‘you’ plural) in 8: 9-17. Again, this shift from the interlocutor’s ‘you’ to the addressees’ ‘you’ confirms the consistency of the ethnic identity of both interlocutor and addressees as Gentile. Paul’s point in elaborating on this re‐ newed mindset, first to the individual and then to the assembly, is to explain how a renewed Gentile assembly will come about. They must fulfil ‘the just requirements of the law’ (τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου, 8: 4), in order to live as an ordered group. But they must not observe the (Mosaic) law in a way similar to the historical-ethnic Jews, as these latter must be circumcised, observe the purity law, the festivals, and so on. 2 Nevertheless, the Gentile assembly in Rome must follow the just requirements of the law, and they can do that through empow‐ erment by the Spirit, who will give them a new mindset. 3 This new mindset will <?page no="237"?> 4 For a discussion of ‘is’ versus ‘results in’ cf. Jewett 2007, 487 especially n126; Eng‐ berg-Pedersen 2015, 203-206. 5 Jewett discusses the meaning of εἴπερ (if, since, if indeed), and whether it is intended as a warning, a condition, or as assurance ( Jewett 2007, 489). Jewett argues that εἴπερ should be understood as meaning ‘if indeed’, and functions as an assurance, since 8: 9a ‘flatly states that believers ’are” in the Spirit’ ( Jewett 2007, 489). I regard εἴπερ as indi‐ cating a condition (with connotations of assurance), despite the fact that οἰκεῖ is in the indicative rather than the subjunctive, because Paul continues in 8: 9b with another condition: ‘but if anyone…’ (εἰ δέ τις…). Also, Paul opens the next two verses with expressions of condition (even if the condition is ‘unreal’, as in 8: 9): ‘but if…’ (εἰ δὲ…). enable virtues in them that will reverse the Gentile way of living described in 1: 18-32, 5: 6-10, and 7: 7-25. In 8: 5-8, Paul contrasts those who live ‘according to the flesh’ (οἱ κατὰ σάρκα) with those who live ‘according to the Spirit’ (οἱ δὲ κατὰ πνεῦμα). Those who live ‘according to the flesh’ think (φρονοῦσιν) fleshly things (τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς), and those who live according to the spirit think spiritual things (τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος). The mind of the flesh is (or results in) death, whereas the mind of the spirit is (or results in) life and peace (8: 6). 4 The mind of the flesh is hostile to God (ἔχθρα εἰς θεόν, 8: 7), and it does not subject itself to God’s law, because it is unable to - as the confiding Gentile described in 7: 7-25. In 5: 10, Paul used a similar expression about being hostile to God. He explained that whereas the Gentiles were enemies of God (ἐχθροὶ), they were reconciled with God through the death of Christ. Once, they were enemies, but now they have been reconciled with God; they have been baptized and have received the spirit. That is why they will live, if they put to death the acts of the body (8: 13). Thus, the kind of living Paul describes as being ‘according to’ (κατὰ) and ‘in’ (ἐν) the flesh in 8: 5- 8 reverberates with the Gentile way of living all the way back to 1: 18-32. Paul goes on to explain to them that they are not in the flesh but in the spirit, if the spirit of God dwells in them (εἴπερ πνεῦμα θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν, 8: 9). If Christ is in them, the spirit is (or means, or results in) life, because of righteousness, even if the body is dead because of sin. If the spirit lives in them, God, who raised Jesus from the dead, will give life to their mortal bodies (τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν, 8: 11). Christ may have finished with death, but they have not yet, since they are dead to sin (6: 11), but not to death. Paul describes how they are not in the flesh, in three different ways, since: 1) the spirit of God lives in them (πνεῦμα θεοῦ, 8: 9a), 2) the spirit of Christ lives in them (πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, 8: 9b), and 3) Christ is in them (Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, 8: 10). However, the entire argument comes down to the ‘if ’: 5 If the spirit of God, or the spirit of Christ, or Christ, is in them, Romans 8: 1-17 237 <?page no="238"?> 6 The meaning of the three statements must be somehow synonymous. This means that Christ ‘is’ spirit or ‘the’ spirit (cf. Engberg-Pedersen 2015, 204; Jewett 2007, 491; Dunn 1988, 430). 7 Jewett explains that most commentators regard ‘make alive’ (ζῳοποιήσει) as referring to the eschatological resurrection ( Jewett 2007, 492). He also explains that this does not explain why Paul selected ζῳοποιήσει (‘he will enliven’), rather than ἐγερεῖ (‘he will raise up’), or why he shifts from ‘dead body’ in 8: 10, to ‘mortal bodies’ (τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν) in 8: 11. Also cf. John Barclay’s explanation that the believers live in a state of permanent incongruity: ‘in one respect they are bound to death … in another they are alive, in a ’life from the dead”, the eternal life that is at source uniquely Jesus-life’ (Barclay 2013a, 65). 8 From 8: 13a to 8: 13b, Paul shifts the vocabulary from ‘flesh’ (σάρξ) to ‘body’ (σῶμα). This shift alters the antithesis between flesh and spirit that has been hitherto prevalent in chapter 8. Earlier in the letter Paul used such formulations as ‘sinful body’ (τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, 6: 6) and ‘body of death’ (τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου, 7: 24). These expres‐ sions are clearly echoed in 8: 13, but scholars have difficulty explaining their exact sense in this verse (cf. Jewett 2007, 495). However, what remains clear is that Paul admonishes the Gentile addressees to ‘put to death’ actions of a certain type - actions that were previously described in Romans 1: 18-32 and chapters 2, 3, 5, and 7. Thus, what Paul intends is to admonish the Gentile addressees to continually rid themselves of these acts (cf. the present tense of the verb (θανατοῦτε)), and not fall back into their ‘old’ life. then their body will be dead because of (διὰ) righteousness. 6 The body of sin is dead, because they have received the spirit that means life. If Christ is in them, their body is dead, and they are living in a new way. However, they still ‘have’ a body or ‘are’ bodies, as God’s spirit lives in them (‘now’, in the present tense) (οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν), but God will also make their mortal bodies alive (‘then’, in the future tense) (ζῳοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν) (8: 11). Somehow, this must mean that their sinful and fleshly bodies are no longer determining their actions, since the spirit of God and Christ are in them. 7 On the final day, their bodies will then finally be entirely shut off. Paul explained this similarly in chapter 6, when he wrote that in their lives here-and-now, they have their fruits to sanctification (ἔχετε τὸν καρπὸν ὑμῶν εἰς ἁγιασμόν, 6: 22), but in the end they will receive eternal life (τὸ δὲ τέλος ζωὴν αἰώνιον, 6: 22). In light of our reading, this must have the same meaning as the statement in 8: 11, that God will make their mortal bodies alive (ζῳοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώματα ὑμῶν). In 8: 12-17, Paul goes on to conclude the argument presented thus far. Because of what was laid out in the preceding argument, ‘we’ (primarily the Gentile addressees) are not debtors to the flesh (ὀφειλέται ἐσμὲν οὐ τῇ σαρκὶ, 8: 12). Instead, if the addressees by the spirit put to death the acts of the body (τὰς πράξεις τοῦ σώματος), 8 they will live. Thus, they are to kill the killer at the crime scene by putting to death the acts of the body. Again, Paul expresses the task to be done here and now in the present tense (θανατοῦτε), and what will happen 12 Romans 8: 1-39 238 <?page no="239"?> 9 Jewett 2007, 493 10 Jewett 2007, 496 11 Jewett 2007, 496. Jewett also brings examples from magical texts, where ἄγειν is a tech‐ nical term for gods, spirits, or ghosts that lead a targeted person. (presumably on the Day of Judgement), in the future tense (ζήσεσθε). Robert Jewett brings attention to the expression ‘we are the obligated ones’ (ὀφειλέται ἐσμὲν, 8: 12), and elaborates on its social and ethical background. 9 Jewett explains that Roman ethicists taught that obligations are owed to everyone in one’s social sphere, and that a ‘gradation of duties’ (gradus officiorum) placed obligations to the gods first, to country second, to parents third, and so on. Jewett wishes to point out that to be obligated ‘to the flesh’ (τῇ σαρκὶ) entails a whole range of social, ethical, and religious obligations. And Paul further qualifies the admon‐ ition with the clause ‘to live according to the flesh’ (τοῦ κατὰ σάρκα ζῆν). What Paul tells the addressees, then, is to not be obligated by the flesh to live ‘ac‐ cording to the flesh’, with all the social, ethical, religious, and other obligations that such a life entails. This social background is important to remember in Paul’s admonition to the Gentile addressees, because they have (recently? ) left behind their former Gentile ways of life (in the flesh). They are no longer obli‐ gated to live ‘according to the flesh’, but should live within their obligations and social relationship according to the spirit (κατὰ πνεῦμα). They still fulfil their obligations to patrons, country, and family, but these obligations and relation‐ ships have been redefined, because they are now members of the family of God (8: 14-18). The social background of this obligatory aspect illuminates the ad‐ dressees’ continuing to ‘put to death’ the acts of the body (τὰς πράξεις τοῦ σώματος θανατοῦτε, 8: 13), and qualifies them as a group with redefined obli‐ gations. They have left behind their former Gentile obligations, and now live according to the spirit. In 8: 14, Paul continues the argument begun in 8: 12. Those who are being led by God’s spirit (πνεύματι θεοῦ) are sons of God (υἱοὶ θεοῦ). According to Robert Jewett, the expression ‘being led’ by the spirit is a distinctively Pauline formu‐ lation, also found in Gal 5: 18. 10 In 1 Cor 12: 2, Paul uses the same verb (ἁγώ) to describe how once, the Gentile addressees were led by dumb idols (ὅτε ἔθνη ἦτε πρὸς τὰ εἴδωλα τὰ ἄφωνα ὡς ἂν ἤγεσθε ἀπαγόμενοι). Jewett further explains that in the Greco-Roman world there was a prevailing sense that spiritual forces could lead humans this way and that. 11 From our analysis of Romans 5: 12-21 (Adam-Christ), we also encountered the idea of ‘being led’ by a foreign force or spirit. Among other things, we saw that Jubilees bears witness to a literal demonization of Gentiles, and that Gentile nations, like Belial, are ruled by such Romans 8: 1-17 239 <?page no="240"?> 12 Miryam Brand indicates that this passage may be an interpolation, but that it does not matter to the argument, because it may still be read in harmony with the previous passages (Brand 2013, 254). 13 CD V.20-21, translation taken from Brand 2013, 223, my italics. spirits (Jub 1: 19-20). We also quoted a passage from Jubilees 15: 30-32, which is relevant here: [The Lord] did not choose them [Ishmael and his sons and his brothers and Esau] because they are the children of Abraham, because He knew them, but He chose Israel to be His people. And He sanctified it, and gathered it from amongst all the children of men; for there are many nations and many peoples, and all are His, and over all hath He placed spirits in authority to lead them astray from Him. But over Israel He did not appoint any angel or spirit, for He alone is their ruler, and He will preserve them and require them at the hand of His angels and His spirits, and at the hand of all His powers in order that He may preserve them and bless them, and that they may be His and He may be theirs from henceforth forever. (my italics) What this passage from Jubilees bears witness to is the idea that God could appoint certain angels or spirits to lead the Gentile nations. However, God did not appoint any angel or spirit to rule Israel, because he alone is their ruler. To further elaborate on this point, we also saw in the writings from Qumran that the army of Belial is described as consisting of those Gentile nations that are portrayed as the enemies of Israel in the Hebrew Bible (1QM 1.1-2). In one of the texts from Qumran, the existence of Belial (by his stand-in, Melki-reša) explains the rejection of the community by one who is already a member of the community (4Q280). In another text, a member’s transgression of the rules of the community is blamed on ‘the spirits of Belial’ (CD XII.4-6). 12 The Damascus Document (IV.12-19) explains that Belial is set free to act against Israel by setting up traps meant to lead to sin. The function of these traps of Belial is to create a divide between members of the Qumran community, and non-members led as‐ tray by Belial. Non-members are ensnared by Belial’s traps, and mistake them for ‘righteousness’ (IV.16-17). In the subsequent chapters (CD V.17b-VI.3a) there is an explanation of how sin arose: And at the time of the destruction of the land, the trespassers arose and led Israel astray and the land became desolate, for they spoke deviantly about the ordinances of God (given) through Moses and also… 13 The subsequent passages explain that the ‘trespassers’ who arose are Belial’s emissaries. Here, the Hebrew use of vocabulary corresponds to the Greek equiv‐ alents of ‘leading’ (ἁγώ). Consequently, in contemporary Jewish texts such as 12 Romans 8: 1-39 240 <?page no="241"?> 14 Paul is the only known author in the New Testament who employs the metaphor of adoption. Ephesians 1: 5 also uses the metaphor of adoption, but we do not know who the author is. 15 The term adoption (υἱοθεσία) is found five times in the New Testament: Rom 8: 15, 23: 9: 4; Gal 4: 5; Eph 1: 5. 16 Rossell 1952, 233-234; Byrne 1979; Moo 1996, 501; Scott 1992, 267-269; Jewett presents both alternatives ( Jewett 2007, 498). Burke treats a variety of approaches arguing for this perspective (Burke 2006, 47-58). 17 Dunn 1988, 452; Lyall 1969, 459; 1984, 95-97; Burke 2006, 58-71; Kim 2014, 137. Meth‐ odologically, it is very difficult to examine Greek law as the socio-legal context for an understanding of adoption, as there is no such thing as a coherent body of Greek law, because Greek civilization consisted of independent city-states, each with its own in‐ dividual legal system. Jubilees and the writings from Qumran, we find examples of how Gentiles could be ‘led’ by spirits. In Paul, the vocabulary of being led corresponds to the con‐ temporary Jewish use of it. But here, Paul’s point is that the Gentile addressees are led by God’s or Christ’s spirit, since they are his children. Hence, they are not led by evil spirits (anymore), and they did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear (8: 15). They may have been led by evil spirits once, when they were slaves. But they are no longer, as they are now children of God. Roman socio-legal practices concerning adoption (of ex-slaves) In 8: 14-15, Paul states that as many as are led (ἄγονται) by God’s spirit, are God’s sons. He continues by explaining that the Gentile addressees did not re‐ ceive a spirit of slavery (πνεῦμα δουλείας) again unto fear but a spirit of adoption (πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας). Why does Paul speak of adoption here, and what is the meaning of this metaphor? 14 Besides, what role does the spirit of slavery play in Paul’s metaphor - is it important, or merely an unimportant opposite to the spirit of adoption? To properly answer these highly debated questions, and to grasp Paul’s intention with this metaphor, we must take a look at adoption in the ancient world. The consistent and continuous reading of Romans proposed here will be further enriched when we investigate the motif of the adoption of slaves (or ex-slaves), specifically in Roman socio-legal context and practice. Biblical scholars often diverge into two categories in their interpretation of the social and legal background of Paul’s adoption metaphor. 15 Some claim that the background is Jewish, 16 others that it is Greek or Roman. 17 In the Greek context, it is widely attested that υἱοθεσία was used in adoptive formulae placed Roman socio-legal practices concerning adoption (of ex-slaves) 241 <?page no="242"?> 18 Scott 1992, 49. Burke explains that property, and not family, became the major consid‐ eration in Greek adoption procedures. Even if adoption began as a device to ensure the continuity of the family, it became more popular as a device to ensure that an estate remained within the family (Burke 2001, 120 n7). 19 The main thrust of Byrne’s and Scott’s work relies on this insight (Byrne 1979; Scott 1992). 20 Cf. Ex 4: 22; Deut 14: 1-2; Hos 2: 1; 11: 1; Sir 4: 10; Ps of Sol 17: 26-27; Jub 1: 24-25; Wisdom 16: 10. 21 Cf. Burke 2001, 119; Johnson Hodge 2008, 181-182 n2; Burke 2006, 22. 22 Cf. Jewett 2007, 498; Lyall 1969, 459; Kim 2014, 135. Burke and Lyall point out that even in the cases of Eliezer (Gen 15: 2-3), Moses (Ex. 2: 10) and Esther (Est. 2: 7), where adoption takes place, these take place on foreign soil, where there were different laws (Burke 2001, 120 n7; Lyall 1969, 461). 23 Keith Hopkins estimated that 4 percent of the entire Roman population was adopted in the period from 350 BC to 50 AD (Hopkins 1983, 49). Moreau reports from a study by Ségolène Demougin that fewer than 2 percent of equestrians from the Julio-Claudian period were found to be adopted (Moreau 1992, 13). Moreau also reports that Jean An‐ dreau identified 8-9 percent of magistrates and decurions at Pompeii as adoptees (Moreau 1992, 13). These figures all concern elite groups, where questions of inheri‐ tance, position, and social status were most important, and, therefore, where the most significant numbers may be expected. 24 Cf. the marital laws of Augustus in 18 BCE (Lex Julia de Maritandis Ordinibus) and 9 CE (Lex Papia Poppaea). 25 Cf. the discussion in Lyall (1969, 459-464), who arduously argues against adoption as a Jewish legal practice. after a person’s name, but the literary use of υἱοθεσία is quite limited. 18 In The Life of Caesar (55), the court historian for Herod the Great, Nicolaus Damascenus (*64 BCE), describes the adoption of Octavian by Julius Caesar by using the word υἱοθεσία. In the Jewish context, it may be stated that the idea of Israel being the ‘son of God’ was widespread. 19 This applies equally to the LXX and contempo‐ rary Judaism. 20 Evidently, the idea of ‘sonship’ as ‘sons of God’ is essentially Jewish in Paul’s thinking. However, the word for ‘adoption’ (υἱοθεσία) does not occur in the LXX or any other Jewish texts of this period. 21 Also, even though the concept of ‘the sonship of Israel’ existed in the Hebrew Bible, sonship was not expressed as a legal term, and there is no mention of adoption as a Jewish practice. 22 This makes it more probable that Paul employs the Roman institution of adoption, in order to illustrate his point about Gentile believers’ adoption and incorporation into the family of God. 23 Adoption was a widespread socio-legal practice and institution in Greco-Roman society. It was closely connected to the ideal (and metaphor) of the Roman family, which had a remarkably strong impact on society in the first century CE. 24 This may tell us that Paul consciously chose this metaphor, mindful of the premise that he could not rely on a Jewish institution. 25 Another obser‐ 12 Romans 8: 1-39 242 <?page no="243"?> 26 The same applies to Galatians, where Paul also uses the word and metaphor of adoption (υἱοθεσία, Gal 4: 5). 27 Cf. Gaius Inst. 1.134; Valerius Maximus 7.7.5; cf. the interpretation of these passages by Kim (2014, 135-136). vation concerns the fact that Paul writes to a congregation in Rome; as residents of Rome, they were governed by Roman law and practices, and would certainly be acquainted with the local law. 26 If the addressees knew anything about adop‐ tion and the social and legal practices connected to adoption, it is probable that they knew about adoption in the specific Roman constellation. This may indicate that Paul accommodated and contextualized his message for their specific sit‐ uation and conceptual framework. A final observation about Paul’s possible use of the specific Roman approach to adoption concerns the fact that Paul was a Roman citizen, and a well-travelled one. It is quite probable that Paul knew or picked up the legal guidelines pertaining to adoption because he was a Roman citizen. He travelled about the Roman Empire, and the Roman legal system had paramount jurisdiction over him as a citizen. Therefore, he would know how the system worked. Hence, it makes sense that Paul was affected by Roman socio-legal practices in framing his adoption metaphor. Roman social and legal practices distinguished clearly between the adoption of legally dependent persons (e.g. slaves and sons under their father’s authority) and the adoption of independent persons (freeborn or freed citizens). This is a key point, as slavery and the adoption of (ex-)slaves play decisive roles in Paul’s adoption metaphor. Slaves were rarely adopted as natural children, particularly in families of high status. Nevertheless, in Roman society it was completely possible to adopt a slave, even when a legitimate heir existed. In the Greek context, such a practice was very uncommon. 27 Therefore, we must enquire more deeply into the differences between the status, rank, and position of adoptive and biological children in Roman society. We must ask whether it was legally possible to become an heir, to become a legal and full member of an adoptive family, but still not be socially equal to the other members (brothers, sisters, etc.) of the adoptive family. That is, despite the legal unity of the new family, would there still be social distinctions and a hierarchy of position and rank within the unity? We must also ask how the adoption of an heir (sometimes an ex-slave) was perceived by Roman society and the family in the presence of a natural or biological heir. In order to fully grasp Paul’s metaphor, we must understand the social dynamics of ancient Roman families when adoptive and biological chil‐ dren were brought together. These questions will guide us in our search for the logic and intention behind Paul’s exploration of the adoption metaphor. Roman socio-legal practices concerning adoption (of ex-slaves) 243 <?page no="244"?> 28 Aulus Gellius N.A. 5.19.1-6. Also cf. the explanation in Burke 2001, 123. 29 Gardner 1989, 237 30 Cf. Gaius Inst. 1.100. The fact that adrogatio took place only in Rome leads Burke (2006, 67-68) to conclude that it is unlikely that Paul had the procedure of adrogatio in mind when he used the υἱοθεσία term. However, this conclusion may be hasty. For one thing, Paul could have the procedure of adrogatio in mind, since he is writing to a congregation in Rome - the actual place where adrogatio was decided. This would imply that Paul contextualized his message specifically for the congregation in Rome. Another consid‐ eration concerns the fact that some of the members of the Roman congregation may have perceived themselves (in their ‘real’ life) to be either freeborn or freedmen and Roman citizens. Hence, for them to accept Paul’s metaphor - and for Paul’s metaphor to work better - the process of adrogatio may have been more pleasing. Throughout Paul’s argument from chapter 6 onwards, he refers to the Roman addressees as slaves or former slaves (of sin and death). But this description may not necessarily work against a ‘real’ (socio-legal) identity of the Roman addressees being freedmen or free‐ born Roman citizens. Adrogatio and adoptio The Roman author and grammarian Aulus Gellius (125-180 CE) explains two forms of adoption in Roman law: Adoption can be done in two ways, by writ from the emperor or application to a magistrate. The imperial procedure is used where the man or woman being adopted is already an independent person. That kind of adoption is called adrogatio. Adoption [adoptio] before a magistrate is used for persons of both sexes still within paternal authority. 28 This statement explains that there were two kinds of adoption in Roman society and law: adrogatio and adoptio. Adrogatio was used when someone adopted a legally independent person (sui iuris). A legally independent person would nor‐ mally have his own family (including wife, children, clients, slaves, etc.) and be a paterfamilias himself. If such a person sui iuris was adopted by way of adro‐ gatio, all those under his paternal authority passed along with him under the power and authority of the new paterfamilias. Thus, his former family ceased to exist as specifically ‘his’ family, and became part of the family of another. This procedure ensured the continuation of one family, whereas another family ceased to exist. Therefore, the process of adrogatio was not lightly undertaken, and the state’s civil and religious authorities were involved. 29 The state author‐ ities’ enquiries to determine the admissibility of the adoption were conducted only in Rome. Hence, adrogatio could be effected only in Rome. 30 This observa‐ tion may lend even more credibility to Paul’s specific use of a Roman socio-legal 12 Romans 8: 1-39 244 <?page no="245"?> 31 Cf. the discussion in Watson 1967, 90ff. 32 Watson 1967, 94 33 Cf. Gardner 1989, 240 practice, if he - or at least his addressees - knew that adrogatio could take place only in Rome. The other form of adoption was adoptio. This practice was used when someone adopted a legally dependent person (aliens iuris). If a son was still under his father’s authority (potestas), but was adopted by another person, it would be a case of adoptio, because the son was not yet legally independent. The adoption of a slave would also qualify as adoptio, because legally, a slave was a dependent person. However, the distinction between the adoption of a slave and the adop‐ tion of a former slave (an ex-slave) is rather blurry. There are some instances where a master would free a slave in order to officially adopt him into the family, but it does not seem as though this qualifies as adrogatio. Since the slave went from one regime of authority to another, even though he officially was free (sui iuris) for a short time, this was still considered a case of adoptio. In the early Republic there was a practice of simultaneously manumitting and adopting, but it is unclear how this practice further went on in the late Republic and early Empire. 31 Alan Watson has argued that there was a change in the law from the early to the late Republic affecting the status of both slaves and freedmen. A libertinus adopted by an ingenuus became an ingenuus only so long as it was accepted that the position in the state of an adopted person was that of the adopter. Also so long as this was the position, a slave adopted by a Roman citizen automatically became a Roman citizen. But once it was decided that status in the State was not altered by adoption - and for this change we have evidence in respect of libertine - a slave could not be adopted, because a non-Roman could not be a filius in potestate to a civis Ro‐ manus. 32 There is no direct evidence of the above-mentioned change in the legal position of the adopted freedman. However, it is quite probable that such a change did take place. Early in the Republic, an adopted freedman could enjoy the same status as ingenui in both family and state, since there was a relative openness and access to Roman citizenship until at least 338 BCE. 33 Besides, slaves were acquired mainly by the conquest and capture of free people at that time, so the criterion of ingenuitas would not be so obvious for social differentiation. The differences among freeborn Roman citizens, freeborn non-Romans admitted to citizenship, and an originally freeborn ex-slave restored to freedom and then given citizenship would not be that great. Each of the three could equally become filius-familias by adoption. However, with the advent of, and increase in those Adrogatio and adoptio 245 <?page no="246"?> 34 Gardner 1989, 241 35 According to Crook, adoption was a lifeline for a family in danger of dying out (Crook 1967, 135). 36 Cf. Gardner 1989 37 Bernstein 2005, 257; Laes 2010, 245 38 Cf. Rawson 2010, 195. In a Jewish setting, cf. the story of Jacob having children with Leah, Rachel, and their maidservants, Bilhah and Zilpah (Gen 30). 39 Cf. the attitudes expressed by Seneca the Elder (Controv. 2.1; 9.3) and Cicero (Dom., 34- 36). 40 Cicero Q. Frat. 1.1.13 born into slavery (vernae) things started to change, and this may have altered the Romans’ attitude towards freed slaves, whether adopted or not. At the time of the elder Cato (234-149 BCE), a slave could still be adopted by his master ( Justinian Inst. 1.11.12), and Cato was apparently addressing a merely procedural question - whether the adoption constituted ipso facto manumission. By the time of Tiberius (14-37 CE), the law regarded the adopted freedman as still a freedman in all matters outside family law. 34 Social distinctions and status-consciousness within the Roman family and society Roman adoption was most often practised to acquire an heir, especially with regard to the inheritance of an infertile family. 35 It was practised more by the elite, and was less frequent among the lower classes, as they had less property to bequeath. Hence, adoption was a high-profile method and cultural practice for perpetuating a lineage. The most common form of adoption was the adoption of close kin or friends (adoptio). It was possible to adopt a complete stranger, but these adoptions were usually for purposes other than succession or inheritance. It was also possible to adopt a slave, 36 but it was quite uncommon, and the problem of the different statuses of adopter and adoptee had to be continually ‘worked through‘ mentally, rhetorically, and socially. 37 When a family could not produce an heir, the Roman family structure was flexible enough to accept other children (mostly slave children) as either surrogate children for biological sons and daughters, or as surrogate siblings for an only child. 38 These kinds of adop‐ tions were often treated with suspicion and looked upon disapprovingly, by both society and the adoptive family. 39 In Republican times, Cicero almost equated a freedman with a slave, and defined both as dishonourable. 40 Pliny the Elder (23- 79 CE) listed influential freedmen, and described their exercise of power as a 12 Romans 8: 1-39 246 <?page no="247"?> 41 Pliny HN 35.201; also cf. Pan. 88.1-2; Ep. 7.29; 8.6. 42 Cf. Bernstein 2005, 263 43 Cf. López Barja de Quiroga 1995, 326-330 44 Gardner 1989, 241 45 Cicero Brutus, 67; de Or. 3.21; also cf. Juvenal 11.154. disgrace. 41 The advancement in power, wealth, and influence of various freedmen in early Imperial times aroused social prejudices, 42 and surviving sources reflect a tension between the social power that wealthy or politically influential freedman exercised and the social stigma and disrespect arising from their servile origins. The views held by Cicero, Seneca, and their peers may be transferred to the case of adoption of (ex-)slaves; it was disliked and despised. The Roman aris‐ tocracy (and wider society) privileged free birth and aristocratic ancestry, criti‐ cized social mobility, and demonstrated prejudice against figures such as the homo novus and the wealthy freedman. 43 Livy (64 BC-17 CE) also references such status-consciousness. Livy presents the definition of the word patricius, where he equates ingenuus with patricius: ‘those who can name their father’ (qui patrem ciere possent, id est, ingenuos (10.8.10)). This means that a houseborn slave (verna) had no parents, and therefore could not be ingenuus. However, ingenuitas may have meant something else, since Festus (4th century CE) reports that Cincius (probably L. Cincius Alimentis, floruit ca. 210 BCE) said that patricii was the term originally used for ingenui (Festus 241). This means that the orig‐ inal use of in-genuus was of someone ‘born inside’ the exclusive circle of the Roman patriciate, rather than someone of ‘free’ birth. 44 Plebeians and ex-slaves were lumped together in the undifferentiated mass of those who had no access to a political career. But when circumstances changed and plebeians made in‐ roads into the patrician monopoly on holding office, free birth rather than pat‐ rician birth became what differentiated the potential magistrate from the rest. The original, class-based sense survived only indirectly, in the use of ingenuus to indicate nobility of character, used frequently by Cicero. 45 From the Roman poet Statius (45-96 CE), we learn of a case where Statius responds to the social and rhetorical difficulties posed by the different statuses in the relationship between his patron, Atedius Melior, and the deceased ex-slave, Glaucias (Silvae 2.1). Glaucias was born the son of a slave couple whom Social distinctions and status-consciousness within the Roman family and society 247 <?page no="248"?> 46 Glaucias may be described as ‘status inconsistent’. This would refer to his high status in terms of cultural skills (Statius praises his intelligence and ethical qualities), but his low status biologically, owing to his servile birth. In general, status inconsistency is frequently observed during periods of high social mobility. Imperial Rome expressed a manifest prejudice against the homo novus and the powerful freedman, because their social power did not match their lowly birth. 47 Laes 2010, 249 48 Bernstein 2005, 257 49 Natos geniuses necesse est, / elegisse iuuat. 50 Even if Atedius Melior had not legally adopted Glaucias, it would still have been possible for Melior to appoint Glaucias as his rightful heir. Atedius Melior manumitted. 46 Glaucias was born a slave, but Atedius Melior manumitted him shortly after his birth, and probably adopted him at that point, 47 or at least reared him as a foster-child (alumnus). 48 Atedius Melior’s childlessness and advancing age probably explain his intention to appoint Glau‐ cias as his successor. In Silvae (2.1.87-88), Atedius Melior says that he viewed Glaucias as a beloved son whom he chose as his own, instead of engendering a child of his own. 49 Statius’s references to Atedius Melior’s childlessness throughout the poem suggest that Melior had lost his potential heir in Glau‐ cius. 50 Owing to the contemporary prejudice against wealthy freedmen, Atedius Melior’s appointment of an ex-slave as heir would have been subject to disap‐ proval and social discrimination. That may explain the observation that Atedius Melior had found it necessary to explicitly declare to his friends that Glaucias was free, in order to ascribe higher status to him, and defend their relationship. He may have acted thus because of Roman society’s difference in perception of socio-legal paternity and biological kinship. Overall, the poem reveals Statius as trying to navigate and carefully conceal Glaucias’s servile origins, in order to defend Atedius Melior’s choice to foster him as his own. Statius uses affective and ethical claims, and mythical comparisons to argue for the superiority of Atedius Melior’s socio-legal paternity, in contrast to any biological kinship. He did that because of the expressed difference between ‘real’ parents and ‘second-rate’ or ‘sub-standard’ fosterers/ adopters. Our concern with this ex‐ ample is whether it is possible to detect a similar distinction in Paul’s adoption metaphor. An example that expresses the difficulties presented by different social sta‐ tuses in the case of adoption comes from the story of Cupid and Psyche, in Apuleius’s Metamorphoses (4.28-6.25). In the story, Cupid has disobeyed his mother, Venus, in taking a beautiful and mortal girl, Psyche, as his wife. Cupid visits Psyche only during the night, and he tells her that she cannot enquire about his appearance; she does so, anyway. Cupid banishes Psyche, and goes to 12 Romans 8: 1-39 248 <?page no="249"?> 51 Most scholars date the story of Joseph and Aseneth to the period from 200 BCE to 200 CE (Burchard 2003). Even if the novel elaborates on the ancient story of Joseph and Aseneth from Genesis 41: 45, it reflects the socio-cultural perceptions of Hellenistic Egypt. his mother’s room to mourn the loss of his beloved. When Venus discovers that Cupid has disobeyed her, she becomes furious. She wishes to punish Cupid, and tells him what she intends to do: Indeed, in order to make you feel the insult all the more I will adopt one of my young slaves and make over to him those wings of yours, and torches, your bow and arrows, and the rest of my equipment, which I did not give you to use that way. (Metam. 5.29 (LCL)) What Venus expresses here is her intention of absolutely punishing and humil‐ iating Cupid for degrading and dishonouring himself (in marrying a social in‐ ferior), and also Venus, as his mother, a family member, by adopting a slave to take his place. Even though Cupid is Venus’s legitimate and biological son, and has high status, she will adopt a slave and disgrace him for his disobedience. Apuleius expresses the literary setting in such a way that Venus threatens Cupid with the highest conceivable social reproach - replacement by a slave. This example illuminates the other side of adoption - the perspective from ‘above’, in society, but the point stands out equally clearly: in Roman society, adoption severely affected the social status of those involved. A slave may have been elevated to a higher social status, but the adoption also meant social degradation of legitimate heirs, and probably enclosed/ subsequent victimization and dis‐ crimination. The question is whether we can detect similar tensions in Paul’s perception of adoption. An example that illuminates the intra-familial struggles between biological children and children born of house-slaves (even if not necessarily adopted children) comes from the Jewish Hellenistic novel about Joseph and Aseneth. 51 In the story, the son of Pharao is in love with Aseneth, who becomes Joseph’s wife (Gen 41: 45). Pharaoh’s son plans to kill Joseph and marry Aseneth. He summons Dan and Gad, who are sons of Leah and Rachel’s maidservants (Bilhah and Zilpah) and, hence, not Jacob’s biological sons. Pharao’s son lies to Dan and Gad, to convince them to help him to kill Joseph. He tells them that Joseph said, ‘Children of my father’s maidservants are … not my brothers … because they are children of maidservants’ (Joseph and Aseneth 24.7-10). Pharao’s son says this to create envy and strife between the biological and other children. Hence, the story of Joseph and Aseneth also illuminates the intricate negotiations of Social distinctions and status-consciousness within the Roman family and society 249 <?page no="250"?> 52 Gaius defines the ingenuus as someone born free (Inst. 1.11). Livy defines the ingenuus as someone who could name his father (10.8.10). 53 Gellius NA 5.19.11-14 54 The same kind of reasoning is expressed in Gen 15: 4, when God tells Abraham that Eliezer, Abraham’s house slave, may not inherit his property. Instead, God will give Abraham a ‘real’ heir, and the adopted slave will lose his rights: ‘This man (slave) shall not be your heir; no one but your very own issue shall be your heir’ (Gen 15: 4). status between legitimate and other non-legitimate children. We shall examine further down if we can also find this in Paul. What is the distinction between a freeborn and a freed adrogatus, following an adoption? For one thing, a freedman had no father - no one had potestas over him, and he was the initiator of his own family-line. But if a freedman was adopted (adrogatio) by another, would the adoption itself provide the freedman with the status of a freely born or native person (ingenuus)? 52 The Roman jurist, Masurius Sabinus, who practised in the time of Tiberius (14-37 CE), was clear that adrogatio conferred, merely and exclusively, the private rights of an in‐ genuus within his adoptive family, but none of the public rights. Masurius Sa‐ binus wrote that ‘freedmen can lawfully be adopted by freeborn men’. And he continues: … it is not, nor should it be, permitted that men of freed status (libertini) should by means of adoptions usurp (invadant) the legal rights of freeborn men. … if this ancient regulation were to be preserved, even a slave could be given for adoption by his master through the praetor; … many authorities on ancient law wrote [that this] was pos‐ sible. 53 Masurius Sabinus’s opinion is supported by Ulpian in the Digest: ‘A patron cannot make a self-confessed freedman ingenuus even by adoption’ (eum, qui se libertinum esse fatetur, nec adoptando patronus ingenuum facere potuit, 1.5.27). The consequence of this is that even if an adopted son attained the personal position of a son (filius-familias) within the familia (e.g. rights of succession and liable to restrictions on marriage (cf. Gaius Inst. 1.61; Digest 23.2.17)), when it came to Roman society in general, he was still subject to the restrictions of a freedman. So even if he acquired some of (not all) the legal rights of a natural son, there would still be substantial problems owing to status inconsistency, resulting in social prejudice, stigma, and disrespect. The obvious reason for this was that the elite would not easily share their rights with social climbers or new-comers. Roman law stated that adoptive rights were weaker than natural rights. 54 This did not concern the legal position of the adoptee in the family regarding inher‐ 12 Romans 8: 1-39 250 <?page no="251"?> 55 Cf. Kim 2014, 138 where he quotes Gaius Inst. 1.25. 56 Kim 2014, 139-140 57 Digest 23.2.32 58 Tacitus Annales 15.19 59 Also cf. the discussion in Seneca the Elder (Controv. 1.6.6) of how a young man, wrong‐ fully, could consider the possibilities of adoption. Clearly, the young man has misun‐ derstood the aristocratic conventions of exchange, and instead inappropriately applied the paradigm of market transactions. itance, but it affected the social status and position of the adoptee - both in society and the family. Adopted sons simply had a different social status than biological children. Also, they could be excused from public duties such as guardianship, because they were adopted. 55 There were several legal restrictions on adopted ex-slaves, for instance, regarding obligations to the slave’s former master, freedom of residence, the right to make a will or to inherit under the will of another, the right to political engagement, and also regarding marriage. 56 The reason ex-slaves were restricted with regard to marriage concerns the social discrimination when it came to allowing former slaves to upgrade their social status. The Roman author Marcellus (contemporary of Antonius Pius (86-161 CE) and Marcus Aurelius (121-180 CE)) mentions the marital restriction when commenting on the Lex Julia et Papia: It must be known that a freedman who has given himself for adoption to a freeborn man, although obtaining the rights of a freeborn man within his family, is nevertheless, as being of freedman status, to be barred from marrying within the senatorial class. 57 Marcellus’s comment demonstrates the understanding that an adopted freedman (an ex-slave) could obtain the private rights and nothing else, because social climbers and newcomers were despised. Tacitus (56-117 CE) tells of an incident around 62 CE, where some ambitious childless candidates for office adopted, to gain the priority of selection, in response to Augustus’s marriage laws (18 BCE and 9 CE). 58 However, Tacitus considered this adoption illegitimate, and the Senate decreed that it was invalid. 59 The implication of this incident, and what Marcellus wrote, is that if an adoption took place for purposes other than inheritance, it could be invalidated, because of the inherent restrictions on it. All these instances and examples bear witness to the fact that Roman society expressed a structural dislike of status inconsistency, and, therefore, made it legally impossible for ex-slaves to marry into the senatorial class and, as a con‐ sequence, become senators. The Digest offers a noteworthy remark regarding adopted sons; it makes clear that adopted sons were not entirely strangers to the family (nec enim in totum extranei sunt, 37.4.8.11). This implies that the adoptees were not treated in the exact same way as natural or biological children. Social distinctions and status-consciousness within the Roman family and society 251 <?page no="252"?> 60 Burke seems to have misunderstood this, since he writes: ‘… the adoptee’s legal position and privileges were the same as that of a legitimate biological son’ (Burke 2006, 69). It is correct that the legal position of an adopted ex-slave could be equal to that of a legitimate son, but legal position was not the same as the privileges, the status, and the position in family and society. An adopted ex-slave could be the legal son of an adoptor, but this legal status did not necessarily entail the same social status or rank as a legit‐ imate son. 61 Livy 39.19.5; Digest 1.5.27. This discrimination may have resulted from Augustus’s leg‐ islative programme (Lex Julia de Maritandis Ordinibus) of 18 BCE (modified in 9 CE by the Lex Papia Poppaea) to institutionalize social demarcation according to wealth and birth (cf. Digest 1.7.15.2-3). 62 Cf. explanation of this in Aulus Gellius N.A. 5.19.11-13. This point is further reinforced by the fact that the status of adopted sons was different from that of natural or biological sons, if their father died intestate (Digest 37.4.8.11-12). Hence, inappropriate adoptions, and especially the adop‐ tion of slaves, were disliked and disapproved of. It carried negative societal con‐ notations, and adopted ex-slaves were subject to various degrees of discrimi‐ nation. It was not favourable to adopt slaves, and definitely not when a legal (natural, biological, legitimate) heir existed. A final and very illuminating comment suffices to conclude on these matters. Adopted ex-slaves held far lower social and familial status than biological chil‐ dren. 60 Sometimes, slaves were adopted (particularly among the lower strata of Roman society), and were not excluded from the testator’s inheritance. It was possible for ex-slaves to inherit, but their status while living with the natural or biological heir was inferior, and they were often discriminated against. In the Institutes (1.11.12), the Roman jurist Gaius (130-180 CE) states something very interesting: We too have learned from that and have laid down in our pronouncement that a slave whom an owner names as his son in proper documents becomes free. However, that is not enough to give him the full status of a son. What this quotation brings to light is that a freedman (a former slave who is adopted) could not have the full legal status of a natural son. Livy and the Digest confirm this. 61 The adoption of slaves and (thereby) freeing them was entirely legal and permitted, but according to another witness, Masurius Sabinus, the adoption should not ‘invade’ or ‘usurp’ (invadant) the privileges of the free‐ born. 62 Hence, social discrimination in the family and in society was not only possible, but demanded. Another example of this is found when Ulpian com‐ ments on the Lex Julia (18 BCE) and Lex Papia (9 CE) in the Digest (1.7.46); he 12 Romans 8: 1-39 252 <?page no="253"?> 63 Cf. the different translations of per obreptionem by Alan Watson in his translation of three passages of the Digest (2.4.10.2; 37.12.1.2; 38.2.49) in Justinianus 1985. 64 Translation taken from Gardner 1989, 245-246. 65 Cf. the discussion of ranks and citizenship in Loewenstein 1973, 187-191 and chapters 2 and 3; Sherwin-White 1963. explains a case between an ex-slave (now patron) and his relationship to his ex-slave son (now freedman): A slave born to me while I was slave can by the special grant of the emperor be brought into my potestas; nevertheless it is not doubted that he remains a freedman. Like the exemptions in the Lex Aelia Sentia (4 CE), these considerations indicate that close blood relatives were favoured. However, the social status of the freedman as a freedman was clearly delineated and kept visible. Another ex‐ ample from the Digest (2.4.10.2) confirms that social distinctions and demarca‐ tions were maintained - for both adopter and adoptee - even if they changed legal position: We regard him as patron even if he has undergone change of status, or if the freedman has undergone change of status, provided that he is adrogated illicitly [per obrep‐ tionem, maybe ‘secretly’ or ‘by fraud’]. 63 For although by this very fact, that he is adrogated, he conceals his condition, nevertheless it does not appear to have been achieved that he becomes freeborn. 64 What Ulpian states here is that even if a patron changed his legal position, he would still be considered a patron, and even if a freedman has undergone a change of status (from slave to free/ adopted), the patron is protected by the law as paterfamilias. But the persistent social stigma of being a manumitted slave remains with the person for life. In this sense, the ancient Roman socio-legal practice of adopting former slaves was both oppressive and exploitative. And this pertains to a fundamental difference between the ancient and modern legal systems: Today, equal judgement is measured against strictly equal treatment. The ancient Roman legal system worked otherwise: The Roman system aimed for justice with respect to rank. Greater rights and status were assigned to citi‐ zens over non-citizens, senators over equestrians, and biological heirs over ex-slave adoptees. 65 A higher rank would have greater advantages, and a lower rank would be discriminated against. In this way, the social (and ethnic) hier‐ archy would not only be kept intact, it would legitimize and justify itself. Con‐ sequently, there was a social barrier to, and perceptual disapproval of adopted ex-slaves in both society and in their adoptive families. With regard to ex-slaves, the ugly truth is that ancient society exhibited a strict sense of social apartheid. Social distinctions and status-consciousness within the Roman family and society 253 <?page no="254"?> 66 Kim 2014, 140 This meant that adopting former slaves was not a preferred option for adopters. Besides, a freed adoptee was not allowed to inherit property along with freeborn heirs, if it usurped the natural rights of the adopter’s biological children. Con‐ sequently, it was fully legal and possible to adopt ex-slaves, but there were se‐ rious social and familial considerations, status-dependent problems, and dis‐ criminations pertaining to it, specifically for the adopted ex-slave. With all the foregoing in mind, what do we make of Paul’s statement about the (ex-slave) Gentile addressees of Romans being adopted into Israel and be‐ coming heirs of God and co-heirs with the first-born Jewish son, Christ (8: 29)? How do we connect the socio-historical realities of adoption in Roman society to our consistent and continuous interpretation of Romans, which focuses on the difference between Jews and Gentiles - and those Gentiles who have become members of the Jewish family, and now present themselves as jewishish Gen‐ tiles? The adoption metaphor in Romans 8: 15 In light of Roman adoption practices, Paul’s use of the adoption metaphor may be interpreted as follows. In 8: 15, Paul explains to the Gentile addressees that they did not receive a spirit of slavery, but a spirit of adoption. The contrast expressed in the metaphor is reinforced, and concerns on one level the spirit of slavery (πνεῦμα δουλείας) and the spirit of adoption (πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας). Paul’s intention with the contrast is that the adoption does not concern the adoption of freeborn children, but of former slaves. 66 Earlier, they were slaves to sin (cf. 6: 6), but now they have been adopted by God, and are no longer slaves. At another level, the metaphor is reinforced because the spirit of slavery leads to fear (εἰς φόβον), but adoption enables the adoptees to cry out, ‘Abba, father‘ (αββα ὁ πατήρ). Again, this implies that the adoption metaphor is centred on adopting slaves rather than freeborn persons. Hence, the inevitable premise of the metaphor is former slave status, even if adoption is the solution and goal of the metaphor. We cannot simply pass over the knowledge and information about the former slave status of an adoptee when we interpret the metaphor in a historical and 12 Romans 8: 1-39 254 <?page no="255"?> 67 Nowhere does Burke mention the adoption of slaves in Roman practices (though cf. approximately two pages 153-154), nor does he mention the former-slave status of Paul’s addresses in his exegesis (Burke 2006, 60-71; 137-143; 159-175). This is quin‐ tessentially expressed thus: ‘The pervasiveness of the theme of equality between Jew and Gentile is now apparent and comes to a suitable climax with Paul’s use of his adoption metaphor…’ (Burke 2006, 171). Kim elaborates extensively on the element of adopting former slaves, but does not connect this either to the identity of Paul’s ad‐ dressees, nor to their status in their ‘new’ family (Kim 2014). 68 Cf. the similar argument in Gal 4: 1-5, where Paul also uses the adoption metaphor and describes the transition where the Gentile addressees shift from being ‘enslaved to the elemental spirits of the world’ (ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ἤμεθα δεδουλωμένο, Gal 4: 3) in order to undergo the adoption (ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν, Gal 4: 5). philological perspective; that would cripple the metaphor and Paul’s intent. 67 We must fully take into account the socio-historical context in which the met‐ aphor originated, or else we miss its meaning. It is crucial to understand this socio-historical background, because we wish to understand the intent and in‐ tensity of the metaphor in its original historical and philological setting. Paul derived the adoption expression from his intimate knowledge of the Roman family matrix, and for his contemporary readers, the metaphor was pregnant with meaning. If we miss this ancient frame of reference, we miss the purpose of Paul’s metaphor. Besides, the ancient family matrix for adoption continues Paul’s line of thought concerning the addressees’ status as ex-slaves, begun in chapter 6 of Romans. This linkage and interdependence of themes serves the pivotal purpose of binding together the discourse of chapters 6 through 8: The Gentile addressees died to sin (in baptism) so they would no longer be slaves to sin (6: 6), so that sin would no longer reign over them (βασιλευέτω ἡ ἁμαρτία, 6: 12), so sin would have no dominion over them (ἁμαρτία ὑμῶν οὐ κυριεύσει, 6: 14), so they should no longer be obedient slaves of sin (ἦτε δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας, 6: 17). Thus, they have been freed from sin and are now freedmen (ἐλευθερωθέντες, 6: 18). Once they were slaves to impurity (δοῦλα τῇ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ καὶ τῇ ἀνομίᾳ εἰς τὴν ἀνομίαν, 6: 19) but they should no longer be slaves of sin (δοῦλοι ἦτε τῆς ἁμαρτίας, 6: 20). They have been freed from sin and are now slaves of God (ἐλευθερωθέντες ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας δουλωθέντες δὲ τῷ θεῷ, 6: 22), and they should no longer be sold under sin (πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, 7: 14). They have been freed, because the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set them (you) free (ἠλευθέρωσέν, 8: 1). 68 Hence, Paul’s construction of the identity of the fictive Gentile interlocutor and the Roman addressees as ex-slaves serves the crucial purposes of continuity, consistency, unity, and rhetorical de‐ velopment in chapters 6, 7 and 8. In these chapters, Paul’s wording and conno‐ tations are very clear (slaves, dominion, set free, freedmen, be sold, etc.). And The adoption metaphor in Romans 8: 15 255 <?page no="256"?> 69 The ‘neat’ interpretation is the main focus of most works focused on the adoption metaphor. Trevor Burke puts it this way: ‘God does not only justify people and then leave them destitute with nowhere to go - he adopts them into the warmth and security of his household’ (Burke 2006, 26). when we turn to the metaphor of adopting a former slave, we must bring to the equation and interpretation of this metaphor the ex-slave identity addressed in chapters 6 through 8 of Romans, the ethnic identity of Gentiles as ‘outsiders’ to Israel, and the historical and contextual meaning of adopting an ex-slave in Roman society. The reason Paul uses the adoption metaphor in Romans is that it evokes kin‐ ship, lineage, and family ties. This is quite simple and straightforward. Paul’s assemblies and network of Gentiles represent new and virtual families, and Paul is either the father of (1 Cor 4: 14; Gal 4: 19; also cf. 2 Cor 12: 14) or the brother in this family (Rom 16: 1, 14, 17). The adoption metaphor may not explicitly indicate ethnicity, but that is somehow still implied as the background and overarching connotation of the metaphor. In any case, the adoption metaphor bespeaks the relationships created through lineages, kinship, ancestors, and family ties. And Paul certainly speaks from an ethnic Jewish perspective. Thus, the metaphor functions in a corporate and cumulative way to express the relationship - for better or for worse - between Jews and Gentiles as two separate families joining together, or more precisely, the one being adopted into the other, and therefore letting go the former ‘family identity’, in terms of status, history, background, privileges, and so on. There is a ‘neat’ interpretation of the foregoing metaphor, which focuses on the advantages received by the adoptee: There is a rise in status, wealth, au‐ thority, and self-identity, from being a slave to being an adopted son and co-heir, and there is a loving and caring father and family receiving the new adoptees, when they cry out ‘Abba, father. 69 But there is also a dirty, ethnocentric, apart‐ heid-structured, and politically incorrect interpretation of the metaphor: Be‐ cause of his former slave status, the adoptee will experience social discrimina‐ tion and victimization from both family and society; the adoptee will always be measured or compared to the natural-biological heirs, who probably will show disfavour to the adoptee (cf. Gal 2: 11-14), and continue to allow old prejudices to prevail (cf. 1: 18-32). The adoptive family will reproduce, legitimize, and jus‐ tify the social, legal, and ethnic hierarchies of society by discriminating against, and assigning lower status to the newly adopted family member, and they will be in their full right to act accordingly. The metaphor, then, is in no way one-di‐ mensional, or straightforward. It is complex, multi-dimensional, and ambiguous. That is precisely why Paul chose it to illustrate the incorporation of Gentiles 12 Romans 8: 1-39 256 <?page no="257"?> 70 Burke focuses one-sidedly on this positive, salvational, and theological aspect of adop‐ tion. When quoting Cicero on the way a father shows love to his children, Burke com‐ ments: ‘Although there is no mention of adoption in this example, doubtless adopted sons would have received the same fatherly affection as biological sons, and would have been treated no differently’ (Burke 2006, 65). I disagree with such a conclusion, and consider Burke’s lack of focus on the ex-slave status of the adoptees in Romans and Galatians as the reason he does not fully understand Paul’s metaphor. into the family of Israel. And that is exactly why it works so well within his rhetorical strategy of adding socio-religious status to the Gentile identity, while simultaneously exhorting them through paraenesis to conduct themselves ap‐ propriately, according to Jewish (familial) standards. To further elaborate on the different layers of Paul’s adoption metaphor, we may say that Israel constitutes the adoptive family, where God is the father, Christ is the first-born son and seed of David, and Paul is another natural and biological son ‘according to the flesh’ (cf. 1: 3; 8: 29; 9: 3-5; 11: 1). When coupled with the Gentile addressees’ former slave status, these distinctions imply that the metaphor carries profound perceptions of hierarchy, social status, and po‐ sition. The metaphor is not one-dimensional in the sense that it merely bespeaks the ‘happy’ and ‘loving’ side of the relationship, where an ‘outsider’ and ‘dis‐ enfranchised’ ex-slave experiences the warmth and welcome of a nuclear family. Without a doubt, this ‘religious’ or ‘holy’ aspect is also present in the metaphor, because the metaphor essentially represents salvation. 70 But there is also a much more pragmatic, dirty, historically-contextualized, and unpleasant hierarchical aspect, which pertains to the fact that the newly adopted family member is an ex-slave, and represents impure blood in the family. This awareness does not just disappear in the adoptive family, when the adoptee cries out ‘Abba, father’. It is more likely that this awareness will be used by the ‘original’ and biological family members to victimize and discriminate against the adopted family member, and it will be considered natural and right to act accordingly. Besides, the new adoptee is not just a juvenile rascal who needs a caring foster-family to straighten him up. From a Jewish perspective, the new adoptee is an ungodly and unrighteous enemy of God (cf. 5: 6-10) who has done everything wrong, even though he had the opportunity of knowing what was right (cf. 1: 18-32). Hence, Paul’s adoption metaphor does not merely serve to illustrate that God adopts total strangers out of love, itself a highly unusual phenomenon in Roman society. It also serves to express the ethnic prejudices - and even ethnocentric discrim‐ ination and favouritism - that persist and are expressed in the different hier‐ archical positions of ex-slaves and ‘royal blood’, between Jews and Gentiles. The Roman addressees may have regarded God’s act of adoption as an extraordinary The adoption metaphor in Romans 8: 15 257 <?page no="258"?> favour and courtesy. In 8: 17, Paul’s presentation of these ex-slaves who, as adoptees, become beneficiaries of the joint inheritance with Christ, must have perceived their entrance into the adoptive family as an extraordinary token of upward social mobility. But there is also another and much more unpleasant side to the metaphor, which speaks of the differences more than the similarities, the humility and humiliation of the new family members. That is why, from a traditional Jewish point of view, Peter actually behaves more ‘correctly’ in his dealings with Gentiles in the Antioch episode described in Galatians 2: 11ff. The unlikely and even absurd scenario of a slave becoming an heir is precisely the point of Paul’s metaphor: Those who were outsiders, unworthy, and without potential (i.e. Gentiles) have now become heirs to God’s promises, and members of the elect family/ people. Paul specifically constructs the metaphor of adopting a slave to communicate this point and to emphasize it as a point: The Gentile addressees are former slaves, adopted and accepted into the ‘royal’ family of Israel. The status difference between ‘God’s own people’ and the former slaves is so important that Paul does not merely speak of regular adrogatio, nor regular adoptio, but of a very specific kind of adoptio: The adoption of ex-slaves. Just as in the ancient household, where all relations were not equal, so in the relation between biological and adopted children in Paul’s extended family: These rela‐ tions must be perceived in a hierarchical perspective. The difference in status between the first-born son (Christ (cf. 8: 29)), the biological brother ‘according to the flesh’ (Paul (cf. 9: 3; 11: 1)), and the newly adopted family members (the Gentile Roman addressees) situates the metaphor (and letter) in a very specific, historical context with very specific social rules and connotations, and it drives the interpretation of the metaphor further than previously realized. Previous interpretations of the adoption metaphor have not recognized this hierarchical aspect and importance of slavery. But it is crucial to a plausible historical interpretation of the metaphor that it does not ‘merely’ concern the incorporation of outsiders into the imagined and virtual family of a people of God. It concerns the incorporation of a very specific kind of outsider into the aristocratic, noble, and distinguished family of Israel. The Gentiles are adopted, ex-slave sons - just as they are wild branches engrafted onto the cultivated family (olive-) tree of Israel (cf. 11: 18). The Gentiles are totally dependent on the adoptive family’s whims and tempers, because this family provides food, shelter, status, security, ancestry, power, authority, wealth, and inheritance for them (literally and metaphorically). Consequently, Paul maintains the status and elec‐ tion of Israel as God’s beloved people by using this specific metaphor, but he widens the scope of God’s grace to include the Gentiles, because God is God of all (3: 29-30). Hence, Paul does not blur, obliterate, annul, nullify, cancel, or 12 Romans 8: 1-39 258 <?page no="259"?> 71 Even though Acts presents the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in a chronolog‐ ical perspective, I cannot see this at work in Paul. Nowhere does Paul indicate that he first preached to the Jews, but failing, then addressed Gentiles. On the contrary, Paul and Peter have explicitly split this work between, them so that Paul goes to the Gentiles, and Peter to the Jews (Gal 2: 7-8). Thus, Paul humbles himself (like Christ), because he carries out the debased and low-status work of bringing God’s grace to the Gentiles. In general, the relationship between Jews and Gentiles is not chronological in Paul; it is hierarchical. 72 Neither Rom 10: 12, nor Gal 3: 28 must be related to this discussion. Paul relies on a difference between the two groups, in order to make his point; he does not erase this difference. abolish the social distinctions clinging to the respective pasts of Israel and the Gentiles; there is no ‘supersession’ of ethno-social-religious markers into one unified group of ‘Christians’. Jews and Gentiles are related as in a family, because the Gentiles receive the spirit into their hearts. When God sends his spirit into their hearts, they become sons, and therefore heirs. The good news is that the spirit of adoption prevails over the spirit of slavery. But the two ‘families’ or ‘peoples’ remain separate and distinguished by social markers, even if they are related. They are hierarchically ordered, because Jews have a higher status and several advantages - which Paul explicitly states (3: 1-2; 9: 3-5; 11: 1). Jews and Gentiles are equally hierarchically ordered, because Gentiles - from a Jewish, ethnocentric, and stereotypical point of view - have a lower status and lack all the Jewish privileges. Besides, God merely uses Israel as a means to offer mercy to the Gentiles - he has not rejected them in favour of the Gentiles, and ‘all Israel will be saved’ (11: 26). Therefore, it remains ‘Jew first, but also Gentiles’ (cf. 1: 16; 2: 9). 71 There is no abolition of ethnic distinctions, 72 and nowhere does Paul require of the Jews that they give up their ethno-religious identity. The practices, scriptures, privileges, monotheism, and election of Israel remains un‐ disturbed, whereas in contrast, the Gentiles must give up their former gods, religious practices, myths of origin, epic stories, sinful behaviour, and so on. There is a full-blown invitation to the Gentiles to become part of the family of Israel, but it is not an incorporation into this family without continuing remem‐ brance and vindication of different stories, backgrounds, and privileges. Hence, the adoption metaphor ingeniously exposes how family members may be related without being muddled and jumbled together in some indistinct crossbreed or hotchpotch. In truth, when understood in its historical context and from a modern perspective, this is an ambiguous metaphor, because it simultaneously upholds strict hierarchical distinctions and argues for incorporation and ‘to‐ getherness’. The adoption metaphor in Romans 8: 15 259 <?page no="260"?> 73 The same focus on the ex-slave status applies to Paul’s use of υἱοθεσία in Gal 4: 5. 74 Cf. Ex 4: 22; Deut 14: 1-2; Hos 2: 1; 11: 1; Sir 4: 10; Ps of Sol 17: 26-27; Jub 1: 24-25; Wisd of Sol 16: 10. The relation of υἱοθεσία in 8: 15 to υἱοθεσία in 9: 4 There is another concept related to the adoption metaphor to which we must now turn: If Paul can state that the Gentiles are adopted into the family of God (8: 15), and adoption itself plays a role in defining the relationship and status relationships among Jews, Gentiles, and the God of Israel, then what is the sig‐ nificance of Paul’s statement that the Jews have also been adopted by God (9: 4)? First, the context of the two statements about adoption must be considered. In 8: 15, Paul vigorously elaborated on the ex-slave status of the Gentile addres‐ sees (chapters 6-8) as decisive. The ex-slave status plays a pivotal role in the interpretation of the adoption metaphor. 73 However, the context of the use of υἱοθεσία in 9: 4 is quite different. In 9: 4, υἱοθεσία is one of the privileges distin‐ guishing Israel and the Jews as God’s elect. In a Jewish context, being the ‘son of God’ was without a doubt a high-profile identity and status. This applies equally to the LXX and ancient Judaism, 74 and the idea of ‘sonship’ as ‘sons of God’ is essentially Jewish. But nothing in 9: 4 indicates that Paul perceives Israel or the Jews as ex-slaves. The status of Israel as ‘adopted’ sons of God no way matches the status or position of ex-slaves. On the contrary, Israel is a legitimate and ‘natural’ child of God. God chose Israel, and he proves himself as their father (e.g. Jer 3: 19; 1 Chron 28: 6). In 9: 3-5 Paul elaborates on all the privileges of Israel, and these serve to prove and demonstrate the legitimate status of the Jews in the family. Besides, in 9: 4 Paul underlines the position of the Jews as the chosen people of God: to them belongs the sonship/ adoption (υἱοθεσία). In Rom 8: 15 (and Gal 4: 5), Paul points out the selection of the Gentiles as sons by way of the adoption metaphor. This is the main difference between the two: the difference in ‘position’ from ‘selection’. The Gentiles received the spirit of adoption through baptism, and only from that point on do they live as adopted members of God’s family. This interpretation is further supported by the observation that in 8: 23, Paul states that those who have received the spirit are still waiting for adoption (υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόμενοι), which is the redemption of the body (τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν). This must refer to the final transformation of the body - and hence the completion of adoption - on the Day of Judgement. Not until then will the transformation be complete. Finally, what Paul seems to underline repeatedly about Israel and the Jews in 9: 3-5 has to do with lineage, blood relationship, and the flesh. In 9: 5, Paul points out that his Israelite brethren have the fathers (ὧν οἱ πατέρες). This must mean 12 Romans 8: 1-39 260 <?page no="261"?> 75 Christoffersson 1990, 121 that the Jews have the bloodline of the patriarchs who define the family. The family of Israel starts with these patriarchs, and they define and delineate the family. Paul further underscores this point by stating that his Israelite brethren are his kinsmen ‘according to the flesh’ (κατὰ σάρκα). This means that they have the direct bloodline of the patriarchs, and that they have - in their flesh - the mark of the family. Also, and to drive home his point, Paul points out that the Messiah (i.e. the heir, the firstborn, the first fruit) is an Israelite ‘according to the flesh’ (ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, 9: 5). No further distinction or designation seems possible to distinguish Israel and the Jews as legitimate sons and heirs of God. They have all the privileges and the right family tree to show for it (cf. 11: 17-24). Even though they were adopted by God at some point and, therefore, also have the adoption (υἱοθεσία), they have a long bloodline to prove their membership in the family. Their status and position is secure and legiti‐ mate, and they are not newly adopted ex-slaves. This explains the difference in the meaning of adoption in 8: 15 and in 9: 4. The relation of 8: 12-17 to 8: 18-30 and the question of continuity It is crucial to my consistent interpretation of Romans that the letter may be understood as one continuous development. Accordingly, it would weaken my approach severely if parts of the letter stood out as oddities or needed extraor‐ dinary and different backgrounds to be understood. Also, each passage must play a specific and important part in the overall impression and interpretation of the letter, if Paul conceived this letter in one piece from beginning to end, in a continuous development of themes. Hence, if I follow the paradigm of a con‐ sistent reading, I must argue for the continuity and consistent sequence of the letter and not, as Olle Christoffersson argues, explain 8: 18-30 as a passage that stands out from the rest of the letter, as its wording, structure, and themes are different from the rest of the letter, because it has another background than the rest of the letter. 75 It may be that Paul applies apocalyptic expressions that seem strange to our modern perception, but that does not mean that the passage stands out as a singular unit that does not fit with the rest of the letter, nor that the background of the passage is different from the rest of the letter. On the contrary, if Paul continues the themes and arguments from the previous pas‐ sages, we should assume that this passage fits in here precisely, and that it fur‐ The relation of 8: 12-17 to 8: 18-30 and the question of continuity 261 <?page no="262"?> 76 Cf. Moo 1996, 510, who also focuses on continuity and progression. ther develops previous themes, and also provides transgressions to preceding themes. 76 From a general outlook of the passage there is a suitable continuity and pro‐ gression. Paul applies several words and concepts from earlier in the letter, and this suggests continuity in the discourse. First, Paul continues his writing on the spirit from the preceding passage. He writes about the spirit of God (πνεύματι θεοῦ, 8: 14), and the spirit of human beings (τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν, 8: 16). In this passage (8: 18-30), the spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα, 8: 26) helps us in our weakness, and that very spirit (αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα, 8: 26) intercedes on our behalf. Paul also writes about the mind of the spirit (τὸ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος, 8: 27), and together all this suggests a strong continuity and focus on the spirit from the preceding passage. Secondly, Paul continues to write about the theme of the sons and children of God developed in the previous passage. In 8: 14 Paul writes that those who are led by the spirit are the sons of God (οὗτοι υἱοὶ θεοῦ εἰσιν, 8: 14). Earlier in the letter, Paul wrote about the ‘son of God’ in the singular (1: 3; 5: 10; 8: 3). But in 8: 12-17 he introduces the ‘sons of God’, in the plural. This is probably con‐ nected to the fact that Paul relates the status of sons/ children to adoption (υἱοθεσίας) and having the spirit. Those who are led by the spirit are sons or children. And since the spirit has been introduced in this part of the letter, he may write about the sons or children of God. It is possible that here, Paul writes about sons of God in a general Jewish sense, as those who belong to the people of God. He also writes specifically about adoption or attaining the status of a son (υἱοθεσίας, 8: 15), in which one cries out ‘Abba, Father’ (αββα ὁ πατήρ, 8: 15). However, he also writes specifically about the children of God (τέκνα θεοῦ, 8: 16, 17). These must be the same as the sons of God, even if he uses two different words. Paul also writes about being heirs, being the heir of God, and joint heirs with Christ (κληρονόμοι· κληρονόμοι μὲν θεοῦ, συγκληρονόμοι δὲ Χριστοῦ, 8: 17). The perception of the sons or children of God continues in the subsequent passage (8: 18-30), as Paul writes about the revelation of the sons of God (τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, 8: 19), and about the children of God (τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ, 8: 21). He also repeats the theme about being adopted or attaining the status of a son (υἱοθεσίαν, 8: 23). Later in the passage he returns to the theme of being con‐ formed to the image of Christ (τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, 8: 29) who is the firstborn among many brothers (πρωτότοκον ἐν πολλοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, 8: 29). Con‐ sequently, there is a significant continuity between the two passages (8: 12-17 and 8: 18-30), both of which tell of sons, children, adoption, the relationship to Christ as an heir and as a firstborn brother. 12 Romans 8: 1-39 262 <?page no="263"?> Finally, Paul writes about the work of the spirit in both passages. The spirit makes those who were previously slaves into sons or children of God. Hence, the spirit effectuates a change of status, position, or identity in those who receive it. In 8: 14, Paul writes about those who are being led by the spirit, and that they did not receive a spirit of slavery (πνεῦμα δουλείας, 8: 15). The slave metaphor and the metaphor of liberation or emancipation go all the way back to chapter 6, and they are still very present in the passages that follow 8: 14. This really underlines the continuity of the discourse. Creation will be set free (ἐλευθερωθήσεται, 8: 21) from its slavery to decay (ἀπὸ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς, 8: 21) to the freedom of the glory of the children of God (εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεου, 8: 21). Consequently, the background of this passage is not entirely different from that of the preceding passages, and 8: 18-30 specifically extend the slave metaphor that was begun in chapter 6. Considering the clear and patent continuity between 8: 18-30 and the pre‐ ceding passages (specifically 8: 12-17, but also all the way back to chapter 6), it is very possible that passage 8: 18-30 should neither be seen as isolated from the preceding passages, nor as entering a completely new sphere of meaning, dif‐ ferent from what precedes it. It is evident that earlier, Paul did not write about the groaning of creation. He introduces a couple of words that may be difficult to understand from our modern point of view. But, nevertheless, he did write about these words in the opening passage of the letter (1: 18-32) and he also wrote about slaves, freed slaves, sons, children, heirs, the spirit, hearts, hope, future salvation and glory. So, on the one hand, it is evident that he is not re‐ peating himself, but on the other hand, it is equally obvious that he proceeds with an already initiated and established discourse, in order to further elaborate on it. And if in fact that is what he is doing - which is both plausible and logical from the surface of the discourse - he is still describing and working out a position or identity for the Gentile addressees, as children newly adopted into the family of Israel. Let us turn to the passage itself, and see whether it still makes sense to regard Paul as addressing Gentiles in Rome, in this clearly apoc‐ alyptic passage. Romans 8: 18-30 In 8: 18, Paul states that the present sufferings (τὰ παθήματα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ) are not worthy of comparison with the future glory (τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν). By Romans 8: 18-30 263 <?page no="264"?> 77 Cf. Jewett 2007, 508 78 Byrne 1996, 256 and Jewett 2007, 516-517. Also cf. the theme of birth pangs as a met‐ aphor for the painful prospect of divine judgement: Isa 13: 8; 21: 3; 26: 17-18; Jer 4: 31; 22: 23; Hos 13: 13; 1 En 62: 4; 1 Thess 5: 3. 79 Cf. a similar description in Wisd of Sol 2: 23-24. 80 I deal with the meaning of creation further down. 81 The majority of scholars consider the identity of ‘the sons of God’ in 8: 19 to be the same as the one ascribed to the ‘sons/ children’ in 8: 12-17 (cf. Eastman 2002, 263; Hahne 2006, 185; Byrne 1996, 257; Fitzmyer 1993, 507; Moo 1996, 515). Susan Eastman agrees with the other scholars concerning the identity of the ‘sons of God’, but she proposes a different interpretation of the meaning of ‘revelation’ (τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν) (Eastman 2002, 264). I am not aware of anyone who considers the ‘sons of God’ to be Gentile believers in Christ, or specifically, hinting at the Gentile Roman addressees. 82 Christoffersson 1990, 121. this he means that the weight of the glory to come is incalculably immense. 77 Paul considers himself as living in the eschatological period (cf. 3: 26: τὸ νῦν καιρός) inaugurated by Christ. Brendan Byrne argues that Paul draws on Jewish apocalyptic traditions in these verses, and these traditions state that the final vindication and salvation of the elect will be preceded by a time of greatly in‐ creased turmoil and suffering. 78 This may explain why Paul perceives the present sufferings as an indication that the longed-for deliverance is close at hand. This would underline the continuity between 8: 17 and 8: 18, as in 8: 17, Paul describes how co-suffering with Christ also entails a co-glorification (συμπάσχομεν ἵνα καὶ συνδοξασθῶμεν). The glory that the sons of God (‘the called ones and the elect ones’) will receive on the final day denotes the final state of the elect when they fulfil God’s purpose for them, with the concomitant freedom from death and decay. 79 The glory will be revealed, when they rise up again from the dead and are conformed to the likeness of the risen Christ (συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, 8: 29) (also cf. Phil 3: 21). This is the glory that will be revealed ‘in’ or ‘through’ us (εἰς ἡμᾶς, 8: 18). From a general perspective, the last part of 8: 18 (the glory about to be revealed in us) states the theme of the section as a whole. Paul goes on to state that creation 80 eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God. These sons of God should be understood as the Gentile believers and addressees about which Paul wrote in 8: 14-17 (also cf. 8: 23). 81 These are the Gentile believers and addressees who will be glorified (cf. 8: 17-18). The change from ‘sons’ (υἱοὶ) to ‘children’ (τέκνα) should not be regarded as significant, and the use of ‘the sons of God’ (τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ) in 8: 19 should not be regarded as referring to angels, as Olle Christoffersson argues. 82 In 8: 20, Paul writes about the one who subjected creation (διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα), not of its own will (οὐχ ἑκοῦσα). The one who subjected creation 12 Romans 8: 1-39 264 <?page no="265"?> 83 Cf. the description in Hahne 2006, 187-188, where he presents a list of five different possible identities of the one who subjected creation to futility. Also cf. Keck 2005, 211. 84 Cf. Moo 1996, 515-516. 85 Scholars who struggle to find the meaning: Christoffersson 1990, 105; Hahne 2006, 189; Fitzmyer 1993, 507; Moo 1996, 515. 86 Cf. Christoffersson 1990, 94ff. should not be taken as referring to either Adam or Satan, 83 but to God. 84 God subjected creation ‘in hope‘ (ἐφ᾽ ἑλπίδι, 8: 20), because his plan was that creation would participate in the same glorious liberation that the children of God would experience (8: 21). Neither Adam nor Satan could subject creation ‘in hope’ but such an action would be appropriate for God. Creation was subjected to futility because of sin (as explained in 1: 18-32). God subjected creation to futility not by its own choice or voluntarily (οὐχ ἑκοῦσα), but because of sin. The use of ὑποτάσσω also suggests that Paul has God in mind, because this word suggests an authoritative action of which God would be perfectly capable. In 8: 20 and 8: 21, Paul uses two words that often present problems for scholars. 85 The first word is ματαιότης and the second word is φθορά. The first word means something like ‘vanity’, ‘meaninglessness’, ‘emptiness’, ‘purpose‐ lessness’ or ‘futility’. The second word means something like ‘decay’, ‘mortality’, or ‘perishability’. In 8: 20, the result of the subjection of creation was enslavement under φθορά (αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις ἐλευθερωθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς, 8: 21). Creation was subdued to ματαιότης (τῇ γὰρ ματαιότητι ἡ κτίσις ὑπετάγη, 8: 20) but will be freed from φθορά. Before turning to other and more removed backgrounds or contexts for the understanding of ματαιότης and φθορά (as some scholars do), 86 it is worth ex‐ amining whether Paul uses these words in other places in Romans, and in his other letters. We quickly find that Paul used a variant of ματαιότης in Rom 1: 21 (ἐματαιώθησαν). In 1: 21, Paul explained that the Gentiles became futile in their thinking and that their uncomprehending minds or hearts were darkened (ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία). From the outlook and function of 1: 18-32, Paul used the word to de‐ scribe the Gentiles’ general sinfulness as ‘futile’, in terms that recall other ster‐ eotypical descriptions of Gentiles. Hence, there is a previous context for ματαιότης within Romans itself. The use of the word within the same letter is consistent with other stereotypical descriptions of Gentiles at the time of Paul. For instance, in 3 Maccabees, chapter 6, the author writes about Eleazar who was famous among the priests. Eleazar prayed to God, and in 6: 9 and 9: 11 it says: And now, you who hate insolence, all-merciful and protector of all, reveal yourself quickly to those of the nation of Israel - who are being outrageously treated by the Romans 8: 18-30 265 <?page no="266"?> 87 The description in Jubilees 22: 16-18 is very similar to those just referenced. However, we only have the Ethiopic version of Jubilees for 22: 16-18, so it is difficult to state that the Greek wording is the same. However, the overall idea is similar. 88 In De Conf Ling 159, Philo establishes an opposition between truth and conjecture, between knowledge and vanity (ματαιότης). He refers futility and vanity to Balaam, the Gentile prophet who was supposed to curse the Israelites but could not do it (cf. Num 22-24) (also cf. Quod det po 71, and De mig Ab 113 for similar descriptions of Balaam). Again, the μάταιroot is connected to Gentiles and their way of thinking. The same applies to Legum All 3.192, where Philo describes Esau, the archetypal Gentile, as deeming himself vainly (μάταιος δὲ καὶ οἰησίσοφος ὁ λέγων). And in De somn 1.244, Philo describes the man who dedicates a pillar to himself and not to God (that is, a Gentile) as foolish or vain (μάταιος). abominable and lawless Gentiles (ἐβδελυγμένων ἀνόμων ἐθνῶν). … Let not the vain-minded praise their vanities (μὴ τοῖς ματαίοις οἱ ματαιόφρονες εὐλογησάτωσαν) at the destruction of your beloved people, saying, ‘Not even their god has rescued them’. Eleazar’s prayer formulates the hope that the abominable and lawless Gentiles, the vain-minded or futile-minded Gentiles, may not say of Israel that their God did not rescue them. The author of 3 Jubilees explicitly states that it concerns Gentiles. And he twice uses forms of the μάταιroot. First, he uses μάταιος (‘vanities’). Afterwards, he constructs a special word to describe their way of thinking. He combines μάταιος and φρονέω into ματαιόφρων, which means something like ‘vain-minded’ or ‘futile-minded’. Clearly, this use of the word is consistent with Paul’s description in 1: 21 (and 8: 20) describing how the Gentiles became futile in their thinking (ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν) and how their stupid or uncomprehending hearts were darkened (ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία). Another example of the use of the μάταιroot applied specifically to Gentiles comes from Wisdom of Solomon, a text we already quoted earlier. In 13: 1 it says: For all people who were ignorant of God were foolish [or futile or vain] (μάταιοι) by nature; and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know the one who exists, nor did they recognize the artisan while paying heed to his works… Again, the author of Wisdom applies a form of the μάταιroot to describe Gen‐ tiles - as did Paul, and the author of 3 Maccabees. The author of Wisdom does it again in 15: 8, which indicates that the use of this word with regard to Gentiles is rather consistent. 87 Philo also uses the μάταιroot to describe Gentiles on several occasion. 88 Paul also uses a form of the μάταιroot to describe the faith of the (Gentile) addressees in 1 Corinthians. In 15: 17 he writes that if Christ had not been raised, then their faith would be futile, and they are still in their sins 12 Romans 8: 1-39 266 <?page no="267"?> 89 For other examples also concerned with Gentiles, cf. Isa 44: 9 and Jon 2: 9. 90 Paul uses variants of φθορά in a few other places. Φθορά comes from the same root as φθείρω and φθαρτός. Paul uses φθείρω in 1 Cor 3: 17; 15: 33; 2 Cor 7: 2; 11: 3, and φθαρτός in Rom 1: 23; 1 Cor 9: 25; 15: 53f. (εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς οὐκ ἐγήγερται, ματαία ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν, ἔτι ἐστὲ ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν). The meaning is that if Christ did not die, and they did not receive the spirit to become children of God, then they would still be ‘merely’ sinful and futile-minded Gentiles. Consequently, all the foregoing examples indicate that when Jews at the time of Paul wanted to describe a Gentile way of living or thinking, they often used a form of the μάταιroot. 89 With using this word they could connote - as with a few, simple, essentializing strokes of the pen - a stereotypical and generalized description of a certain type. This directs us back to the initial assumption of 1: 18-32: Paul describes Gentiles in a certain stereotypical way, including in 8: 18- 30. What about φθορά, then? Just as with ματαιότης, we quickly find that Paul also used a variant of φθορά in the opening passage (1: 18-32), where he described the Gentiles in a stereo‐ typical way. 90 In 1: 23 he writes that the Gentiles exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mere mortal human beings (φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου). Φθαρτός is a variant of φθορά, but they have the same root, and mean something like ‘perishable’ or ‘mortal’. The human beings who make im‐ ages of mortal human beings are clearly Gentiles, and their practices stand in contrast to those of the Israelites, who worship the one and true God. Hence, there is a previous context for φθορά within Romans itself. And the use of the word within the same letter is consistent with Paul’s use of it in his other letters, and other stereotypical descriptions of Gentiles at the time of Paul. Paul uses a variant of φθορά in 1 Corinthians 15 to describe the difference in the resurrection between the perishable and the imperishable. Also, Paul’s use of φθορά in Galatians is consistent with his use of it in Romans. In Gal 6: 8, Paul writes to the addressees that if they ‘sow to their flesh’ they will ‘reap corruption or decay from the flesh’ (ὁ σπείρων εἰς τὴν σάρκα ἑαυτοῦ ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς θερίσει φθοράν). Consequently, he admonishes them to ‘sow to the spirit’ (εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα), in order to ‘reap eternal life from the spirit’ (ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος θερίσει ζωὴν αἰώνιον). This comes quite close to the meaning in Romans, where Paul tells the Roman addressees that creation itself will be freed from enslavement to corruption (αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις ἐλευθερωθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς), to obtain the liberation of the glory of the children of God (εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεου). As in Galatians, Paul contrasts creation’s or the flesh’s corruption/ decay, and the eternal life or glory of the spirit/ the chil‐ Romans 8: 18-30 267 <?page no="268"?> dren of God. This applies equally to 1 Cor 15. In Galatians there is no doubt that the addressees were Gentiles, and that they wanted to circumcise their flesh. Hence, Paul admonishes them to not ‘sow to their flesh’, because they will reap corruption (φθορά) from that. In Romans, Paul also uses the meaning of a variant of φθορά to indicate something about Gentile fleshliness. Other contemporary Jewish authors also used variants of φθορά to describe Gentiles. Again, Wisdom of Solomon brings evidence of a use similar to Paul. In 14: 12 it says: For the idea of making idols was the beginning of fornication, and the invention of them was the corruption of life (φθορὰ ζωῆς). The same idea is expressed in 14: 23-26: For whether they kill children in their initiations, or celebrate secret mysteries, or hold frenzied revels with strange customs, they no longer keep either their lives or their marriages pure, but they either treacherously kill one another, or grieve one another by adultery, and all is a raging riot of blood and murder, theft and deceit, corruption (φθορά), faithlessness (ἀπιστία), tumult, perjury, confusion over what is good, for‐ getfulness of favors, defiling of souls, sexual perversion, disorder in marriages, adul‐ tery, and debauchery. For the worship of idols not to be named is the beginning and cause and end of every evil. It is evident from this text that the word ‘corruption’ (φθορά) was used by a Jew to describe Gentiles in a stereotypical way. It is one element of a long list of vices ascribed to Gentiles. Like Paul and the author of Wisdom of Solomon, Philo also twice uses a form developed from the root of φθερin De Abra 135-136 to describe the sexual immorality and, hence, corruptible nature of the Gentiles. He opens the de‐ scription in 135 by stating that he refers to the land of the Sodomites, a part of the land of Canaan inhabited by Gentiles. He goes on to describe their iniquity, gluttony, and how they started to practise forbidden forms of intercourse: … they threw off from their necks the law of nature and applied themselves to deep drinking of strong liquor and dainty feeding and forbidden forms of intercourse. Not only in their mad lust for women did they violate the marriages of their neighbours (οὐ γάρ μόνον θηλυμανοῦντες ἀλλοτρίους γάμους διέφθειρον), but also men mounted males without respect for the sex nature which the active partner shares with the passive; and so when they tried to beget children they were discovered to be incapable of any but a sterile seed. Yet the discovery availed them not, so much stronger was the force of the lust (ἐπιθυμίας) which mastered them. Then, as little by little they accustomed those who were by nature men to submit to play the part of women, they 12 Romans 8: 1-39 268 <?page no="269"?> 91 For yet another example, cf. Leg All 1.32. 92 Hahne 2006, 176-177 93 Byrne 1996, 255-256 94 Christoffersson 1990, 33-36 95 The subsequent list is taken from Hahne 2006, 177-179. saddled them with the formidable curse of a female disease. For not only did they emasculate their bodies by luxury and voluptuousness but they worked a further de‐ generation in their souls and, as far as in them lay, were corrupting the whole of mankind (τὸ σύμπαν ἀνθρώπων γένος διέφθειρον). (LCL) This passage bears witness to yet another stereotypical description of Gentiles from a Jewish perspective, using a form of φθορά. The use is simplified, essen‐ tializing, and exaggerated. Philo gives evidence of the same use in De Vit Cont 9, where he uses a form developed from the root of φθερto describe the ungodly, impious, and sinful Egyptians. 91 Another example from a contemporary Jewish author may be seen in 2 Macc 7: 16. To sum up this minor digression of ματαιότης and φθορά, these two words connote something ‘Gentilish’ to Paul and his Jewish contemporaries. The use of φθορά seems to identify the corruption of the Gentiles, and the use of ματαιότης seems to identify their futility. The very ideas of ματαιότης and φθορά belong to the stereotypical description of Gentiles, not only in Paul’s letters, but also among other contemporary Jews. These words connote a specific Gentile way of living, being, and thinking. By using these words, Paul paints a picture of the Gentiles with a few, simple, vivid, memorable, easily grasped, and widely recognized strokes. He reduces everything about the Gentiles to these connotations, and he exaggerates and simplifies these characteristics without change or development. In doing this, he essentializes, naturalizes, and fixes differences. He creates symbolic boundaries between the normal and the de‐ viant, the acceptable and the unacceptable, what belongs and what does not, between insiders and outsiders, us and them, Jews and Gentiles. Paul also uses another word that has presented difficulties for scholars. What does Paul mean by ‘creation’ (κτίσις) in 8: 19ff.? ‘Creation’ may mean many things. Several scholars have compiled lists of the various meanings of κτίσις: Harry Hahne has a list of six points, 92 Brendan Byrne has a list of five points, 93 and Olle Christoffersson has a list of four points. 94 Apart from his list of the six different meanings of κτίσις, Hahne refers to the inter‐ pretation of κτίσις from the church fathers down through modern scholars: 95 • Universal: Many understand κτίσις to include all creation. Romans 8: 18-30 269 <?page no="270"?> 96 For the list, cf. Hahne 2006, 178 n30 and n31. 97 Cf. Hahne 2006, 178 n33. 98 For an exposition of this position cf. Bolt 1995 and Lawson 1994. 99 Cf. Jewett 2007, 516; Gibbs 1971, 471-472. Cf. the quotation in Hahne 2006, 179 n35 of an unpublished ThD Dissertation by Joseph Lee Nelson Jr. • Cosmic: The majority of scholars take κτίσις to refer to subhuman crea‐ tion, both animate and inanimate, or essentially what is called ‘nature’ today. • Anthropological: Some scholars follow Augustine’s view that limits κτίσις to humanity. Hahne explains that a few scholars limit the anthropological view to include only believers, others to include only unbelievers. 96 • Cosmo-anthropological: Some scholars believe κτίσις to refer to both sub‐ human creation and unbelieving humanity. This view is similar to the universal view, but it excludes angels, demons, and believers. • Angelogical: Ernst Fuchs takes the position that κτίσις refers to angels. 97 What makes it difficult to understand κτίσις in a straightforward sense is that the word seems to somehow refer to the sum total of something. However, that is not the same as the word referring to everything created, in a complete sense (as in Christian environmentalism), 98 or in the sense of ‘all creation’. 99 Some of Paul’s contemporaries apply κτίσις in the sense that it refers only to animals (Tob 8: 15; Wisd of Sol 19: 6; Sir 43: 25). At other points it refers to humanity (Mk 16: 15; Col 1: 23; Sir 49: 16). Hence, the application of κτίσις at the time of Paul was neither unambiguous nor clear. This also applies to the use of κτίσις and πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις in the LXX and the rest of the NT. And it does not follow that just because Paul uses the word, it refers to all creation, the whole world and everything on it. Instead, it is possible to draw distinctions and qualify the meaning. Besides, there are examples from authors at the time of Paul indicating that the expression ‘all creation’ (πᾶσαι αἱ κτίσεις, Tob 8: 15) or ‘the whole cre‐ ation’ (ὅλη γὰρ ἡ κτίσις, Wisd of Sol 19: 6) may be used without referring to the sum total. The use of κτίσις in the places just referenced merely signifies a certain part of creation. In these instances, κτίσις merely refers to a compre‐ hensiveness within the portion of creation that is in focus in a given passage. It is important to emphasize this distinction, since it may prove relevant to the interpretation of Rom 8: 19ff. If Paul uses κτίσις to refer to Gentiles (even if he writes ‘creation’ (κτίσις)), it would follow the general outline of the letter when read from a Gentile-oriented perspective. Let us turn to the letter and examine this possibility. 12 Romans 8: 1-39 270 <?page no="271"?> Although several scholars mention various possible meanings of κτίσις, the one that is consistent with the rest of the letter and the other Pauline letters is to be preferred. We quickly learn that Paul also wrote about creation in the opening passage (1: 18-32), where he delivered a stereotypical description of Gentiles from a Jewish point of view. In 1: 20 and 1: 25 Paul used the word κτίσις. In 1: 20 he writes that ‘someone’ or ‘they’ (αὐτοὺς) are without excuse, as from the world’s creation (ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου) they have been able to un‐ derstand and perceive God’s eternal power and divinity. From the previous in‐ terpretation of 1: 18-32, it is reasonable to conclude that ‘someone’ or ‘they’ (αὐτοὺς) are Gentiles. Hence, the Gentiles are without excuse, as from the world’s creation, they could have perceived God, but did not. In this instance, κτίσις does not unequivocally mean Gentiles, but there is definitely a relation of creation to Gentiles, as Paul’s point is that the Gentiles did not perceive God although they could have, from the creation of the world. The relationship be‐ tween creation and Gentiles is strengthened in 1: 25. In 1: 25 it says that ‘they’ (the Gentiles) exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped and served the created rather than the creator (τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα). What Paul means by this description is that the Gentiles did not worship God. They turned to the created (κτίσις), and worshipped images of mortal human beings (cf. 1: 23). Hence, the Gentiles turned to worship images of other human beings (or animals) instead of the one and true God. From a Jewish perspective, this was what Gentiles did (generally speaking). Hence, there is a strong connection in 1: 20 and 1: 25 between creation and Gentiles. If Paul is consistent in his writing, he will still allude to this relationship between Gentiles and creation in 8: 19ff. Aside from in the opening passage of Romans, Paul uses κτίσις in a few other places. For our purpose, the most important ones are 2 Cor 5: 17 and Gal 6: 15. In both passages, Paul applies κτίσις to designate those whom God has ‘changed’. Earlier, they were impious Gentiles, but now they have become believers in Christ. What Paul explains in 2 Cor 5: 17 is that if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation (ὥστε εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ, καινὴ κτίσις). Clearly, those who are in Christ are Gentiles. And the same applies to Galatians. In Galatians, Paul ad‐ dresses those Gentiles who want to circumcise themselves, and Paul’s message is that they should not circumcise themselves. Hence, in Gal 6: 15, Paul writes that neither circumcision nor foreskin is anything, but (what counts) is a new creation (οὔτε γὰρ περιτομή τί ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις). Consequently, in 2 Corinthians and Galatians, Paul establishes a relationship between Christ-believing Gentiles and a ‘new creation’ (καινὴ κτίσις). This meaning of creation resonates with the one found in Rom 1: 20 and 1: 25: The ‘old’ creation was bad, and the ‘new’ creation - following the reception of Romans 8: 18-30 271 <?page no="272"?> the spirit and being found in Christ - is good. In Rom 8: 18ff. Paul is playing on the same difference between old and new, and the meaning ascribed to κτίσις in 2 Corinthians and Galatians bleeds into the meaning in Romans. The (old) creation, which stands in relation to the Gentiles, has been waiting with eager‐ ness for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation (somehow the Gentiles) was subjected to futility by God. That the Gentiles were subjected to futility resonates with what Paul wrote in 1: 25: They (the Gentiles) exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshipped and served the created. This would be a classic and stereotypical description of the Gentile’s futility from a Jewish per‐ spective. Hence, even though Paul uses the word ‘creation’, he may be indicating or referring to that specific part of creation that he has within his range of vision. We have seen other examples of that by contemporary authors. This would mean that Paul refers to Gentiles, even if he uses κτίσις, and that he restricts this meaning to the portion of creation he has within his range of vision. What, then, does it mean that the Gentiles are eagerly awaiting the revealing of the sons of God (8: 19)? It may mean nothing more than that the Gentile addressees whom Paul addressed his message to all over the Roman Empire are eager to be confirmed in their newly received status as sons of God. They are already ‘sons of God’, but their status will not be publicly revealed until they share in the final glory of God. This would be consistent with Paul’s explicit statements about the difference between the present situation and the future. He opens the passage in 8: 18 by contrasting the sufferings of the present time (τὰ παθήματα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ), and the future or coming glory (μέλλουσαν δόξαν). Consequently, the contrast between the sufferings of the present time and future glory may be no more than a development of the preceding contrast between the flesh and the spirit (σάρξ, πνεῦμα, 8: 13). This would mean that Paul further develops the theme of being sons, children, and sonship, and their rela‐ tion to the spirit. But instead of repeating himself, he develops the theme to also include the contrast between the present suffering and the future glory. And he explicitly states that they wait for adoption, the redemption of their bodies (υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόμενοι, τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν, 8: 23). Could anything else in passage 8: 18-30 indicate that Paul still without hin‐ drance speaks to Gentiles, even if he embeds his language in apocalyptic im‐ agery? According to my interpretation, there could be. In 8: 26, Paul writes that the spirit helps us in our weakness (τὸ πνεῦμα συναντιλαμβάνεται τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν, 8: 26). It would make perfect sense if the weakness to which ‘we’ and 12 Romans 8: 1-39 272 <?page no="273"?> 100 Jewett takes Paul’s wording in this verse to indicate the universal experience of all believers: ‘… making clear that he [Paul] and all other believers share this vulnerable status’ ( Jewett 2007, 522). I take Paul’s statement as a rhetorical way of including himself in the experience of the Gentile addressees, even if Paul - and all other Jews - do not consider themselves weak in the same sense as Gentiles are weak. 101 Cf. my considerations on this with regard to my interpretation of 1: 18-32 and 5: 12-21. 102 Susan Eastman seems to take particular exception to such a conclusion (Eastman 2002, 264). Instead, she argues for a universalizing redemption of all creation. 103 Cf. the descriptions by Brand 2013, 101. 104 Cf. the translations of 8: 26 by Jewett (2007, 522) and Keck (2005, 214-215), both cor‐ recting the understanding and translation of the verse as presented by Sanday & Headlam (1898, 213). creation were subjected refers to the specific weakness of Gentiles. 100 This would be consistent with the general description of Gentiles in Romans, in Paul’s other letters, and in descriptions of Gentiles by other contemporary Jews. 101 The Gen‐ tile weakness would correspond to the Gentile condition described primarily in 1: 18-32. However, if the weakness is ascribed specifically to Gentiles, it would acquit the historical-ethnic Jews of the same weakness, because it is a specifically Gentile weakness. 102 This would be consistent with our findings regarding con‐ temporary Jewish anthropology, as quintessentially expressed by Ben Sira: It was he who created humankind in the beginning, and he left them in the power of their own free choice. If you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice. (Ben Sira 15: 14-15) According to Ben Sira, human beings (that is, Jews in this part of Ben Sira’s writing) are capable of making a free moral choice, and this choice reflects the human character. If you are Jewish, you have a free moral choice as part of your human nature, and you will not have difficulty keeping the commandments of the (Mosaic) law. 103 Hence, the Gentiles are the weak. They are the ones who cannot live up to the standards of the (Mosaic) law (cf. 7: 7-25), and they are the ones doing everything wrong. They suffer from the shortcomings of Adam, and without the intervention of Christ they would have no opportunity for eternal life and future glory. It is this specific Gentile weakness that the spirit meets. It is not ‘the human condition’ as such; it is the specific Gentile condition as per‐ ceived from a stereotypical Jewish point of view. It is because of this weakness that the spirit intercedes, as ‘we do not know what we ought to pray for’ (τὸ γὰρ τί προσευξώμεθα καθὸ δεῖ οὐκ οἴδαμεν, 8: 26). 104 Thus, by using certain spe‐ cific words (ματαιότης, φθορά, κτίσις, ἀσθένεια) Paul points out the very ‘Gen‐ tile-ness’ of the former identity of the Roman addressees. He draws on stereo‐ typical Jewish perceptions of Gentiles to point out how they used to be, before Romans 8: 18-30 273 <?page no="274"?> 105 Jewett explains that scholars have had difficulty explaining the past tense verb, ἐδόξασεν. Most often, Paul describes the gift of heavenly glory at the Parousia and as something happening in the future. Consequently, in order to make Paul consistent, we must take ἐδόξασεν as some sort of anticipatory point, or as an expression of an en‐ thusiastic baptismal tradition. Jewett favours the latter ( Jewett 2007, 530), as does Fitzmyer, though without the baptismal part (Fitzmyer 1993, 526); Keck and Byrne fa‐ vour the former (Keck 2005, 217-218; Byrne 1996, 269-270). 106 Keck 2005, 219. Also cf. Jewett 2007, 532 107 Jewett 2007, 535; Fitzmyer 1993, 530; Moo 1996, 539; Haacker 1999, 173. they received the spirit, and were adopted from their slave status, to become children of God. This usage is consistent within Paul’s letters, and it is fully consistent with other contemporary Jewish usages of the same words. With all this in mind, the rest of the passage reads rather easily. The creation (meaning the Gentile believers) will be freed from slavery to decay and mortality, and will obtain the freed status (no longer slaves) of the glory of the children of God. The Gentile believers, who have already received the first fruits of the spirit through baptism, have been groaning inwardly while waiting for the final con‐ firmation of their adoption as children of God, when their bodies will be re‐ deemed on the final day. They were saved in hope (8: 24), and that which is seen is not hope. Hence, they do not know what the redemption of their body will finally be like, besides the fact that it will be glorious. That is why the spirit helps them in their weakness to pray. All things work together for good for them, because they love God. Besides, they are called according to God’s pur‐ pose, because he foreknew them, and also predestined them to be conformed to the image of Christ - the firstborn among many brothers. Verses 8: 28-30 con‐ clude the passage begun in 8: 18, by stating that for those who love God, every‐ thing works out well. They are participating in God’s plan. God foreknew them and glorified them (perhaps will glorify them). 105 Romans 8: 31-39 Romans 8: 31-39 acts as a conclusion or hymnic summation of Paul’s argument this far. Leander Keck and Robert Jewett state that the passage functions as the peroration of a speech, ‘drawing together motifs already discussed and building a crescendo that sweeps the reader along, partly by combining theology and emotional appeal’. 106 Through a series of questions and answers (Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν, 8: 31, also cf. 4: 1; 6: 1; 7: 7) between Paul and the fictive Gentile inter‐ locutor, Paul reiterates the importance of what he has been stating in the dis‐ course since 5: 1. 107 This observation underlines the unity, continuity, and pro‐ 12 Romans 8: 1-39 274 <?page no="275"?> 108 Paul argued in a similar way in 5: 9-10 and 5: 12-21. 109 Jewett 2007, 538 110 This translation presents Jewett’s adjustments to C.K. Barrett’s translation ( Jewett 2007, 540). 111 Jewett 2007, 539 112 Jewett 2007, 534 gression of the discourse. The main confirmation to the Gentile interlocutor and the Roman addressees concerns the fact that if God is for them, no one can be against them (8: 31). Paul develops the questions through the reasoning of the lesser to the greater: If God has (already) given us his son, will he (then) not also (πῶς οὐχὶ) give everything else to us (8: 32, also cf. 2 Cor 3: 8)? 108 Of course he will. Jewett further explains that by using the phrase ‘God delivered him up (παρέδωκεν) for us all’, Paul employs the same verb as in 4: 25 to describe how God delivered up Christ for our transgressions. 109 And this may well indicate that Paul applies a pre-Pauline formula. Therefore, the passage reads convinc‐ ingly as a sort of hymnic summation. In 8: 34, Paul continues with a series of questions begun in 8: 33 centred on Christ and his atoning death ‘for us’ (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, 8: 34). ‘Who can bring a charge against God’s elect? God - who justifies us? Who condemns us? Christ Jesus - who died? Rather, was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who actually is interceding on our behalf ? ’ 110 The implied answer to these questions is that no one can separate God’s elect (ἐκλεκτοί θεοῦ, 8: 33) from their inheritance, and no one can separate them from the love of Christ (8: 34-35). None of the adverse experiences listed in 8: 35 and 8: 38 counts as an indictment against the elect in the last judgement. 111 They will emerge victorious. Finally, the passage concludes with an inclusive statement, gathering together the Roman addressees and Paul as those who are ‘in Christ Jesus our Lord’ (ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, 8: 39). Robert Jewett describes it as ‘a wonderful, exultant example of Pauline inspiration, driving artistic prose as far as possible in the direction of poetry and providing the emotional appeal to the audience required in a proper perora‐ tion. 112 Continuity from chapters 6-8 to 9-11 It is important to explicate the continuity and progression of the discourse from chapters 6-8 to 9-11. In 8: 20, Paul explains that creation was subjected to futility (ματαιότης) ‘by the (will of the) one who subjected it’ (διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα). Earlier, I argued that God should be seen as the one subjecting creation to futility. Continuity from chapters 6-8 to 9-11 275 <?page no="276"?> In 9: 16-18, Paul reports on God’s actions with Pharaoh. There is a connection between these two passages, as Paul states that it does not depend on human will or exertion (ἄρα οὖν οὐ τοῦ θέλοντος οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος), just as in 8: 20, he states that it was not of its own will (οὐχ ἑκοῦσα) that creation was subjected. In both instances, God acts according to a plan (or mystery) that only he knows. In 9: 5ff. it becomes clear that God acts, calls, and elects out of mercy. And it is crucial to bring along this theme when Paul explains that God consciously placed a stumbling stone (that is, Christ) for Israel to stumble over. God delays or holds back Israel, so the Gentiles may run ahead, and even get in front of the Jews. All this revolves around Paul’s perception that God has called and elected someone, whom he foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image Christ (8: 28- 30). These elect are the recipients of God’s gracious mercy. That is what underlies chapters 6 through 8, and what becomes explicit in 9: 5ff. Paul’s focus on the status or position of the Christ-believing Gentiles is a feature that supports the unity, continuity, and progression of the discourse from chapters 6-8 to 9-11. In chapters 6-8, the Gentiles are transformed from slaves to freed and adopted sons/ children. This means that the denigration of the Gen‐ tiles that Paul expresses in 9-11 is already anticipated in chapters 6-8 (cf. the distinction between the engrafted wild olive shoot and the cultivated and holy branches, 11: 16-24). On the other hand, this means that 9-11 should not be taken as a detached appendix to chapters 1-8, where Paul ‘suddenly’ brings in the question of the Gentiles’ relationship to, and position within Israel, and their mutual status/ position. He already prepared for this argument and conclusion in chapters 6-8 by describing the Gentile addressees as freed ex-slaves who became adopted sons and heirs. The downplaying of the Gentiles’ status and position in relation to the Jews, which many scholars have come to affirm (in continuation of the work of Krister Stendahl) was already explicitly anticipated in chapters 6-8, by Paul's description of the Gentiles’ former status as slaves. The consequence of this is that chapters 9-11 should be regarded as reflecting the continuation and culmination of a fugue or argument concerning the former status and position of the Gentiles, begun by Paul as far back as chapter 6. By reading the thematic progress and continuous development of chapters 6-8 into chapters 9-11, the unity of the theological part of Romans (1-11) becomes even more explicit. 12 Romans 8: 1-39 276 <?page no="277"?> 1 Donaldson 1993, 88-89 2 Tobin 2004, 299 3 Bell 1994, 44 4 For references cf. further down, concerning the exegesis of 11: 25-32. 13 Romans 9-11 Introduction According to our consistent and continuous interpretation, Romans 9-11 con‐ stitute the rhetorical climax of (the theological part of) the letter (chs. 1-11), and the passage is consistent, both internally and with the rest of the letter. However, some scholars disagree with this conclusion. Terence Donaldson regards chap‐ ters 9-11 as clearly lacking logical consistency, and Paul’s argumentative route as virtually unnavigable. 1 Thomas Tobin opens his chapter on Rom 9-11 thus: Romans 8: 31-11: 36 is among the murkiest and most controversial passages in all of Paul’s letters. 2 Richard Bell states that it is not immediately clear how Rom 9-11 is related to the rest of Romans. 3 From the preceding analysis of the letter, it should be ob‐ vious that I disagree with such contentions. The relation of Rom 9-11 to the preceding chapters of Romans concerns Paul’s elaboration on the distinctly Jewish (i.e. historical-ethnic) part of the problem he discusses with the fictive Gentile interlocutor. In 9-11, Paul bears witness to the preservation of a distinctly Jewish salvation for historical-ethnic Jews within Judaism. 4 However, just because Paul discusses the salvation of the historical-ethnic Jews, this does not imply Jewish addressees in the Roman con‐ gregation, or a Jewish interlocutor in Romans. The only thing the salvation of the historical-ethnic Jews implies is that the salvation of Israel plays a part in the self-perception of the Gentile addressees. From the perspective of our consistent and continuous interpretation of Ro‐ mans, the point of chapters 9-11 (and the purpose, which the rhetorical strategy serves) is to keep separate salvation for historical-ethnic Jews and salvation in Christ for the Gentiles. Paul appeals to the Gentile interlocutor to remain a Gentile, and not strive for ‘full’ ethnic Jewish status, as God planned to save the Gentiles as Gentiles, through Christ. In contrast, God will secure the salvation of the entirety of (historical-ethnic) Israel because of the covenant, which does <?page no="278"?> 5 In general, Paul uses the term Ἰουδαῖος (26 times in the Pauline corpus) more frequently than the terms Ἰσραήλ (17 times) and Ἰσραηλίτης (3 times). However, in Rom 9-11 this picture is reversed: Paul uses Ἰσραήλ and Ἰσραηλίτης almost exclusively (11 and 2 times, respectively) and Ἰουδαῖος only twice. not include Gentiles. Thus, Romans 9-11 presents two different roads to salva‐ tion. Concerning the relation of 9-11 to the subsequent paraenetic part of the letter, the passage anticipates Paul’s exhortation in chapters 14-15 that ‘the strong’ and ‘the weak’ should stop despising and judging each other (14: 10-12), and instead adapt to each other’s behaviour. If they do so, they will mutually build each other up, and thereby welcome one another, just as God/ Christ wel‐ comed them into the family of Israel (14: 3; 15: 7). Consequently, the fictive Gen‐ tile interlocutor should refrain from boasting of his ‘jewishness’, because A) he will be saved as a Gentile in Christ, and B) the right attitude to other Gentile believers is adaptability to the ideal and normative behavior of Christ. From a general overview of chapters 1-8, Paul slightly alters the perspective in chapters 9-11 from Jews and Gentiles to the more general perspective of Israel/ Israelites and Gentiles. 5 However, Paul still argues with a Gentile inter‐ locutor. But whereas the primary focus of chapters 1-8 has been the situation and status of the Gentile, in 9-11 Paul includes the perspective of Israel/ Israel‐ ites. A crucial distinction to bear in mind when this displacement is noted is the ancient codes of status. Throughout chapters 1-8 Paul has maintained that when it comes to accountability to God (ὑπόδικος γένηται πᾶς ὁ κόσμος τῷ θεῷ, 3: 19; cf. 14: 12) there is no distinction (διαστολή) because all have sinned and God judges impartially (προσωπολημψία, 2: 11). Paul’s gospel stages the story of the faithfulness of God to his Abrahamic promises, which concern God’s faithful‐ ness and righteousness to all the earth. That is the δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (cf. 3: 21- 26) Nevertheless, even though God judges impartially and extends his mercy to all the earth, he measures out status according to rank. Both Jews and Gentiles will be judged impartially, but they are not the same peoples. That makes a significant difference to Paul, and that supports the understanding that Paul preserved salvation for the Jew within the covenant of the law. Paul operates within a hierarchy where Jews rank higher than Gentiles - hence, the Jew first, and (then) also the Gentile. Paul does not question that Gentiles are called and elected by God - they are. But it is a given that Israel is God’s people. Hence, the Jew always comes first - perhaps not in the race, but in rank they do. This hierarchy reflects Paul’s perception of Jews and Gentiles; it follows naturally from his depiction in 1: 18-32 (Gentiles) and 9: 4-5 ( Jews). What Paul develops in chapter 9 is how God elects people, and how works of the law remain irrelevant to God’s mercy and call. This is consistent with Paul’s 13 Romans 9-11 278 <?page no="279"?> admonition in chapter 2. When God shows mercy to someone, works of the law are pointless. Therefore, the Gentiles should follow Christ, and desist from en‐ gaging in traditional (historical-ethnic) Jewishness. However, God has still chosen Israel, and even though God has made her stumble in order to show mercy to the Gentiles, she has not stumbled so as to fall. Israel’s zeal was right (10: 2), but she was confused. She did not recognize God’s plan for all the earth in God’s actions through Jesus. Furthermore, God himself is the one acting through Israel’s stumbling and hardening - just as he used Pharaoh to proclaim his name in all the earth (i.e. to the Gentiles). God laid in Zion a stone to make them stumble (9: 33), and he gave them a sluggish spirit, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear (11: 8). However, Israel has not stumbled so as to fall. God uses Israel (and his election) to show mercy to the Gentiles, and through that, Israel will acquire even greater zeal (11: 11, 10: 19). Israel has now been disobedient in order that the mercy shown to the Gentiles - through Israel’s disobedience - may affect mercy for Israel. God has imprisoned all in disobedi‐ ence, that he may show mercy to all (11: 31-32). God’s mercy and salvation are not a zero-sum game; God’s mercy and salvation causes surplus value to mul‐ tiply, because God is God of all, and that is how he proves that he is righteous. Paul’s argument in Rom 9-11 continues ideas developed previously in chap‐ ters 1-4. Here, Paul’s main concern in the dialogue with the boastful Gentile is that he has no reason to boast. The Gentile wins nothing by being circumcised, by calling himself a Jew, and by appearing as a Jew. Surely, the (historical-ethnic) Jew has an advantage when it comes to the oracles of God (3: 2, cf. 9: 4), but when it comes to judgement and accountability, everyone is equal before God. In chapters 9-11, Paul plays a trick on the Gentile interlocutor, and reverses the Jewish advantage (cf. chapter 10), so now the Gentile believes he has the ad‐ vantage and the historical-ethnic Jews the disadvantage, because Israel has stumbled. Paul even feels sorry for his brethren. But this ploy is not in the slightest suspicious - it is a carefully crafted rhetorical strategy at yet another level, to make the Gentile desist from his boasting. The main warning throughout 9-11 is a warning to the Gentile to not boast. The reason for this warning is the pivotal claim in 11: 26: ‘All Israel will be saved’. Introduction 279 <?page no="280"?> 6 Cf. Witherington 2004, 236 and Haacker 1999, 190. Flebbe sees Paul as approaching the ‘Israelproblem’ (2008, 268). 7 I disagree with Grieb that Paul is arguing with God - like Job and the Psalmist - throughout chapters 9-11 (cf. Grieb 2010, 391-400). I regard Paul as arguing with the Gentile interlocutor. Paul carefully crafts a rhetorical argument, trying to win over the Gentile interlocutor to his position. 8 In the following interpretation of 9-11, I will regularly point out continuities with the preceding chapters. 9 Cf. Gaston 1987, 147; Lohse makes similar claims, but concludes in a traditional ‘Chris‐ tian’ way (2003, 270ff.). Rhetorical strategy In Romans 9-11, Paul is not just answering random rhetorical questions about Israel’s disbelief in Christ; 6 he is continuing the dialogue with the Gentile in‐ terlocutor, and we should continue our straightforward, continuous and con‐ sistent reading. 7 The consensus among scholars is that chapters 9-11 form a literary unit within the letter. However, Romans 9-11 may be read in much closer continuity with chapters 1-8 in terms of style, rhetoric, and content than pre‐ viously assumed. 8 One overarching theme should be seen as unifying 9-11: In 9: 6, Paul states that the word of God has not failed. He then goes on to qualify, illuminate, and explicate this statement. In 11: 1, he then asks: ‘Has God rejected his people? ’ and firmly responds: ‘By no means! ’ In 11: 26, he then concludes: ‘All Israel will be saved’. These statements are quite clear, and they should be taken to constitute Paul’s judgement on the subject. 9 From one perspective, Romans 9: 30-10: 21 constitutes the only ‘problem’ of a continuous, straightforward, and Gentile-oriented interpretation of Romans. In 9: 30-10: 21, Paul states that Israel has failed to attain [God’s] righteousness revealed in the law, because they did not succeed in fulfilling the law, so now they have stumbled. Previously, I argued that Paul did not entertain a negative stance concerning Israel and the faith of the Jewish people, and he did not plan to go beyond Israel to forge a new Christian people. Thus, what do we make of the claim in 9: 30ff. that Israel has stumbled, as this statement apparently depre‐ ciates the historical-ethnic Israel (cf. 9: 4-5) and the Jewish religion? I argue that this contradiction is merely apparent, and must be seen within the rhetorical strategy and fugue of chapters 9-11 in general. The contradiction cannot be regarded as either proving inconsistencies in Paul’s thinking (Räisänen), or that Paul gave up on and transcended Israel to establish Christianity. Verses 11: 1ff. rejects such a view, and Paul’s general conclusion to chapters 9-11 is that all Israel will be saved when the full number of Gentiles has come in. Paul opens chapters 9-11 in 9: 6 with a question: Has the word of God failed? In no other 13 Romans 9-11 280 <?page no="281"?> 10 Cf. e.g. Gadenz 2009, 9; Badenas 1985, 94; Tobin 2004, 300ff. letter does Paul praise his Israelite kinsmen, the law, and Judaism more than in Romans, and specifically in chapters 9-11, so the answer to the question is ‘no’. Paul’s claim is that the word of God has not failed. Israel has not stumbled so as to fall. This means that they may, provisionally, have stumbled, but their failure is not complete. This qualification makes a sig‐ nificant difference. Rom 9: 30-10: 21 constitutes a carefully crafted rhetorical strategy staged by Paul to bring the Gentile interlocutor to a specific position in which it becomes futile and impossible for him, as a Gentile, to boast. The whole passage of 9-11 reads like a fugue or drama, where, in 9: 1-29, Paul con‐ firms and further elaborates on the preceding discourse. Nothing in 9: 1-29 con‐ tradicts what he claimed previously. The pedal point of the fugue is God’s con‐ tinual fidelity to, and election of Israel. In 9: 30-10: 21, Paul reverses the perception of the relationship between Jews and Gentiles - that is, histor‐ ical-ethnic Jews have the advantage (3: 1-2; 9: 4-5) - for the precise purpose of bringing the Gentile interlocutor to a position where he may be admonished (11: 1ff.). Paul explicates and uncovers his strategy in 11: 1, because he returns to the initial (or slightly altered) conception of the relation of Jews to Gentiles, to correct the situation as presented in 9: 30-10: 21. Also, by way of the reversion of positions between Jews and Gentiles, it has become impossible for the Gentile to boast before Jews as well as before Gentiles, and Paul has reconfirmed, reva‐ lidated, and re-established the original status of Israel and the Jews. A subtle literary point may be made, concerning the race and stumbling met‐ aphor in 9: 30ff. It works simultaneously at two different levels - ‘in’ the text and ‘above’ the text. First, at the surface and textual level, God trips Israel. God makes Israel stumble to give the Gentiles an advantage. Second, at the level of rhetorical strategy and the relationship between Paul and the interlocutor/ audi‐ ence, Paul trips the Gentile interlocutor and his audience. How is that? Paul stages an advantageous position for the Gentile interlocutor (audience), as though the Gentiles had an advantage compared to Israel, because God has tripped Israel. However, this advantage constitutes a stumbling block for the Gentile addressees with regard to their desire to boast. Instead of boasting, they are to humbly submit to their Jewish kindred. Consequently, the race metaphor works as a perfect inversion (chiasmus) stretched between the textual level and the level between (encoded) author and (encoded) reader/ audience. The composition of 9-11 may be characterized in terms of the widely recog‐ nized ABA’ pattern. 10 The vocabulary, rhetorical arrangement, and thematic Rhetorical strategy 281 <?page no="282"?> 11 It seems paradoxical and counter-intuitive to me that concerning the rhetorical struc‐ ture of chapters 9-11, Badenas concludes that the most important part of the argument is contained in the middle passage (B) (Badenas 1985, 96). Clearly, the heart of the message comes in the final section, as the conclusion to, and refinement of A and B: All Israel will be saved. Badenas’ point is theological and Christo-centric; my point is his‐ torical, rhetorical, and follows from Paul’s purpose in writing to Rome and staging a dialogue with a fictive Gentile interlocutor. Consequently, when Badenas presents his conclusion concerning the relation of the middle part (B) of chapters 9-11 to 5-8, he has to admit that the relation is ‘less evident’ (Badenas 1985, 138). • • • continuity of the chapters testify to this composition. Paul develops this the‐ matically: A: God’s impartial justice and mercy towards (the historical-ethnic) Israel (9: 6-29) which he juxtaposes with another theme, seemingly an antithesis: B: Israel’s misjudgement of God’s righteous plan and rejection of Christ provide an advantage for the Gentiles (9: 30-10: 21) only to return to the first theme and explain it by way of the second A’: God has not rejected Israel, and all Israel will be saved when the full number of Gentiles has entered (11: 1-32). When we understand how the rhetorical argument unfolds and develops, the unity and coherence of the passage more readily comes to light. A and A’ artic‐ ulate God’s sovereignty, mercy, promise, and election with respect to Israel (and the Gentiles), whereas B bespeaks Israel’s responsibility before God, and Christ’s purpose for the Gentiles. 11 The whole unit is bracketed by an introduction/ conclusion or introductory and concluding doxology (9: 1-5 and 11: 33-36). When we understand the fugue and rhetorical strategy of these chapters, we understand their purpose in Paul’s discourse, as they are purposefully positioned before the specific exhortations. Authorial voice and the ‘I’ of chapters 9-11 At the end of chapter 8 and in the opening verses of chapter 9, Paul stages an ‘I’ who speaks from a certain point of view. Should we consider this ‘I’ another instance of προσωποποιία, as in 7: 7-25, or is something else going on? Is the ‘I’ in 8: 38-9: 5 the same ‘I’ as in 7: 7-25, or is it another ‘I’? From the analysis of chapters 2 and 7 we know that words attached by the author to a speaker in προσωποποιία must be suited to the speaker, and have an indisputable appli‐ 13 Romans 9-11 282 <?page no="283"?> 12 Cf. Theon 1997, 70; Quintilian Inst. Or. 9.2.30 13 Seneca Epistles 88, 2: 348-76; Plutarch Moralia 469D, 6: 194. Also cf. Thorsteinsson 2003, 143; Garroway 2012, 92. 14 As does Badenas 1985, 84; Jewett 2007, 556; Byrne 1996, 284; Witherington 2004, 236; Stowers 1994, 291. However, as Stowers claims, we will never know whether the au‐ thorial voice of Paul in the letters corresponds to the ‘real’ person (ibid.). cation to the subject discussed. 12 The ancient grammarians emphasized that a characterization must fit the person speaking, and every time a person returns to the dialogue, what he says must be consistent with what he said previously. Thus, we must ask whether something previously in the text implies that someone else is speaking apart from the Gentile interlocutor. Does 8: 38-9: 5 tes‐ tify to a continuity concerning the character Paul present in chapter 7? Can we detect a correspondence and similarity in style and substance between 7: 7-25 and 8: 38-9: 5? The rhetorical signs do not indicate that the same person is speaking in 7: 7- 25 and 8: 38-9: 5 as Paul does not employ the diatribal indicators (Τί οὖν (ἐροῦμεν). The verbs do change as Seneca and Plutarch prescribe, 13 but the con‐ tent testifies to another speaker than the one presented in 7: 7-25. The speaker in 9: 1-5 conceives himself as in Christ (ἐν Χριστω), and as a brother and kin ‘according to the flesh’ of the Israelites. Also, the continuity of the ‘I’ from 8: 38 (πέπεισμαι) to 9: 1ff. suggests that the authorial person in the letter, also speaking as a ‘we’ continues to speak in 9: 1-5. The surface level of the text does not testify to a shift of character from 8: 38 to 9: 1ff., nor does the content. The self-percep‐ tion of the person speaking in 9: 1-5 does not indicate the same identity as the one speaking in 7: 7-25. Consequently, another ‘I’ must be speaking in 8: 38-9: 5. The person speaking in 9: 1-5 does not merely call himself a Jew; he is a Jew ‘according to the flesh’, a brother and kin of the Israelites. We might conclude that Paul himself (or the implied/ encoded author) speaks as the ‘I’ in 8: 38-9: 5. 14 Indeed, throughout chapters 9 to 11, the authorial person of Paul turns out to be a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and the first-person perspective appears twenty-seven times. In 10: 19, Paul introduces rhetorical questions posed by himself, instead of the Gentile interlocutor. This is only natural, as the position Paul represents must be able to give voice to a Jewish perspective. Hence, he poses rhetorical questions by way of λέγω. Even though earlier in the discourse Paul sided with the Gentiles (5-8), the rhetorical strategy of 9-11 demands that he speak as a Jew. Furthermore, the position he presents reveals his commitment to the Jewish people, and his confidence in their future salvation. However, Paul’s ‘I’ does not stand unaffected throughout chapters 9-11. Paul resumes the diatribal dialogue with the Gentile interlocutor in several places (e.g. 9: 14, 19, Authorial voice and the ‘I’ of chapters 9-11 283 <?page no="284"?> 15 Since no other scholars (except Thorsteinsson and Garroway) regard Paul as continuing his dialogue with the Gentile interlocutor after 2: 17, no one claims that Paul continues his dialogue with the Gentile interlocutor in chapters 9-11. However, several scholars claim that Paul makes use of the diatribe style in 9-11 (e.g. Witherington 2004, 236). Nevertheless, if Paul is still arguing with the Gentile interlocutor - instead of merely answering ‘a series of rhetorical questions’ (Witherington 2004, 236) - the section reads much better. 16 I disagree with Grieb that 9: 6-29 reads best as a journal of Paul’s prayer life, cf. Grieb 2010, 396. 17 Paul uses the verb ἐλεέω twelve times and six of these appear in chapters 9-11. Paul uses the noun ἔλεος three times in Romans, and two of these appear in chapters 9-11. Cranfield observes that the key word in chapters 9-11 is ‘mercy’ (Cranfield 1979, 448). 18 E.g. Gen 19: 19; Deut 7: 9, 12; Dan 9: 4; Mic 7: 20. 19 Sanders is wrong in seeing the topic of chapter 9 as ‘who belongs to Israel? ’ (Sanders 1983, 43). 30), for instance by way of Τί οὖν (ἐροῦμεν) in 9: 14. 15 In 11: 7, he also resumes the diatribal dialogue (Τί οὖν), only to return as the authorial ‘I’ either in 11: 11 or 11: 13. Romans 9: 6-29 - God has not rejected Israel Romans 9: 6-18 constitutes the first minor section of chapters 9-11 after Paul’s introductory doxology (9: 1-5), 16 that is, 9: 6-13 and 9: 14-18. Both passages ad‐ dress the same problem: God’s election as showing mercy and hardening. 17 The key word, ἔλεος needs to be understood as consistent with its meaning and background in Judaism, where ד ֶ ס ֶ ח encompasses God’s faithfulness to his cov‐ enant promise. 18 Paul elaborates on this theme through his dialogue with the Gentile interlocutor, in order to explain, first, how God works and, second, where the Gentile fits in as a Gentile in God’s dealing with Israel and the world. Con‐ sequently, Paul argues that God’s word has not failed, and he has not rejected Israel, which explains how the Gentile should perceive of his newfound position as a Gentile within Israel. Verses 9: 6-18 is divided by a question from the Gentile interlocutor (9: 14), in order to clarify the argument. Paul sets out to explain his consternation over his brothers and kindred Israelites. Paul explains that God’s word - his covenant and promises (9: 4) - has not failed; God still loves Israel, even though the Gen‐ tiles have gained access to God through Christ. 19 God’s word has not failed, because God shows mercy to whom he will, and he hardens the heart of whom‐ ever he wills (9: 18). Before reaching this general conclusion to the first section of chapters 9-11, in 9: 8 Paul argues that those who are children of the promise 13 Romans 9-11 284 <?page no="285"?> 20 E.g. Flebbe 2008, 282, 358f. 21 This interpretation goes against the prevailing scholarly consensus. As far as I know, only Gaston and Stowers conclude as I do. Badenas claims that Paul completely rede‐ fines ‘election’ in this passage, so election is now an undeserved gift, rather than an inherited right (Badenas 1985, 100). Das also states that Paul redefines election (Das 2001, 96, cf. 238). However, this conclusion misses the mark; Paul does not discuss whether election is undeserved or inherited. Paul argues that God sovereignly elects whomever he will. That is why God is not unjust (9: 14), and also why Paul can ‘pull a Job’ on the Gentile interlocutor when he questions God’s motives (9: 19ff.). 22 Paul presents seventy-five quotations of the scripture in Romans, and forty-five of these belong to chapters 9-11. Even though numbers do not speak for themselves, and sta‐ tistics may be used only to prove something specific and not general, Paul’s use of scriptural quotations in 9-11 stands out conspicuously, when he explicitly intends to prove that the word of God has not failed (9: 6), and that God has not rejected his people (11: 1). to Abraham (τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐπαγγελίας) will be counted as his descendants. Also, in 9: 11-12 Paul argues that the purpose of God’s election abides not because of works, but because of his calling (ἵνα ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις τοῦ θεοῦ μένῃ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος). Both Ishmael and Esau correspond to the Gentiles in these metaphors, because Paul explains how God called and elected Isaac and Jacob - the patriarchs of the historical-ethnic Israel (cf. 9: 5). Isaac and Jacob were children of the promise, so they are counted as descendants, as Israel. Paul opens the section in 9: 6 by stating that not all who are from Israel are truly Israel. Scholars tend to overemphasize the importance of this statement with reference to Gentile Christians, 20 but Paul actually explains it quite simply: Ish‐ mael was a son of Abraham, but he was not Israel. Esau was a son of Isaac, but he was not Israel. Only the children of the promise will be counted as descend‐ ants, and Isaac and Jacob were children of the promise, so they are Israel. Con‐ sequently, God’s word has not failed, and his mercy and election of Israel hinge on his promise and his calling. 21 This is how God works, and this is how the Gentile interlocutor should understand his relationship to the God of Israel. God revealed his impartial justice by extending his mercy to all the peoples of the, earth through Jesus. Ishmael and Esau were not damned, but God chose Isaac and Jacob as instruments of his mercy, to continue his purpose of election (9: 11). Thus, God’s word (his covenant and promises) has not failed. Paul confirms this by continually referring to the word of God, the scripture. 22 Paul’s claim that God’s mercy and election depend on his promise and calling (9: 11-12) makes the Gentile interlocutor interrupt with a question in 9: 14: ‘Is there injustice on God’s part, then [since he arbitrarily shows mercy to and elects whomever he will]? ’ Paul rejects such a conclusion. God is neither biased nor unfair, neither partial nor prejudiced. Everyone is equal before God, and will be Romans 9: 6-29 - God has not rejected Israel 285 <?page no="286"?> 23 Cf. Eastman (2010, 157) for a similar analysis of these verses. 24 Rhyne makes a similar observation (Rhyne 1981, 49). judged according to his work. But that does not concern the fact that God shows mercy on whomever he will - just as Moses says (9: 15). 23 Paul reciprocates the interlocutor’s Τί οὖν (ἐροῦμεν) with a twofold ἄρα οὖν (9: 16, 18), and bolsters the preliminary conclusions from 9: 8 and 9: 11-12: God shows mercy on whom‐ ever he will, and he hardens whomever he will (9: 18). God’s election of, and mercy towards Israel are binding. He is faithful to his promises, and his word has not failed. By arguing thus, Paul necessarily repudiates the rather logical question from the Gentile interlocutor who - just as in 3: 9, which concerned a possible disadvantage of the Gentile - wonders whether God’s election of Israel created a disadvantage for the Gentiles. But as in 3: 9, Paul rejects such an in‐ ference. God is impartial; there is no distinction (διαστολή, 3: 22; 10: 12) between Jew and Greek, and God shows no partiality (προσωπολημψία, 2: 11). However, that does not affect his prerogative to show mercy on whomever he will. 24 God chose Israel and he also chose Pharaoh (9: 17). The purpose of choosing both Israel and Pharaoh was to show God’s power and to proclaim his name in (or throughout) all the earth (διαγγελῇ τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ). This makes a major difference. God chose to harden Pharaoh so that his name would be proclaimed in all the earth. Thus, the purpose of hardening Pharaoh was to proclaim God’s name also to the Gentiles. The chosen part, whether good or bad, serves the good of the whole. In fact, the entirety of 9-11 assumes that God steadily acts for the greater good of those to whom he has committed himself. This also applies to God’s placing of a stumbling stone to make Israel stumble - though not fall. That Paul has this specific use of the quotation about Pharaoh in mind becomes clear in the subsequent passage. The conclusion that God shows mercy on whomever he will makes the Gen‐ tile broach another question in 9: 19, here posed more freely: ‘Tell me then, Paul, how can God still find faults with us (Gentiles) when it does not depend on works but on his mercy and election? After all, no one can resist his will, so if God is responsible for human behavior, how can anyone but God be blamed for wrong‐ doing? ’ The Gentile interlocutor asks about the law as God’s standard for judging works, and the question resembles the one posed in 3: 5. Thus, the dif‐ ficult thing for the Gentile to understand seems to be the related, yet distinct and independent, attributes of God’s actions towards the world - that is, God’s justice and mercy. However, this question makes Paul ‘pull a Job’ on the Gentile interlocutor: ‘Who are you, sir, to argue with God? ’ Paul points out that God can do whatever he pleases, and no human being may question his will. 13 Romans 9-11 286 <?page no="287"?> 25 Witherington (2004, 257) considers the causal and concessive meaning of the participial clause - here, the causal: ‘But what if God endured vessels of wrath, prepared for de‐ struction with much long-suffering, because he willed to show forth his wrath and to make known his power, and in order to make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy? ’ Here, the concessive: ‘What if God, although he willed to show forth his wrath, … nevertheless endured vessels of wrath with much long-suffering in order…? ’ Witherington prefers the concessive. Jewett rejects both the causal and concessive, and prefers a purposive sense that he considers a milder version of the causal ( Jewett 2007, 595). Lohse takes the participial clause to be causal (Lohse 2003, 280). 26 Jewett identifies the Jewish people with the vessels of wrath ( Jewett 2007, 597). So do Dunn 1988 2: 559 and Byrne 1996, 302. 27 Also cf. Jewett 2007, 595f. Paul continues his answer to the Gentile interlocutor in 9: 22-23 concerning God’s prerogative to call and elect, by posing a question that serves to bring the Gentile to the correct position to perceive and realize the riches of God’s glory when he acts in history with mercy and election. Paul asks: ‘What if God, while showing his anger and disclosing his power, with great patience (ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ) [and goodness and forbearance (2: 4; 3: 26; 11: 22)] has endured and tolerated (ἤνεγκεν) the vessels of wrath made for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory upon the [same] vessels of mercy whom he pre‐ pared beforehand for glory? ’ 25 Such an interpretation of the vessels (σκεύη ὀργῆς and σκεύη ἐλέους) is paradoxical, and contradicts all commentators. 26 However, it is supported by the observation concerning Paul’s application of the quotation from Hosea, and he speaks of the reversal of status for the beloved and not beloved, the people and not-people. The case Paul is building concerns God’s prerogative to choose and call. Also, in this line of argument, Paul’s focus is not on the specificity of the vessels, but instead, on God’s patient endurance - on his purpose in making known the riches of his glory to the vessels of mercy. 27 God hardens the heart of whomever he will - just as he did with Pharaoh - whether Gentile or Jew, but the purpose is always to demonstrate his glory. This interpretation is consistent with 2: 5 and 3: 26, which bespeaks God’s mercy as his patience (cf. Exod 34: 6) with the Gentiles, who actually deserve God’s wrath. Consequently, Paul continuously elaborates on God’s dealings with the world, in order for the Gentile interlocutor to better understand his position in relation to the God of Israel. The Gentile interlocutor cannot possibly answer Paul’s question. God may have tolerated the Gentiles’ sinful ways because of his great patience. He may have endured it to make the riches of his glory known to the vessels of mercy. The Gentile interlocutor cannot answer the question, because until God reveals the riches of his glory, the vessel does not know whether it was made for de‐ Romans 9: 6-29 - God has not rejected Israel 287 <?page no="288"?> 28 Gadenz regards ‘us’ as indicating both Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ (Gadenz 2009, 1). He also uses the anachronistic designators ‘Jewish-Christians’ and ‘Gen‐ tile-Christians’ for the groups Paul addresses in Romans (ibid.). Lohse regards Paul as addressing ‘christlichen Lesern’ and not synagogue Jews (Lohse 2003, 271). 29 Jewett translates ὑπέρ as ‘concerning’, but in the analysis he writes ‘for the sake of ’ ( Jewett 2007, 601). Byrne also translates ὑπέρ as ‘concerning’ (Byrne 1996, 300). Lohse translates ὑπέρ as ‘über’, but writes in parenthesis (ὑπέρ = περί) (Lohse 2003, 283). struction or glory. Nevertheless, Paul can proclaim to the Gentile that God has now called both the Jew and the Gentile. God has not only called some of the Jews, but also some of the Gentiles (Οὓς καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς οὐ μόνον ἐξ Ἰουδαίων ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἐθνῶν, 9: 24), even though he originally called and elected the children of the promise. 28 Just as in chapter 4, where Abraham was shown to be the forefather of both Jews and Gentiles (even ‘according to the flesh’), so here does Paul forge a group of Jews and Gentiles within the family of Israel. Originally, God called the historical-ethnic Jews who descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because they were children of the promise. The election of Israel has never been in doubt: Isaac and Jacob were called and elected because they were children of the promise. But now, because of his great mercy, God has extended his election and mercy to the Gentiles, through Christ. The election of Israel was never in doubt, but now also the Gentiles have been shown mercy. As Paul continues his argument, it becomes clear that both Israel’s temporary hardening and eventual full inclusion display God’s merciful actions towards the Gentiles. The quotations from Hosea and Isaiah support the interpretation just pre‐ sented. The one who was not beloved will be called beloved, and those who were not God’s people will be called God’s people. Also, because of God’s great good‐ ness, the vessels made for destruction will be shown mercy upon to God’s glory (9: 22-23). Therefore, the Gentile should not question God’s mercy and election, because God’s actions serve to make his name known all over the earth, and to make those who were not his people into his people. Even though God chose Israel, he did not choose the Jews exclusively; he also chose the Gentiles (οὐ μόνον ἐξ Ἰουδαίων ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἐθνῶν, 9: 24), because he is God of Jews and Gentiles alike (3: 29; 10: 12). The quotation from Isaiah testifies to this under‐ standing, as Isaiah cries out ‘in defence of ’ or ‘on behalf of ’ (ὑπὲρ) Israel. 29 In Isaiah, judgement is followed by restoration, and the chosen few (the remnant) will furnish salvation for the whole. Throughout the Jewish scriptures, the rem‐ nant never features as an end in itself, it always serves the purpose of the 13 Romans 9-11 288 <?page no="289"?> 30 This was the case with Noah (Gen 7: 23), with Jacob, who divided his family in two (Gen 32), with Joseph, who preserved a remnant of his family (Gen 45: 7), with Elijah (1 Kgs 18: 22), and with Micah, where the lame became a remnant (Mic 4: 7). Also cf. Wisd of Sol 14: 7 whole. 30 Because of God’s covenant with Israel, he will fulfil his promises to her - not because of works, but because of his faithfulness and righteousness. The remnant constitutes a trope in Paul’s language - not a definite number of people in a specific historical situation - and it functions as a focal point for Israel’s salvation in times of doom. This corresponds perfectly to Paul’s persistent re‐ iteration of his Jewishness: He is a brother and kin ‘according to the flesh’ of the Israelites (9: 3); he is an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin (11: 1). Consequently, God has not rejected his people, although he has now also extended his mercy to the Gentiles. The Gentile interlocutor should perceive himself as existing within this ongoing story of God’s faithful‐ ness to his covenant people Israel. There is no new race or religion - only a faithful and righteous God. Romans 9: 30-10: 21 - Christ is the goal of the law for Gentiles From our consistent and continuous interpretation of Romans, 9: 30-10: 21 func‐ tion as the second and middle part of chapters 9-11. The beginning and the end of the passage contrasts Israel’s situation with that of the Gentiles (9: 30-31 and 10: 19-21). Verses 9: 30-10: 21 is bracketed by an inclusio on the current situation of Israel and the Gentiles. The Gentiles are described in similar ways in the beginning and end of the passage: Though not pursuing righteousness (9: 30) and not seeking God (10: 20), the Gentiles obtain righteousness (9: 30) and find God (10: 20). In contrast, Israel pursues, but does not reach, its objective (9: 31), and even though being zealous for God (10: 2), Israel ends up being jealous of a non-nation (10: 19). Israel becomes jealous because its zeal is without knowledge (10: 2, 3, 19), and because God has laid a stumbling stone for Israel (9: 33). Fur‐ thermore, God is the one who provokes Israel to jealousy of a non-nation (10: 19). Consequently, Paul brackets this passage by contrasting Jews and Gentiles, and Israel is presented in a pejorative way, so the Gentile interlocutor considers his position as advantageous. Considering the rhetorical strategy of chapters 9-11, we should be aware that in this section (B) Paul will oppose or contrast what he explained in 9: 6-29 (A). Consequently, Paul opposes the firm belief in God’s election of and mercy to‐ wards his covenant people Israel. By means of captatio benevolentiae, Paul forges Romans 9: 30-10: 21 - Christ is the goal of the law for Gentiles 289 <?page no="290"?> 31 Gaston translates correctly, and also interprets this correctly, according to my judge‐ ment (Gaston 1987, 126ff.). 32 Räisänen claims that we would expect Paul to write that Israel was striving for the righteousness of the law. He speculates that Paul may have been careless in his dictation, or that his scribe failed to catch the intended meaning, but he maintains the wording of the text (Räisänen 1983, 53 n50). Das, Lohse, Stendahl, Bell, and Haacker also draw this conclusion (Das 2001, 244; Lohse 2003, 285ff.; Stendahl 1995, 34-35; Bell 1994, 188ff.; Martin 1989, 136f.f; Haacker 1999, 199). I claim that Paul meant what he wrote. a favorable position for the Gentile, who indulges and revels in signs that show off his high-status but false Jewish position (cf. 2: 17ff.). Paul leads him to believe that he holds an advantageous position in comparison to the historical-ethnic Jew, only to exhort him to instead assume and adopt an attitude of reverence and awe for Israel and his Jewish family, in the final section 11: 1-36 (A’). Chapter 10 does not concern the responsibility of Israel or the responsibility of the Gen‐ tiles. It concerns God’s righteousness, the goal of the law, which has now been extended to the Gentiles. Hence, God’s widening of his mercy from Jews to Gentiles, and Israel’s failure to apprehend this expansion, constitutes Paul’s point of departure in 9: 30. I will subsequently discuss four points, in order to determine Paul’s argument. I will show that even though God may have tem‐ porarily tripped Israel, Paul confirms God’s election of Israel and a continuous acclamation of Judaism, even though God extended his mercy to the Gentiles through Christ. Works-righteousness or a righteous law - the problem of νόμος δικαιοσύνης Verses 9: 31-32 constitutes a pivotal point for the claim that Paul thinks highly of Israel/ Judaism, and that he does not abrogate or transcend Judaism in order to establish a new, law-free religion. We must maintain that in 9: 31, Paul writes νόμον δικαιοσύνης and not δικαιοσύνην νόμου. 31 The translators of the RSV and NRS seem to think that νόμον δικαιοσύνης really means δικαιοσύνην νόμου. 32 Consequently, they translate it as ‘righteousness based on the law’, which in‐ 13 Romans 9-11 290 <?page no="291"?> 33 Even though Jewett’s translation of νόμον δικαιοσύνης is correct, he establishes a di‐ chotomy between Hebrew piety, and righteousness through faith. He also agrees with Räisänen’s claim that we would expect Paul to write that Israel was striving for the righteousness of the law ( Jewett 2007, 609). Byrne also translates correctly, but con‐ cludes very similarly to Jewett (Byrne 1996, 309). Witherington translates νόμον δικαιοσύνης correctly, but imputes only a negative value to the law (Witherington 2004, 259). Schreiner writes that Jews (! ) ‘pursued the law for righteousness’, whereby he both translates incorrectly and hints at works-righteousness (Schreiner 1993, 104). 34 Rhyne rightly observes this (Rhyne 1981, 100). Also cf. Thielman 1994, 205ff., although his conclusion differs. 35 Cf. Rhyne 1981, 100 36 Cf. Gaston 1987, 128. Das misses the point, and states that even though Israel strived for righteousness, they did not even attain to their own law (Das 2001, 99). His analysis indicates works-righteousness (Das 2001, 242ff). 37 Rhyne rightly points this out (Rhyne 1981, 100). vokes righteousness through works. 33 However, that is not what the text says. In 9: 31, when Paul writes νόμον δικαιοσύνης, and in 10: 5 writes τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ [τοῦ] νόμου, he means what he writes. As nothing has indicated a change of status, value, or content in the meaning of νόμος since 9: 4 (ἡ νομοθεσία), Paul still makes a positive evaluation of νόμος in 9: 30ff. and throughout chapters 9- 11. 34 Therefore, we should take νόμον δικαιοσύνης at face value as Paul’s pos‐ itive presentation of the (Mosaic) law, viewed from the perspective of the right‐ eousness the law promises, intends, and testifies to (cf. 3: 21). Consequently, Paul’s gospel is positioned within, and in extension of Judaism. Paul uses the expression νόμον δικαιοσύνης, because the law’s goal is right‐ eousness. Paul does not oppose law and righteousness; in fact, he deliberately construes νόμος as connected with righteousness in 9: 31, 10: 4, and 10: 5. When‐ ever Paul uses νόμος in Romans with a qualifying genitive, the connotation is always positive. 35 Nothing in 9: 30ff. indicates that νόμος δικαιοσύνης should be perceived negatively. Only a Lutheran framework of motifs external to the dis‐ course indicates that. Paul does not condemn the Jews for pursuing the law of righteousness. 36 He condemns them for pursuing it in a faulty way, through works, and not faithfulness. 37 Also, Paul does not write: ‘They did not attain righteousness’. Paul writes: ‘They did not attain the law (εἰς νόμον οὐκ ἔφθασεν). Paul’s perception is that Israel is the only nation that actually pursues righteousness, seeks God, and has the law in the heart (cf. Is 51: 7). Gentiles do not pursue righteousness; they suppress the truth with injustice (1: 18). Conse‐ quently, Paul consistently distinguishes Jews from Gentiles, and he differenti‐ ates what they sought, and their goals. Nothing in these verses is said of the Gentiles’ pursuit of the law, obviously, because God’s righteousness as a goal for the Gentiles is Christ (10: 4). Thus, the prepositional distinctions from 3: 27- Works-righteousness or a righteous law - the problem of νόμος δικαιοσύνης 291 <?page no="292"?> 38 Cf. Gaston 1987, 126 39 That the law of righteousness and righteousness from faith are interrelated (or identical) does not mean that they are interchangeable. If they were, Gentiles could live by the law. But they cannot, chapters 1-4 testify to that. The Gentiles need Christ, whereas the Jews need the correct perspective on the law. Rhyne comes very close to such a conclusion when he states that attaining the law and receiving righteousness by faith are ‘practically identical’; nevertheless, he concludes otherwise (Rhyne 100-102). 40 Sanders misses this point, even though he considers the opportunity (Sanders 1983, 37). 31 prove to be correct: justification comes to the Jews on the grounds of faith (ἐκ πίστεως), and they should stick to a faithful relation with God through the law, whereas justification through faith (διὰ τῆς πίστεως) is God’s plan for Gentiles. The goal Israel did not reach was the law - not righteousness. Israel sought to reach the goal of νόμος, but did not. 38 Conversely, the Gentiles did not seek to reach the objective δικαιοσύνη, but (by the mercy of God) did. The paradox or mystery of this reversal is that God gave the νόμος to Israel as a special privilege (9: 4). Israel was different from the Gentiles, because they sought to reach the goal of νόμος. However, νόμος is precisely what became Israel’s un‐ attained goal, the destination not reached, because they focused on the law, instead of God’s righteousness. Conversely, when the Gentiles attained the δικαιοσύνην δὲ τὴν ἐκ πίστεως, Paul indicates that the goal of the law and the righteousness of faith are related, if not outright identical. 39 The purpose of the law is the righteousness of God, and the righteousness that comes from (the) faith (of Christ) is a right way of living with the law (from a Gentile perspective). The Gentiles’ attainment of righteousness corresponds to their acceptance of Christ’s faithfulness, and Israel’s failure to achieve the goal of the law corre‐ sponds to their failure to seek the righteousness of God/ law out of faithfulness rather than works. 40 The implication that follows from this is that righteousness from faith (δικαιοσύνην δὲ τὴν ἐκ πίστεως) and righteousness aimed for by the law (νόμον δικαιοσύνης) relate to God’s righteousness (1: 17). The righteousness of God is the law for Israel, and Christ is for the Gentiles. Specifically, the right‐ eousness aimed for by the law is God’s righteousness, and for Gentiles this fol‐ lows from the faithfulness of Christ. Consequently, Paul does not slander the law; he equates it to the righteousness from the faithfulness of Christ (cf. 3: 21- 22, 27; 3: 31-4: 25; 10: 2-10). Even though Paul accuses the Jews of trying to do the law, this is not a charge centred on works-righteousness. Paul extols and honours the law, but Israel missed the point of the law, which is God’s right‐ eousness. Thus, 9: 30-32 should be translated as follows: ‘What shall we say then - did the Gentiles who did not chase after righteousness achieve righteousness, that is righteousness out of [the] faithfulness [of Christ], whereas Israel, who 13 Romans 9-11 292 <?page no="293"?> 41 I have this idea from Rhyne, though he does not seem to understand it as I do (Rhyne 1981, 101). Sanders develops similar ideas concerning Paul’s argument in Gal 3, 6, and Rom 1: 18-3: 20 (Sanders 1983, 23). chased after the law of righteousness did not arrive at that law [of righteous‐ ness]? Certainly, why not? Israel stumbled over the stumbling stone, because [they did] not [chase the righteousness of God/ the law of righteousness] out of faith, but out of works’. Consequently, the Gentiles attained God’s righteousness out of the faithfulness of Christ, and Israel was supposed to attain the same righteousness (of the law) through a faithful covenant with God. Thus, two different ways, and one law, simultaneously suspended and upheld, define Jewish and Gentile relations to God. Is it possible to be even more specific about what Israel did wrong? I think it is. First, Paul does not criticize Israel’s pursuit of the law. Secondly, Paul does not criticize Israel’s ineptitude in observing what the law demands. Paul criti‐ cizes Israel’s way of pursuing the law. Paul’s accusation against Israel is that they pursued the right law (of righteousness) in the wrong way (i.e. out of works instead of faithfulness). The correct response to the law is not works, but faith‐ fulness. Hence, if we work backwards from this proposition - and add Paul’s statements about his own ability to fulfil the demands of the law, and to be a ‘perfect’ Jew (11: 1; Phil 3: 5-6), we might conclude that the Jews were perfectly able to fulfil the law’s demands (as Ben Sira states in 15: 14-15), but this appa‐ rently blocked their attempt to attain the law by faithfulness. 41 They misunder‐ stood the law (ἀγνοοῦντες γὰρ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην, 10: 3), so they did not arrive at it within a faithful covenant with God. Therefore, Paul admonishes Israel’s incorrect handling of the righteous law, because they should have related to it as the record of God’s righteous and salvific dealings with his people for the prosperity of all the earth. Had Israel read the law (as Paul did) as a story of God’s righteous dealings with Israel, they would have perceived God’s salvific and righteous purpose in Christ’s faithfulness as similar to the way God acted towards the patriarchs. To recapitulate, Paul does not disparage the (Mosaic) law; therefore, he con‐ tinues the discourse of 9: 6-29 concerning God’s merciful election of Israel (and now also the Gentiles - those who used to be ‘not-my-people’). What he does is to charge the Jews of having pursued the law in the wrong manner. Conse‐ quently, because Israel pursued the right law in an incorrect way, God made them stumble, to extend his mercy to the Gentiles through Christ. Works-righteousness or a righteous law - the problem of νόμος δικαιοσύνης 293 <?page no="294"?> 42 Jewett 2007, 611; Byrne 1996, 310; Lohse 2003, 288. Gaston argues that the stone must be the law, or rather, that it is the gospel (of the inclusion of the Gentiles) contained in the law (Gaston 1987, 129). 43 Rhyne sees Christ as the cause of Israel’s perdition (Rhyne 1981, 102). The stumbling stone In 9: 32, the stumbling stone (τῷ λίθῳ τοῦ προσκόμματο) refers to Christ (cf. 1 Cor 1: 23). 42 Paul perceived Christ as the manifestation of God’s mercy and desire to offer salvation to the Gentiles. Had Israel recognized God’s intention to show mercy to the Gentiles through Christ’s faithfulness - as promised by the law - she probably would have reached the goal of the law (9: 31), and would not have experienced a disadvantage with respect to the Gentiles (9: 30). Thus, Paul viewed the law as existing in a teleological relation to Christ, though with re‐ spect to justification, it was only teleological for Gentiles. For the Jews, Christ served God’s purpose as a stumbling stone, but Christ did not cause Israel to strive for the law in an incorrect way. God’s placing of the stone in Zion supports this interpretation (9: 33). The stone was intended as an obstruction, because Israel did not realize that God’s purpose of the law was to extend his mercy and righteousness to the Gentiles. Israel’s stumbling corresponds to their failure to perceive Christ as God’s faithfulness to his promises. However, Christ is not the cause of Israel’s failure to attain the law of righteousness. 43 Israel strove in an incorrect way, and therefore they did not perceive Christ as God’s means of extending mercy to the Gentiles. Consequently, God’s intentional obstruction of Israel through Christ indicates that Christ was not intended for Israel - he was intended for the Gentiles. Israel has the law, and the Gentiles have Christ. If the Gentiles try to conform to the law, we get the situation seen in 7: 7-25. When the Jews strive incorrectly and encounter Christ, they stumble. That is the way God planned things, and it his prerogative to do so. Christ as τέλος of the law for Gentiles The translation of 10: 3 is difficult because of the three instances of δικαιοσύνη, which refers to God’s righteousness and Israel’s righteousness. However, in keeping with the interpretation presented here, the meaning of 10: 3 is, ‘Being unaware of the righteousness of God [as different from their own righteous‐ ness], they sought to establish their own righteousness instead of submitting to the righteousness of God’. Paul’s charge in 10: 3 is that the Jews did not submit to God’s righteousness because they did not arrive at the law (of righteousness) 13 Romans 9-11 294 <?page no="295"?> 44 In Romans, whenever Paul considers the theme of God’s righteousness, it implies the inclusion of the Gentiles, and his faithfulness to the Abrahamic promise (1: 16-17; 3: 21- 31; 9: 30-10: 21). 45 Paul uses τέλος twelve times: twice in Rom 13: 7 where it means ‘tax’ or ‘custom’; in 2 Cor 3: 13 and 1 Thess 2: 16 it is used in an adverbial phrase meaning ‘fully’ or ‘comple‐ tely’; in 1 Cor 1: 8; 10: 11; 15: 24 it seems to refer to the eschatological end; in 2 Cor 11: 15 and Phil 3: 19 it means ‘final destiny’; in Rom 6: 21, 22; 10: 4; 2 Cor 3: 13 it seems to have a teleological meaning (cf. Badenas 1985, 78-79). I agree with Räisänen that Paul cannot simultaneously impose the meanings of ‘end’ and ‘goal’ (Räisänen 1983, 53), but Sanders thinks that possible, yet still gives primacy to τέλος as ‘end’ (Sanders 1983, 39). 46 Gaston translates rather clumsily: ‘For the goal of the law, Christ, is righteousness [of God] for every believer’ (Gaston 1987, 130 his italics). However, the meaning seems to be the same. 47 Badenas 1985, 79. Thielman 1994, 207 also prefers goal for τέλος as does Das, even though he regards Paul as being deliberatedly ambiguous, and playing on both ‘goal’ and ‘end’ (Das 2001, 250). Räisänen introduces a break with the previous in 10: 1, and relates 10: 4 to a postulated opposition between righteousness in the law and righteous‐ ness from faith in 10: 5 and 10: 6-8, so Christ as τέλος means the end or abrogation of the law (Räisänen 1983, 54). Schreiner, Bell and Martin also take τέλος to mean ‘end’ (Schreiner 1993, 134; Bell 1994, 189; Martin 1989, 132). Lohse takes τέλος to mean ‘Ende’ (Lohse 2003, 289). Haacker leans towards ‘Ende’, but allows τέλος to also imply ‘goal’ (Haacker 1999, 206-209). (εἰς νόμον οὐκ ἔφθασεν, 9: 31). God’s righteousness is what Christ bears witness to, and, therefore, Christ is the goal of the law (10: 4). God’s righteousness in‐ volves his faithfulness to the promises through which he shows mercy to all the earth (9: 17). 44 Paul’s charge against Israel concerns the fact that the Jews are ignorant of God’s way of being faithful to his covenant (οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν and ἀγνοοῦντες γὰρ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην). Israel is unaware of God’s covenant plan, which has Jesus as the means by which God shows mercy to all the earth. In 10: 3, Paul claims that Christ constitutes the personified righteousness prom‐ ised in the law. However, in light of the proposed reading here, Paul’s emphasis is not on Israel’s guilt, and his charge is not motivated by anti-Jewish feelings. Paul’s concern is the salvation of his people and his missionary task to the Gen‐ tiles as part of God’s plan for the salvation of all Israel. His emotional outbursts in 9: 1-5 and 10: 1-2 testify to this. Thus, Israel’s unawareness of the role of Jesus in God’s covenant plan implies a failure to understand God’s just dealings with Israel and the Gentiles. In 10: 4, Paul explains that Christ is the goal of the law with respect to right‐ eousness (εἰς δικαιοσύνην), for all who believe - that is, Gentiles, and not just Israel. 45 Consequently, Christ is the goal of the law with respect to God’s plan to redeem the Gentiles. 46 Τέλος, constructed with a genitive as in τέλος νόμου, indicates the purpose or fulfilment of the law, not its abrogation. 47 All along, Christ as τέλος of the law for Gentiles 295 <?page no="296"?> 48 Paul’s use of γάρ in 10: 2, 3, 4, 5 bears witness to the syntactical continuity of the passage. 49 Cf. Rhyne 1981, 97 ‘God’s righteousness’ has referred to Paul’s gospel of the Abrahamic promise to the Gentiles. Rom 10: 4 maintains the continuity of Israel, Judaism, and the law, with a scriptural plan for God’s mercy on the Gentiles through the work of Jesus. 48 Christ is the law’s own answer and purpose to how God will make things right with the Gentiles by showing them mercy. Christ is not the end of the law as the termination - such a translation weakens the connection between the first and the second parts of the sentence, because it makes little sense to speak of an end εἰς δικαιοσύνην. Furthermore, God is not trying to run from his cov‐ enant with Israel by sending Christ, and he is not replacing the law with Christ. Such an understanding would imply that prior to Christ the achievement of righteousness by works of the law was a valid principle, 49 and nowhere does that fit into Second Temple Judaism and covenantal nomism. Rather, the law represents God’s way of relating to Israel, and God has now sent Christ to relate to the Gentiles. The law bears witness to this (cf. 3: 21). Paul does not criticize keeping the law. Keeping the law was a central part of Israel’s relationship with God in the covenant. Even though Israel zealously pursued the law, they rejected Christ as the goal of the law for the Gentiles. Paul shows that it was wrong of Israel to do that, for the law bears witness to Christ, and Christ constitutes the τέλος of the law for Gentile inclusion into the family of Israel. Christ fulfils the law Romans 10: 5-8 bears scriptural witness to, and confirmation of the earlier ar‐ gument in 10: 4. That Christ is the goal of the law (10: 4), and what Moses writes about him must be seen in the ongoing progression towards the minor conclu‐ sion in 10: 12-13: There is no distinction between Jew and Greek (Gentile), God is Lord of all, and all who call upon him will be saved. The minor conclusion in 10: 8 echoes Paul’s initial and general question in Rom 9-11 in 9: 6: Has God’s word failed? Verse 10: 8 explains that God’s word has not failed. Indeed, Christ is God’s word, as witnessed by the scripture (10: 6-7), the goal of the law (10: 4), the word Paul preaches (10: 8). By means of several references to the scripture, Paul demonstrates that Christ neither betrays Judaism nor prompts a rejection of the law. Instead, he reveals God’s faithfulness to his word (10: 8-13). Paul forges an argument in these verses, and it goes against the flow of the text to construct dichotomies between right‐ 13 Romans 9-11 296 <?page no="297"?> 50 Byrne (1996, 317) reads Paul as opposing two ways of righteousness, as do Witherington (2004, 262), Lohse (2003, 293), Martin (1989, 139f.), Bell (1994, 189) and Stuhlmacher (1989, 141). 51 Cf. Badenas 1985, 120. Thielman (1994, 209-210) sees the words of Moses as being ful‐ filled by the gospel. Jewett rules out any possibility that Paul could be referring to Christ ( Jewett 2007, 624). 52 Lev 18: 5 is one of the most often quoted passages of the Pentateuch, and it is hardly ever used in a legalistic context (cf. e.g. Ezek 20: 11ff. and Neh 9: 29). The things Israel was supposed to do according to Lev 18: 5 were contrasted with the customs of the Egyptians and the Canaanites. The lawkeeping was not a condition for salvation, since the Lord was already the God of Israel (cf. Lev 18: 1, 30). The point of the text is to explain that the law is the way of life for the Jew. 53 Sanders 1983, 28 54 In 10: 10 Paul uses γάρ and δέ in a similar way - connective and not adversative. I doubt that anyone would apply the adversative meaning of δέ in 10: 10. Also cf. 7: 8 and 11: 15. 55 Wright regards the connection between 10: 5 and 6-8 not as an antithesis, but as a paradoxical fulfilment (Wright 2010, 47). Rhyne argues for an antithesis between 10: 5 and 10: 6-8 (Rhyne 1981, 105), as does Schreiner (Schreiner 1993, 110ff.). Räisänen de‐ tects a polemical contrast between the two (Räisänen 1983, 54). Das regards 10: 5 and 10: 6-8 as expressing a contrast (Das 2001, 262f). eousness of faith and righteousness of the law. 50 What Moses writes in Lev 18: 5 concerns the righteousness of Jesus (10: 5). 51 Paul read the text as a prophecy fulfilled in Christ, because Christ managed to live by the statutes and ordinances of the law. 52 As in 5: 19, here Paul’s purpose is to explain that many will be made righteous by the obedience of one man. Christ is the man (ἄνθρωπος) who up‐ held the righteousness of the law (τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ [τοῦ] νόμου), so he lives (ζήσεται). The law was given for Israel to live by - not to die by. Philo states that ‘the commandments are not too huge and heavy for the strength of those to whom they will apply’ (De Paemiis et Poenis 80), Ben Sira states that ‘if you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice’ (15: 15). E.P. Sanders emphasizes that such a view was standard in contemporary Jewish literature. 53 The gospel does not mean the failure of God’s promises to Israel, but their fulfilment. Rom 10: 4-5 does not explain what men cannot do, but what Christ has done (cf. 5: 18). The right‐ eousness of the law is not opposed to righteousness of faith, but an explanation of it. The observation that δέ in 10: 6 is connective, not adversative, further supports the claim that Paul does not oppose faith and law. 54 Therefore, we should read 10: 5-8 continuously with one another, and not as Paul’s contrasting two dif‐ ferent systems of living. 55 Verse 10: 6 explains that the ‘doing’ of Christ (ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ἄνθρωπος) is to be perceived in a specific way. In Deut 30, the Christ fulfils the law 297 <?page no="298"?> 56 This is the view expressed in the Psalms of Solomon 9: 4-5. 57 Byrne reads Paul as juxtaposing righteousness through faith with upholding the right‐ eousness of the law, which has proved to be beyond human capability (Byrne 1996, 317). Rhyne opposes ‘superhuman efforts’ with ‘gaining access to Christ’ (Rhyne 1981, 107). law is not for those with whom the covenant is renewed ‘high up in the heaven’ or ‘far away over the sea’ (Deut 30: 12-13). They do not need somebody to go and get the law, so they can do it. God has not made it difficult to keep the law (Deut 30: 11). He made it easy and intelligible, so his people can live by it (Deut 30: 10, 16). Therefore, the word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart, so that you may do it (10: 8, Deut 30: 14). The prevailing Jewish view of Paul’s time was that the law was not difficult to follow satisfactorily, but as everybody sins at some point, God has provided means of atonement for Jews (the law) and for Gentiles (Christ). God has not changed since the time of Moses. The law was easy to follow and understand, back then, and God’s gift of the faithfulness of Christ (promised in the law) is intelligible by hearing and receiving today, in the time of Paul. 56 God does not demand a superhuman effort (ascent/ descent), but acceptance of, and faithfulness to what he has already done. 57 In these verses the focus should be on neither τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν Χριστὸν καταγαγεῖν, nor τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναγαγεῖν, but, instead, on the nearness of the word. That is the good news concerning the faithfulness of Christ that Paul proclaims (τὸ ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως ὃ κηρύσσομεν), and that was already present in Deuteronomy. Paul’s incorporation and use of Deuteronomy supports his argument, fits the immediate context of both Romans and Deuteronomy, and illuminates the state‐ ment in Romans 10: 4 concerning Christ as the goal of the law. Paul does not create an opposition between Christ and the law in these verses, and we should not erect antitheses where Paul intended continuity. Paul’s presentation of Lev‐ iticus and Deuteronomy is not dichotomous, they explain each other. Both pas‐ sages focus on a life in God’s mercy. Verses 10: 5-8 reads best when read together, and 6-8 confirms and complements 10: 5; together, they point towards 10: 12-13. Verses 10: 9-13 further comment on, and illuminate 10: 5-8, as indicated by ὅτι in 10: 9. Paul’s gospel confirms the law (the word of faith that we preach, 10: 8b) and the prophets confirm the gospel (10: 11-13). Paul may be said to speak directly to the Gentile interlocutor in 10: 9, and explain to him how incorporation into the family of Israel works: You must confess Jesus as Lord, and believe that God raised him from the dead. Then your relation to God will be made right. If the Gentile calls upon the name of the Lord, he will be saved. However, the ‘Lord’ in 10: 12 may refer to God rather than Jesus, so the point of the passage becomes theocentric rather than christocentric. Verse 4: 16 may support this interpreta‐ tion, because Paul points to those who share the faith of Abraham (τῷ ἐκ πίστεως 13 Romans 9-11 298 <?page no="299"?> Ἀβραάμ) and Abraham had faith in God. God makes no distinction between Jew and Gentile because he is Lord of all, and he bestows his generosity on all who call upon him (10: 12). The prophet Joel testifies to this, because he writes that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. The rest of chapter 10 follows with ease from the preceding interpretation. In 10: 14-17 Paul explains his mission to the Gentiles. What Paul does when he preaches is what Israel failed to do, because they were unenlightened (οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν) and ignorant (ἀγνοοῦντες) concerning God’s righteousness (10: 2- 3). In 10: 16, Paul states that not all (Gentiles) have obeyed the good news. Isaiah bears witness to this when he writes that not all believed our (i.e. Paul’s) news. The faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ. In 10: 18, Paul also asks whether they have not heard. He confirms that the Gentiles have heard, because it has gone out to all the earth (εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, 10: 18). In 10: 19, Paul turns to Israel, and elaborates on the irony that Israel heard the good news, but did not understand it (οὐκ ἔγνω). In 10: 19, Paul links Israel’s lack of perception to God’s intentional obstruction of them (9: 32), and he further introduces the jealousy motif. He also returns to the theme of God’s mercy and election of Israel for the purpose of showing mercy to the Gentiles. God makes Israel jealous of a non-nation, and he incites his people with a foolish nation (10: 19). In 10: 20, Paul echoes 9: 30, and the claim that the Gentiles, who did not search for God, now experience the mercy of God. In 10: 21, Paul reiterates the fundamental Jewish perception that God remains faithful to his people. Paul’s purpose in presenting the quotation from Isaiah does not centre on Israel’s disobedience and opposition, even though that feature probably boosts the Gen‐ tile interlocutor’s newfound position as a high-status Gentile believer within the family of Israel. However, Paul’s point is that God’s continual faithfulness to his (disobedient and contrary) people exceeds and outperforms Israel’s guilt - he is still merciful (cf. 9: 6-19). Consequently, 10: 14-21 recapitulates the thrust of the middle part of chapters 9-11, that the word of God has not failed, even though God’s mercy has been extended to the Gentiles. The validity of God’s word continues, because God is faithful to his promises and covenant, and he does not make his mercy dependent on human works (9: 12, 16). Romans 11: 1-10 - God’s unbroken fidelity to Israel As we have seen so far, in chapter 9 Paul confirmed God’s election of, and mercy towards Israel (A). God chose Israel so that the Gentiles might also receive the mercy of God. In chapter 10, Paul more specifically explained to the Gentile Romans 11: 1-10 - God’s unbroken fidelity to Israel 299 <?page no="300"?> 58 So Jewett 2007, 651; Byrne 1996, 329. 59 Even though Paul explicitly denies that God has rejected his people, Das insists that Paul confirms that God has rejected Israel in favour of everyone who believes (Das 2001, 101). interlocutor how God extends his righteousness to the Gentiles through Christ, and how Israel did not understand God’s plan (B). In chapter 11, Paul will return to God’s faithful promise to, and election of Israel. Paul maintains the fact that, even though God extends his righteousness to the Gentiles by causing Israel to stumble, Israel will not fall, and all Israel will be saved (A’). As chapter 11 unfolds, Paul will first elaborate on God’s unbroken election of Israel through the rem‐ nant (11: 1-10); then, he will expound on Israel’s trespass as the opening of sal‐ vation to the Gentiles, and how the Gentiles belong to the authentic Jewish family (11: 11-24); finally, Paul explains that all Israel will be saved, and that God hardens and elects for the greater good of everyone (11: 25ff.). Verses 11: 1-6 forms the first minor section of chapter 11. Verses 11: 1-10 may be said to go together, 58 because Paul opens 11: 1 and 11: 11 with Λέγω οὖν. In light of my proposal of a consistent and continuous reading, I take 11: 1-6 to constitute a single unit, because Paul allows the Gentile interlocutor to interrupt in 11: 7 with a Τί οὖν, thereby indicating a change of speaker, and some form of refinement in the argument. Nevertheless, 11: 7-10 further elaborates on 11: 1- 6, so the two units go together. As a way of refuting the potential misperception of God’s relation to Israel as presented in chapter 10, and as a way of returning to, and reiterating the warm words about Israel and his kin from the opening of the two preceding chapters (9: 4-5; 10: 1-2), Paul rhetorically asks whether God has rejected his people (μὴ ἀπώσατο ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ; ). He firmly denies such a conjecture (μὴ γένοιτο). 59 The Gentile has no advantage or exclusive position. Paul himself is an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people. God does not run from his promises or his covenant (9: 4-5). Paul himself is a living proof of God’s faithfulness and devotion to his people. But as in the time of Elijah, some Jews have not stayed close to God. In fact, God may even be the one who has hardened them - at least, that is what he did to Pharaoh (9: 17), and he also intentionally tripped some Israelites (9: 32). That is why, in 11: 4, Paul explains that God has kept some men for himself (κατέλιπον ἐμαυτῷ) who did not go astray. This explanation explicitly connects back to the theme of God’s mercy and election in 9: 14-18, and prepares for 11: 5- 6: ‘So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace’. Because the remnant is chosen by grace, without any reference to actions, 13 Romans 9-11 300 <?page no="301"?> 60 Räisänen points out the same correspondence (Räisänen 1983, 54). this testifies to, and proves God’s freedom to show mercy to whomever he will. Furthermore, Paul’s division of the elect from the rest (ἡ δὲ ἐκλογὴ and οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ, 11: 7) clarifies that the existing division is provisional. Israel’s hardening, stumble, and resistance serve God’s purpose of the reconciliation of the cosmos. Also, Israel’s full inclusion (πλήρωμα) and acceptance (πρόσλημψις) will mean nothing less than life from death (11: 7-15). Consequently, Paul’s return to the theme of God’s mercy and election overarches chapters 9-11, and confirms that God’s word has not failed, God has not rejected his people, and even though Israel may have stumbled - because God himself tripped them - they have not stumbled so badly as to fall (11: 11). As in 9: 27, Paul confirms God’s mercy to‐ wards, and election of Israel by way of the trope of the remnant, because the remnant never serves as an end in itself. The remnant serves to restore Israel to its fullness as the people of God. Just as in 9: 6-13, where Paul claimed that God sovereignly elects and calls whomever he will (ἵνα ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις τοῦ θεοῦ μένῃ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντο, 9: 11) so does he argue in 11: 5 that God acts through calling and grace (κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν χάριτος γέγονεν). The relative clause that God fore‐ knew his people (ὃν προέγνω, 11: 2) supports the point that Paul’s general theme is God’s righteousness, manifested in his election, mercy, and calling. God fore‐ knew his people so he obviously did not reject them. Furthermore, as Paul has the Gentile interlocutor interrupt with a question (Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν) in 9: 14 that elaborates on God’s hardening of Pharaoh, so in 11: 7 Paul has the Gentile in‐ terlocutor ask a question (Τί οὖν) that elaborates on God’s obstruction of Israel: ‘What do you mean, Paul, concerning God’s grace and calling - could you please clarify things a bit? ’ So, in 11: 7-10, Paul further elaborates on the theme of God’s prerogative and privilege to show mercy on, and to harden whomever he wills. In 9: 14-18, God hardened Pharaoh to show mercy on Israel; in 11: 7-10 God obstructs Israel so that mercy may be shown to the Gentiles (11: 11). That Israel did not obtain (ἐπιτυγχάνω) what it sought (ἐπιζητέω, 11: 7) clearly reverberates throughout 9: 31, where Israel pursued something (διώκω) but did not arrive at it (φθάνω). 60 God may have blinded and deafened Israel; he may have bent their backs and given them a sluggish spirit; he may have made their table into a snare, a trap, and a stumbling block for them, but Israel has not stumbled so badly as to fall. Through Israel’s stumbling, salvation has come to the Gentiles (ἀλλὰ τῷ αὐτῶν παραπτώματι ἡ σωτηρία τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, 11: 11). Romans 11: 1-10 - God’s unbroken fidelity to Israel 301 <?page no="302"?> 61 Story 2010, 87 62 Jewett 2007, 670 63 Jewett discusses whether ‘metaphor’, ‘allegory’, ‘figure’, ‘illustration’, ‘parable’, or ‘an‐ alogy’ is most appropriate. He chooses ‘allegory’ ( Jewett 2007, 668). To my mind, ‘met‐ aphor’ is more appropriate, because of the static perspective. 64 Jewett prefers another composition of 11: 11-24, but he attributes the one I prefer to Barrett ( Jewett 2007, 668). 65 μὴ γένοιτο appears here for the tenth and last time in Romans. Romans 11: 11-24 Verses 11: 11-24 constitutes one unit dominated by ten conditional sentences. 61 In 11: 12 Paul uses εἰ … πόσῳ μᾶλλον (if … then how much more) and he repeats this phrasing in 11: 24, as though to construct an inclusio. The section is mainly structured according to the a minore ad maius (lesser to greater) scheme, but in 11: 21 Paul uses an a maiore ad minus (from greater to lesser) argument, and in 11: 16 he constructs an argument based on similarity. 62 Throughout this passage, Paul builds one continuous argument from several elements, among which are rhetorical questions (Λέγω οὖν, 11: 11), answers (μὴ γένοιτο, 11: 11), an apos‐ trophe to the implied/ encoded audience (ὑμῖν δὲ λέγω τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, 11: 13), per‐ sonal examples (ἐφ᾽ ὅσον μὲν οὖν εἰμι ἐγὼ ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος, 11: 13), a metaphor (11: 16, 17ff.), 63 and an apostrophe to the Gentile interlocutor (μὴ κατακαυχῶ and σὺ, 11: 18). The larger unit of 11: 11-24 comprises three minor units: 11: 11-12; 11: 13-16; 11: 17-24. 64 Notwithstanding, 11: 11-24 should be taken together, de‐ spite minor shifts in content and address. In 11: 11, Paul asks (Λέγω οὖν) whether Israel has stumbled so badly as to fall. The question is exactly in parallel with 11: 1, and the verb also implies the same aorist tense. Paul makes an effort to communicate the message concerning Israel, which is why 11: 1 and 11: 11 resembles each other in both form and content. In 11: 11 as in 11: 1, Paul immediately repudiates the conclusion that Israel should have been decisively cut off from God (μὴ γένοιτο). 65 Also, Paul implicitly charges the Gentile interlocutor (and the Gentile audience) of having misjudged God’s plan. Israel’s false step or stumble (παράπτωμα) serves God’s purpose of extending salvation to the Gentiles, in order to make Israel jealous (εἰς τὸ παραζηλῶσαι αὐτούς). Paul echoes the race metaphor of 9: 30-32, and now ex‐ plains that God caused the stumble, in order to make Israel jealous of the Gentiles so they would run harder. Israel’s false step means riches for the world (πλοῦτος κόσμου), and Israel’s defeat in the race (τὸ ἥττημα αὐτῶν), means wealth for the Gentiles (πλοῦτος ἐθνῶν). However, if Israel’s defeat can affect all the earth in such a way, then how much more (πόσῳ μᾶλλον) will Israel’s completion of the race mean (τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῶν)? Clearly, Paul perceives Israel to be the object 13 Romans 9-11 302 <?page no="303"?> 66 I am aware that in 2: 17, Paul uses καυχάομαι, and in 11: 18, κατακαυχάομαι. However, the stem is the same, and Paul’s use of κατακαυχάομαι emphasizes the element of comparative superiority expressed by boasting. 67 So Jewett who refers to thirteen scholars who support his view ( Jewett 2007, 683). Jewett refers to Byrne, but Byrne actually supports my view: ‘[T]o sharpen the warning, Paul, in diatribe mode, employs the second person singular address, ’You”’ (Byrne 1996, 341). of God’s mercy and election, even though God caused her to stumble, to extend his mercy to the Gentiles. As in 2: 4, 3: 26, 9: 22-23, and 11: 22 Paul reiterates God’s patience (ἀνοχή [holding back]), forbearance (μακροθυμία), and kindness (χρηστότης) through the race metaphor, because God makes Israel stumble. God delays his judgement until Israel arrives (in full number) at the finish line. God caused Israel’s stumble, to allow time for the mission to the Gentiles. God tripped Israel to provide an opportunity for the Gentiles, so he could extend his right‐ eousness and make known his name all over the earth. However, hierarchical distinctions still apply, even though God extends his mercy to the Gentiles, and includes them in the family of Israel. Paul expounds on this by way of the olive tree metaphor. Romans 11: 17-24 - the olive tree metaphor In 11: 17, Paul shifts from a second-person-plural address to a second-person-sin‐ gular address. I take this shift as indicating that Paul is addressing the Gentile interlocutor again. Paul preserves the second-person-singular address throughout the passage, to 11: 24, but in 11: 19 he constructs a question the Gen‐ tile interlocutor could have posed, and that resembles the earlier (diatribal) dia‐ logue (ἐρεῖς οὖν). Another important point to mention, besides the stylistic, is Paul’s resumption of vocabulary and content previously addressed to the boastful Gentile (2: 17). 66 This should make us attentive to a recurrence of themes. In contrast to the majority of commentaries, I do not regard Paul as speaking in a lively, humorous, or playful manner. 67 Paul does not avoid polemic against the audience by speaking to a singular ‘you’. Instead, by turning from the second-person-plural to the second-person-singular address, he accentuates the importance of his words. The whole point of addressing the Gentile interlocutor in the opening of the letter (2: 1ff.) was to facilitate the possibility of repentance for being judgemental (ὁ κρίνων, σεαυτὸν κατακρίνεις) and boasting (ἐπαναπαύῃ νόμῳ καὶ καυχᾶσαι ἐν θεῷ), because the God of Israel is just and merciful (τὸ κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ, 2: 3; χρηστότης, ἀνοχή, μακροθυμία, 2: 4). As in chapter 2, in chapter 11 Paul speaks of the inconsistency between the Gentile’s Romans 11: 17-24 - the olive tree metaphor 303 <?page no="304"?> 68 The same replacement logic sticks to the translation of καλῶς in 11: 20 as ‘that is true’. A milder translation, as in ‘well, that might be’, would convey Paul’s concession to the statement that branches were broken off for the sake of Gentiles, but it would restrain a full confirmation. Here, Paul’s intention is to communicate the rather complex point of the interrelatedness of Jews and Gentiles - a full inclusion of the Gentiles, but nev‐ ertheless a subordination of status. Lohse bears witness to a supersessionist stance in both instances (Lohse 2003, 314-315), as does Haacker (1999, 232-233). Keck and With‐ erington translate ‘in among them’ to avoid a supersessionist stance, but their subse‐ quent explanation still implies a Christian supersession of Judaism (Keck 2005, 274f.; Witherington 2004, 270f.). 69 Cf. Jewett 2007, 685; Byrne 1996, 341. 70 Johnson Hodge 2007, 142ff. words and deeds, and admonishes the Gentile interlocutor to act according to his true situation. The Gentile must be aware that he is accountable to God, that he must live faithfully and according to God’s standard, or else God will not spare him (οὐδὲ σοῦ φείσεται, 11: 21). Accountability plays a major role in 11: 19- 22, but it is bound tightly together with the dual attributes of God: goodness and severity (χρηστότης and ἀποτομία, 11: 22). God is merciful and just, and Paul points out that God is merciful and just towards ‘you’ (ἐπὶ δὲ σὲ χρηστότης θεοῦ), that is, the Gentile, therefore he should repent, and continue in the good‐ ness of God. God shows the same severity and kindness towards Jews and Gen‐ tiles - towards the cultivated branches and the engrafted ones (11: 22-24) - be‐ cause he is the God of Jew and Gentile alike, and God shows no partiality, when it comes to accountability. The RSV and the NRS translate ἐν αὐτοῖς in 11: 17 as ‘in their place’. This translation indicates a supersessionist horizon of Christianity replacing Ju‐ daism. 68 If ἐν αὐτοῖς were translated ‘among them’ it would indicate that the Gentiles who have been grafted into the olive tree have come to join the natural branches already there. 69 Consequently, the Gentiles share the goodness of the tree with the Jews, because the goodness was naturally theirs. Paul intends to communicate joining, not replacing. Verses 11: 19-24 disproves the displacement theory, and Paul emphatically rejects the idea that God has forsaken Israel. Ac‐ cording to the logic of the metaphor and the a minore ad maius scheme of this section as a whole, Israel belongs much more to the tree, and God has the power to graft the Jews in. Verse 15: 27 supports an understanding of joining rather than displacing, because Paul argues that the Gentiles are indebted to the Jews for the spiritual blessings they share with them. The olive tree metaphor refers to kinship, ethnicity, and lineage, and the olive tree symbolizes Israel (cf. Jer 11: 16; Hos 14: 6). It seems ironic that Caroline Johnson Hodge has to point this out explicitly. 70 The olive tree is an ancient 13 Romans 9-11 304 <?page no="305"?> 71 Esler points out Paul’s stratified conception, where the Jewish members are superior to the others (Esler 2003, 103). I agree with such a claim, but I disagree with Esler’s sub‐ sequent claim that Paul constructs their overall unity as a unity in Christ (ibid. 109). Lohse and Haacker miss the point that Paul specifically reverses the traditional way of grafting, to communicate a specific point (Lohse 2003, 314; Haacker 1999, 233). Instead, they consider Paul a ‘Städter’ - a city person without accurate knowledge of agriculture. 72 Esler 2003, 109ff. 73 Even though Theophrastus contemplates the exact practice Paul describes in the met‐ aphor - grafting wild stock into a cultivated tree - he points out that this will produce no fine fruit (cf. Esler 2003, 114). The whole point of grafting in olive cultivation was more and better fruit. Consequently, the logic of Paul’s metaphor is useless, therefore we should seek the significance of his metaphor somewhere other than in the produc‐ tion of more and better fruit. This observation supports my interpretation that here, Paul’s intention is to exhort the Gentile interlocutor about status. ‘family tree’, and it bespeaks the relationships created through lineages and an‐ cestors. Paul uses the olive tree metaphor to construct a corporate and cumu‐ lative relationship between Jews and Gentiles - just as he did with the adoption metaphor in 8: 15. The fact that Israel constitutes the cultivated olive tree, and the Gentiles are grafted onto this tree as a wild olive shoot indicates Paul’s hierarchical perception of Jews and Gentiles. 71 This is consistent with the hier‐ archical perception of Jews and Gentiles in 8: 15, concerning the adopted ex-slaves (Gentiles) and the natural-biological heirs ( Jews). Philip Esler has pointed out the significance of wild branches being grafted onto a cultivated root, as that would have been the opposite of traditional practice. 72 According to Esler, Paul specifically reverses the traditional practice, in order to commu‐ nicate a certain point, and make it stand out as a point: The status of the culti‐ vated root and the hierarchy among the branches are more important to the metaphor than the accuracy of contemporary oleiculture. 73 Also, this hierarchy is what draws the meaning of the metaphor in the direction of the family tree. Some branches are natural and cultivated ( Jews), whereas others are grafted on and wild (Gentiles). The Gentiles are the grafted branches, because they are adopted, ex-slave sons - that is what Paul’s warning hints at in 11: 18. The Gen‐ tiles depend on the root that sustains them. And even though God can break off ( Jewish) branches in response to their unfaithfulness (11: 20), God can graft them on again, if they do not continue in ἀπιστία (11: 23). The Gentiles should remain vigilant and wary, because God decides, sovereignly, the fates of cultivated and wild branches. Consequently, continuing his rhetorical strategy of chapters 1- 11 in general, and 9-11 in particular (A, B, A’), Paul has maintained the status of Israel, presented Gentiles who follow in the faithfulness of Christ as already having reached their goal (10: 4), yet maintained Israel as the chosen people of God who (momentarily) serve the purpose of extending God’s righteousness to Romans 11: 17-24 - the olive tree metaphor 305 <?page no="306"?> 74 Johnson Hodge 2007, 146 all the earth by being tripped by God. Paul has turned the tables on the Gentiles with a more refined version of God’s calling and election, mercy and justice, than a simple competition where outbiding and boasting in external signs ap‐ plies. By using the olive tree metaphor of grafting and cutting, Paul joins Jews and Gentiles in a shared lineage of a cumulative relationship. Paul uses the olive tree metaphor to arrange Jews and Gentiles as related but distinct peoples of the God of Israel. 74 They are separate, yet hierarchically related peoples - not one unified group of Christians. The olive tree metaphor illustrates how peoples in a group may be related without vanishing as subgroups, and be identified solely as members of a unitary group. Paul preserves a higher status for the Jews, but his rendering of God’s plan plays on this hierarchical relationship, where he presents God as suspending, delaying, and postponing the balance, so that Gen‐ tiles briefly outpace Israel. The unity of the olive tree - as in the simile of the body in 12: 4-8 - constitutes a form of unity that caters to internal differentiation. The word of God has not failed (9: 6), but Gentiles who follow in the faithfulness of Christ have attained the righteousness for which they did not strive (9: 30ff.). However, in the end Paul re-establishes and reinforces Israel’s superior rank, while reminding the Gentiles that their attachment to the olive tree is easily broken off. Some Jews may have stumbled - as the history of Israel testifies - but a remnant survives to serve as God’s instrument of salvation. A hardening has come upon a part of Israel (πώρωσις ἀπὸ μέρους τῷ Ἰσραὴλ γέγονεν, 11: 25), until the full number of Gentiles has come in. But in the end, all Israel will be saved (πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται, 11: 25-26). Through Israel, God shows mercy to the Gentiles. However, Israel is still God’s chosen people, so it is the Jew first, but also the Gentile. The fact that Paul uses the olive tree metaphor to explain the relationship between Jews and Gentiles supports my interpretation that Christ plays a role for the Gentiles only, whereas the law and the covenant still play a role for the Jews. If we look at Paul’s mention of Christ in chapters 9-11, Christ plays a role only in the middle section (B), which focuses on the Gentiles. However, from 10: 17 to 11: 32, Paul does not mention Christ. Correspondingly, in chapter 11 (A’), when Paul returns to God’s loyalty to Israel and the salvation of all Israel, the focus is not on Christ, but on the Gentile inclusion in the family of Israel, and the lineage of Abraham. Christ may function as the means by which Gentiles are grafted into the tree of Israel, even though Paul does not elaborate on that, 13 Romans 9-11 306 <?page no="307"?> 75 However, cf. the meaning of 15: 8 in connection with this point about Christ being the means by which Gentiles are grafted into the tree of Israel. but Christ is not what effectuates the salvation (σωθήσεται, 11: 26) of all Israel. 75 When the full number of Gentiles has come in, then all Israel will be saved; however, that does not mean that Israel will accept Christ as the Messiah. Israel is a cultivated tree with a strong root. The root probably refers to all the features Paul presented in 9: 4-5. To Israel belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, the promises, the patriarchs, and from them comes the Messiah, ‘according to the flesh’. Israel enjoys all these features in their relationship with God, and from this relationship God selects Jesus to serve as Messiah of the Gentiles. Through Christ, God welcomes the Gentiles into the family of Israel (cf. 14: 3; 15: 7). The culmination and confirmation of this inter‐ pretation, where Paul neither abrogates nor transcends Judaism (and the (Mo‐ saic) law) to construct a new universal race and religion, comes in the final part of chapter 11. Here, Paul explains God’s mysterious plan of salvation to the Gentile interlocutor/ audience. God’s plan includes a particular salvation for Jews, just as Christ serves as the means by which the God of Israel provides salvation for the Gentiles. Romans 11: 25-32 - the ‘mystery’ and the Sonderweg interpretation in 11: 25-26 First, 11: 25-32 serves to explain what Paul wrote in the preceding verses. Also, 11: 25-32 summarizes and rehearses a variety of key themes from throughout chapters 9-11. Consequently, 11: 25-32 should be taken as Paul’s recapitulation of, and conclusion to chapters 9-11 and 1-11. From the second-person-singular address Paul now shifts to the second-person-plural address (Οὐ γὰρ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί), which indicates that he speaks to the encoded/ implied Gen‐ tile audience. Verses 11: 29-32 goes together as an explanation of the hostility and election of Israel in 11: 28, as indicated by the fourfold repetition of γάρ. The skilful chiasmus in 11: 30-31 beautifully sums up the reciprocal relationship of Jews and Gentiles throughout Romans, and especially in the olive tree metaphor. It also reiterates God’s prerogative to show mercy and cause hardening that leads to disobedience, thereby constructing an inclusio with 9: 6-18. The mystery (τὸ μυστήριον) Paul reveals to the Gentile audience concerns a hardening on a part of Israel (πώρωσις ἀπὸ μέρους τῷ Ἰσραὴλ γέγονεν). Lloyd Gaston and Stanley Stowers claim that the hardening concerns Israel’s failure Romans 11: 25-32 - the ‘mystery’ and the Sonderweg interpretation in 11: 25-26 307 <?page no="308"?> 76 Stowers 1994, 286; Gaston 1987, 146 77 Franz Mussner orginally coined the term Sonderweg in 1979 (Mussner 1979). Krister Stendahl alluded to something similar in 1976 (Stendahl 1976, 4), but he has subse‐ quently distanced himself from such an outlook (Stendahl 1995, x and 7). Lloyd Gaston, Stanley Stowers, and John Gager are the authoritative representatives of the Sonderweg proposal, but Gaston and Gager hesitate to use the term (Gaston, 1987, 148 n67), and Gager prefers to speak of Christ as providing a Sonderweg for Gentiles (Gager 2000, 146). Mark Nanos’s approach overlaps with the Sonderweg proposal on several points, but Nanos sees his own approach as distinct from the two-covenant approach (Nanos 1996, 7 n13). Recently, Terence Donaldson and Christopher Zoccali have written on the Sonderweg approach, and both reject it (Donaldson 2006; Zoccali 2008). Also cf. Hvalvik 1990 and Staples 2011. Donaldson presents by far the most thorough critique. However, all four aspects of his critique are gainsaid by my interpretation (cf. Donaldson 2006, 30). 78 Cf. e.g. Moo 1996, 723ff.; Jewett 2007, 702. to fulfil the missionary task from Israel to the Gentiles to be a light to the na‐ tions. 76 Even though we may agree with their analysis, we should go one step further in illuminating the hardening/ mystery: The missionary task to the Gen‐ tiles appears as a secondary consequence of a more substantial idea concerning the renewal and salvation of Israel in continuation of the Old Testament prophets. The implications of this question concern the Sonderweg of Israel, and the meaning of ‘all Israel will be saved’ (11: 26). 77 In the following pages, my interpretation will contradict a supersessionist perception of Paul as claiming that ‘all Israel’ means the Church, Jewish Christians, or Israel’s acceptance of Christ in his Second Coming. 78 The hardening of Israel is caused by God. God has hardened (the rest of (οἱ λοιποὶ, 11: 7)) Israel, just as he hardened Pharaoh, so his name would be pro‐ claimed all over the earth (9: 18). God also intentionally tripped Israel, to extend his mercy to the Gentiles (9: 32). The tripping of Israel by God adds to our un‐ derstanding of the hardening and the mystery, but does not amount to the hard‐ ening per se. Israel’s failure to obtain what it sought (9: 31-32 and 11: 7) does not consist of their rejection of Christ, but in their incorrect striving for the right law (9: 31-32). Israel stumbled over the stumbling stone because they did not strive correctly for the right law of righteousness (i.e. out of faithfulness), but incorrectly (i.e. out of works). The crucial verses wherein this distinction sur‐ faces are 9: 30-33. The line of thinking where God hardens someone in order to extend his mercy is not alien to this context, but follows directly from the dis‐ course Paul begins in chapter 9. My argument follows four points. 1) God chose Isaac and Jacob, and he can show mercy to, and harden whom‐ ever he wills (9: 18). No one can question God’s intentions - as Paul tells the Gentile interlocutor, ‘Who indeed are you, sir, to answer back to, argue with, or 13 Romans 9-11 308 <?page no="309"?> criticize (ἀνταποκρίνομαι) God? ’ (9: 20). The potter has neither obligations to, nor constraints imposed by the clay (9: 21). However, God is merciful and patient (μακροθυμία), and he will show mercy even to those who were destined for wrath - those who were not a people, he will call his people. God’s calling includes not only Jews, but also Gentiles (9: 24, cf. 4: 12, 16, 22-23). Consequently, Paul’s claim that God can show mercy to whomever he wills, and harden whom‐ ever he wills, gives rise to the Gentile’s question in 9: 19, which Paul answers by concluding that God’s hardening of someone results in mercy, not only for Jews but also Gentiles. 2) Paul’s role in this drama is as participant in the remnant (9: 27; 11: 5). First, concerning the Gentiles, God, in his patience, has chosen to show mercy on the vessels destined for wrath (9: 22). God will call those who were not his people his people (9: 25; cf. 10: 19). Second, Paul turns to Israel, and states that Isaiah cries out in defence of Israel that a remnant will be saved (9: 27). Even though the Isaiah quotation says that a remnant will be saved, the meaning is that the remnant will furnish salvation, because in Isaiah, judgement is followed by the restoration of all Israel. However, as part of his rhetorical strategy, Paul does not yet elaborate on this, but he writes that if God had not left Israel any children - that is, the remnant - Israel would have suffered the destiny of Sodom and Gomorrah. But God has left Israel children - that is, the remnant - so Israel will not be like Sodom and Gomorrah. Paul will return to the restoration of Israel later, and he will firmly dismiss the idea that God has rejected Israel, and that Israel has stumbled so badly that she fell. Not only will the remnant be saved; the remnant will furnish salvation, so all Israel will be saved - that is what Paul states in 11: 14 (εἴ πως παραζηλώσω μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ σώσω τινὰς ἐξ αὐτῶν). From the first mention of the remnant in 9: 27, to 11: 5-7, 11: 11, and 11: 14. the remnant acts as a pledge and sign that all Israel will be saved, because the rem‐ nant is never an end in itself, but God’s tool in the process of judgement and restoration. So far so good: Paul’s statement in 9: 18 concerning God’s preroga‐ tive to show mercy to, and harden whomever he wills, leads to God calling not-his-people, his people, and God defines a remnant that furnishes salvation. 3) Following the flow of the discourse, Paul has the Gentile interlocutor ask whether the Gentiles attained a righteousness for which they did not strive, whereas Israel strove for the law of righteousness, but did not arrive at that law (9: 30ff.). Paul answers: ‘Certainly, why not? Israel stumbled over the stumbling stone, because they strove for the law of righteousness, not out of faithfulness, but out of works’. The scripture even testifies to this explanation, because it says that God placed a stumbling stone in Zion, a rock that will make them fall. How does this relate to the foregoing? Romans 11: 25-32 - the ‘mystery’ and the Sonderweg interpretation in 11: 25-26 309 <?page no="310"?> No one can question God’s motives. Verse 9: 33 states that God trips Israel. That is God’s prerogative, and it is consistent with the discourse begun in 9: 1. However, when God hardened Pharaoh against Israel, it served to make his name known all over the earth. Similarly, God tripped Israel for a purpose (to show mercy, cf. 9: 22; 11: 11). First, Israel did not seek the law of righteousness out of faithfulness, but out of works. Secondly, the righteousness that the Gentiles have attained without striving for it concerns Christ. It is important to keep these two distinctions separate, although they are closely related. Now, is God’s right‐ eousness the same for Gentiles and Jews? God’s righteousness must be the same, even if the means by which God shows it differ. First, Israel strove for the law of righteousness, but did not arrive at it. Secondly, the Gentiles arrived at God’s righteousness without striving for it. Could Israel have arrived at the law of righteousness that concerns God’s righteousness? Paul answers this question positively by expressing a condition: If they had striven in the right way - faithfully, instead of out of works - then yes. Consequently, God’s way of showing his righteousness to Israel is through the law. This is a basic truism in Second Temple Judaism, which Paul relies on. However, because Israel strove in the wrong way, God tripped Israel. The question underlying Paul’s argument here is, why did God do that? Paul wants to show that God intended to extend his mercy to the Gentiles. That is why Christ is the goal of the law with respect to righteousness for all Gentiles who follow in the faithfulness of Christ, and that is the righteousness the Gentiles attained without striving for. Conse‐ quently, Israel has the law, and the Gentiles have Christ. Why is Christ not the goal of the law for the Jews? Because they have the law of righteousness - they do not need Christ. Consequently, the Gentiles attained righteousness, whereas Israel sought for the law of righteousness without arriving at it. The righteousness Israel failed to understand (ἀγνοοῦντες, 10: 3) was God’s righteousness, to which they failed to submit, because they sought it out of works, and not out of faithfulness. However, God has not rejected his people (11: 1). God has chosen a remnant, and this remnant was chosen by grace (cf. 9: 6-18). And as God chose this remnant by grace, it is not out of works (11: 6). This proposition symmetrically opposes Israel’s way of striving in 9: 32, and the continuation of 11: 7 confirms this reading: What Israel sought (ἐπιζητέω) it did not obtain (ἐπιτυγχάνω). Israel strove (διώκω) for the law of righteousness, but did not arrive (φθάνω) at it (9: 32). Additionally, in 11: 7 Paul continues by stating that the elect obtained it (ἡ δὲ ἐκλογὴ ἐπέτυχεν), but the rest were hardened (ἐπωρώθησαν). God hardened the rest, just as God elects and calls (9: 11-12). Now, through the hardening (πωρόω, 11: 7), through the stumbling (πταίω, 11: 11 cf. 9: 32), through the false step/ trespass (παράπτωμα, 11: 11, cf. 9: 32, 33), salva‐ 13 Romans 9-11 310 <?page no="311"?> 79 Donaldson states that in Romans, Paul explicitly criticizes Israel in two instances: 2: 17- 29 and 9-11 (Donaldson 2006, 31). Since I have argued that Paul does not address a Jew in 2: 17-29, I will not address Donaldson’s attention to these verses as important to the Sonderweg interpretation, but focus my attention on chapters 9-11. However, when 2: 17ff. is read with a Gentile interlocutor in view, and the point of 2: 17-29 is not taken to be the universal sinfulness of Jew and Gentile alike, with no possibility of achieving righteousness through the law, the Sonderweg interpretation becomes the more reliable and appealing. 80 According to Sanders, many Jews expected Gentiles to be brought in to the people of God during the messianic period, but there was no accepted halakah governing the conditions of their admission, and the prophetic and poetic passages (e.g. Sib. Or. 3.772ff.) generally give no legal detail (Sanders 1983, 18-19). 81 Räisänen 1983, 183 tion has come to the Gentiles. This proposition demands a preliminary conclu‐ sion: By sharply distinguishing Israel’s trespass and the missionary task from Israel to the Gentiles, it becomes possible to answer wherein Paul’s critique of Israel lies, without conflating the two, as Gaston and Stowers do. 79 How could the fact that Israel did not strive in the right way after the right law of righteousness transform into the salvation of the Gentiles and riches for the world (11: 11-12)? Israel’s wrong way of striving provides God with an op‐ portunity to choose, call, and elect a remnant. Differently phrased, God hardened some in order to choose a remnant by grace, or, Israel’s state of disobedience caused the election of a remnant to bring about reconciliation after judgement, and extend God’s mercy to the Gentiles. 80 Who is this remnant? The remnant included Paul, Peter, and every other Jew who wanted the renewal of Israel in continuation of the prophets of old. God never intended for only a remnant to be saved; God intended the remnant to provide salvation for all - a well-known Jewish theologoumenon. Räisänen illuminates this perfectly, when he states that we have solid grounds for assuming that Christ’s earliest followers understood themselves to be the people of the covenant. 81 Because of the renewal of Israel’s covenant with God, brought about by the Messiah Jesus, Paul brought the Gen‐ tiles into the people of God without requiring them to accept the (Mosaic) law. From Galatians we may infer that Peter and James seem to have agreed with Paul on the question of the Gentiles, but it was not their task to do so (Gal 2: 1- 14). Their role within the remnant focused exclusively on Israel’s renewal. Con‐ sequently, the remnant is a Jewish renewal movement with a mission for Jews and a mission for Gentiles, because God extended his mercy to the Gentiles by hardening Israel (cf. 9: 14-18). The remnant does not consist of Jewish Christians, but of Jews who want to renew Israel and extend God’s righteousness to the Gentiles. Then, of what does the mission to the Gentiles consist? Romans 11: 25-32 - the ‘mystery’ and the Sonderweg interpretation in 11: 25-26 311 <?page no="312"?> 82 Sanders’ work has often been criticized for being unable to answer why Jews would become Christians. To my mind, this question is misunderstood, partly because Paul did not convert anyone to Christianity. Jews did not become Christians, because Christ was not for the Jews - Christ was for the Gentiles. Jews remained Jews, and Gentiles remained Gentiles, though now, through Christ, heirs of Abraham and heirs to the blessings of carnal Israel. 4) After describing what Christ did (10: 5-8) and how Gentiles relate to him (10: 9ff.), Paul explains his mission to the Gentiles. Paul wants to preach to ev‐ eryone on earth (εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, 10: 18). Paul reiterates the theme of God’s mercy to, and election of those whom were not a nation, and those who did not seek him, that is, the Gentiles. In 10: 19, Paul explains that Israel heard the good news, but did not understand it (οὐκ ἔγνω), and he also introduces the jealousy motif. The jealousy Paul arouses in Israel by preaching to the Gentiles about God’s righteousness is meant to call Israel back to a relationship with God de‐ fined by faithfulness, rather than works. Paul also reiterates that God remains faithful to his people (10: 21), and that God has not rejected his people (11: 1). This is followed by Paul’s explicit emphasis on his own Jewishness: He is an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. In 11: 11, Paul brings together Israel’s stumbling and the salvation of the Gentiles, to make Israel jealous. This leads to Paul’s logic of a minore ad maius: If God extends his mercy to the Gentiles, then how much more significant will this be with the full inclusion of Israel (! ). God has hardened a part of Israel (οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ἐπωρώθησαν, 11: 7), and made them stumble over Christ in order to bring sal‐ vation to the Gentiles and all Israel through the work of the remnant. That is the mystery concerning the hardening that Paul wants the Gentiles to under‐ stand (11: 25). To answer the question concerning the mystery and the hardening of Israel: God can harden whomever he wills; this underlies Paul’s argument here. God hardened Israel so they sought him out of works, and not out of faithfulness. Therefore, God tripped Israel and extended his mercy to the Gentiles. Even though the Gentiles did not seek God’s righteousness, God extended his mercy to the Gentiles through Christ. The law testifies to this, which is why Christ is the goal of the law. Consequently, by choosing a remnant out of grace and not works, God has hardened Israel and extended his mercy to the Gentiles so he can save all Israel, which he has not rejected. Therefore, there is both a Jewish and a Gentile mission, but Paul elaborates on the Gentile mission only because he writes to Gentiles as ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος. 82 This is the more precise answer to ‘of what do the mystery and the hardening of Israel consist? ’ Therefore, Gaston and Stowers do not go far enough in their interpretation when identifying Is‐ 13 Romans 9-11 312 <?page no="313"?> 83 Paul does not explain where ‘in’ is. Cf. the discussion in Flebbe 2008, 361f. 84 Jewett translates thus ( Jewett 2007, 696). Others who translate οὕτως with a modal force: Garroway 2008, 217ff.; Sanders 1983, 193; Das 2001, 106; Haacker 1999, 239; Lohse 2003, 319-320. 85 van der Horst 2000 86 As do Donaldson 2006, 51 and Fitzmyer 1993, 622f. rael’s incorrect striving and their stumble. Israel stumbled because (ὅτι, 9: 32) they strove incorrectly. However, because of the chosen remnant, God will act graciously and save all Israel, despite a temporarily hardening. This becomes even clearer in the subsequent verses. The problem of οὕτως The translation of 11: 25-26 has presented significant difficulties for many in‐ terpreters. The hardening that has come upon a part of Israel (ἀπὸ μέρους τῷ Ἰσραὴλ) will be there only until (ἄχρι οὗ) the full number of Gentiles has come in (εἰσέλθῃ). 83 The meaning of this sentence seems clear, but Paul continues: καὶ οὕτως πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ σωθήσεται. The problem concerns the translation of οὕτως. Does it carry temporal or modal sense, and does it refer to the Second Coming of Christ or the salvation of Israel ‘in such a manner? ’ 84 On the nearly sixty occasions that Paul uses οὕτως, it carries modal sense. However, Pieter van der Horst recently argued that the temporal sense is probable. 85 We should also consider whether any overwhelming contextual evidence supports the transla‐ tion of οὕτως as ‘thereafter’. Actually, there is evidence of such meaning in the same sentence, and in the preceding verse. Thus, because of the parallelism between 11: 25 and 11: 26, the meaning must be temporal, because of ἄχρι οὗ. Also, in the wider context, the theme of the remnant supports a temporal trans‐ lation, because the remnant serves as a seed (9: 29), and a hope for the reconsti‐ tution of the people as a whole in the future. However, I do not intend to resolve the question here, but clearly, I see οὕτως as carrying temporal force. 86 Besides, Paul’s focus was on all Israel. Whether all Israel will be saved ‘after’ the full inclusion of the Gentiles, or ‘in such a manner’, all Israel will be saved. God chose Israel, his word has not failed, he has not rejected Israel, so they will all be saved. How should we understand 11: 25-26? In light of a consistent and continuous reading of Romans, how does the suggested interpretation look? The mystery Paul wants his Gentile addressees to understand is that God has hardened a part of Israel but elected a few, that is, Israel failed to obtain what it sought (cf. 11: 7 and 9: 31-32). The elect few constitute a remnant that brings renewal to Israel, The problem of οὕτως 313 <?page no="314"?> 87 Sanders draws the same conclusion (Sanders 1983, 189-190), but later specifies that Christ is the deliverer (ibid. 194). 88 An argument that supports the Sonderweg interpretation is that historical-ethnic Israel is the enemy of the gospel, not because of any resistance to proclaiming the gospel or fulfilling their missionary task to the Gentiles, but because they were hardened by God, and therefore stumbled. They are enemies of the gospel because God hardened them, in order to extend his righteousness to the Gentiles - not because they refused to proclaim the gospel. That is why Paul adds ‘because of you, Gentiles’ (δι᾽ ὑμᾶς): God hardened Israel and made them into his enemies, because he wanted to extend his righteousness to the Gentiles. But even though he made them into his enemies, he did not reject them. both by preaching faithful striving for the right law of righteousness for Jews, and by preaching fidelity to Christ’s faithfulness, for Gentiles. When the full number of faithful Gentiles has come in, then God will save all Israel. Conse‐ quently, the Sonderweg for Israel consists of God’s faithfulness to his people - his word has not failed, he has not rejected his people, and they did not stumble so badly as to fall. Romans 11: 25-32 resumed Paul’s use of the Isaiah quotation in 11: 26 stresses the origin and not the aim of the deliverer’s visit (ὁ ῥυόμενος). The deliverer will come from Zion (ἐκ Σιὼν). Had Paul left the quotation in its original form, the meaning would be that the deliverer would come ‘for the sake of ’ Zion (ἕνεκεν Σιων), thereby stressing the deliverer’s salvation of Israel. But Paul altered the quotation because he wanted to communicate something different. The deliverer will come from Zion and he will banish ungodly deeds (ἀσεβείας) from Jacob. Paul’s mention of Jacob re‐ verberates throughout the opening of chapter 9, thereby constructing an inclusio of chapters 9-11. Paul mentioned the patriarchs (οἱ πατέρες, 9: 5), the covenants (αἱ διαθῆκαι, 9: 4), he stated that the word of God had not failed (9: 6), he argued that God chose and called Jacob, because he loved him (τὸν Ἰακὼβ ἠγάπησα, 9: 13), and all this concerned God’s loyalty to the historical-ethnic Israel. Con‐ sequently, there is no redefinition of Israel in spiritual terms, and there is no salvation of Israel through Christ. In the Isaiah citation (Is 59: 20), ὁ ῥυόμενος refers to Yahweh, and he is the one who will deliver Israel. 87 God stays loyal to his covenant with Israel (ἐμοῦ διαθήκη, 11: 27), and he takes away their sins within the covenant, where the (Mosaic) law facilitates the means of expiation. The historical-ethnic Israel might be considered the enemy of the Gentiles, ac‐ cording to the gospel, 88 but according to God’s calling and election (κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκλογὴν), they are beloved (ἀγαπητοὶ) for the sake of the patriarchs (οἱ 13 Romans 9-11 314 <?page no="315"?> 89 The question concerning the salvation of all or destruction of some could be suitably addressed here. Essentially, I find Sanders’ explanation sympathetic and attractive, and I can see how the logic behind Paul’s statements is rooted in, and determined by his terminology: Paul simultaneously upholds two images - one of judgement, which im‐ plies ‘losers’ if there are ‘winners’, and one of sovereignty, which centres on God’s righteousness for all on earth. Consequently, when Paul thought of those who rejected the gospel, he considered them ‘lost’ or as ‘being destroyed’ (cf. 2 Cor 2: 16; 4: 3), but when he thought of God’s intention and the greatness of his mercy, he would claim that all would be saved (cf. 1 Cor 15: 22, 28; Rom 11: 32, 36) (cf. Sanders 1983, 30 n64). 90 I concur with Jewett that the dative is a dative of advantage ( Jewett 2007, 710). Throughout chapters 9-11 Paul discusses advantages and disadvantages with the Gen‐ tile interlocutor. πατέρες) (11: 28). Paul’s repetition of the covenant and the significance of God’s love for the patriarchs works in tandem with the attention to Jacob, and adds to the inclusio and the understanding that Paul has the historical-ethnic Israel in view. Verses 11: 29-32 constitutes one unit that explains the proposition made in 11: 28, as indicated by the fourfold repetition of γάρ. Verse 11: 29 states that God does not regret (ἀμεταμέλητα) his gifts and calling (τὰ χαρίσματα καὶ ἡ κλῆσις). The gifts echo Paul’s list of Jewish advantages in 9: 4-5 and the calling resonates heavily throughout chapters 9-11 concerning God’s calling of the patriarchs (9: 6-13), the calling of both Jews and Gentiles (9: 24), and the elect of the remnant (11: 4-7). God’s calling, hardening, and mercy, as his way of acting towards the world to make his righteousness known reverberates as the main themes throughout chapters 9-11. 89 The calling of the patriarchs, the Gentile interlocutor’s question, Israel’s incorrect striving, and God’s steadfast loyalty to his people confirms this interpretation. The call (ἡ κλῆσις) also refers to the election of Israel (τὴν ἐκλογὴν), in the preceding verse. The chiasmus in 11: 30-31 sums up God’s reciprocal actions towards Jews and Gentiles in his plan of election, showing mercy, hardening, being unfaithful, and finding mercy again - the underlying story of chapters 9-11 (A, B, A’). The Gentiles were once disobedient to God (ὑμεῖς ποτε ἠπειθήσατε τῷ θεῷ), but now God has shown mercy to the Gentiles because of the disobedience of Israel (τῇ τούτων ἀπειθείᾳ). 90 The Gentile disobedience recalls Paul’s initial description of the Gentile situation in 1: 18-32, and the mercy of God refers to Christ’s faith‐ fulness. Israel’s disobedience does not refer to their rejection of Christ as the Messiah of the Gentiles, but to their incorrect striving for the right law of right‐ eousness (9: 31-32). Israel’s disobedience occurred for the sake of, and served the purpose of God’s mercy to the Gentiles. Furthermore, just as Israel has been disobedient (καὶ οὗτοι νῦν ἠπείθησαν), God will have mercy upon her again. Romans 11: 25-32 resumed 315 <?page no="316"?> God has enclosed all in disobedience, so that he can show mercy to all (11: 32). God sovereignly decides who he wants to harden and to whom he wants to show mercy, but his hardening always serves the purpose of extending his righteous‐ ness and making his name known throughout the earth. The short hymnic sec‐ tion that closes chapters 9-11 and chapters 1-11 is focused entirely on God’s greatness. It is significant that Paul twice alludes to Job in closing chapters 9- 11, with the general theme of God’s prerogative to act as he pleases by electing, hardening, and showing mercy. The doxology in 11: 36 forms an inclusio of chapters 9-11 with the doxology in 9: 5. Chapters 9-11 bear witness to a continual widening of God’s mercy over the course of the argument. The point throughout is God’s mercy as his sovereign choice, including hardening, causing a stumble, and enclosing all in disobedi‐ ence. God acts in this way on behalf of those who would otherwise be excluded. God acts in the way that will best fulfil his promises, and enact his mercy. It is not for human beings to question God’s actions. Paul’s response to the Gentile interlocutor who wants to boast of his Jewishness before other Gentiles (and Jews) is to present man’s disobedience. However, despite the disobedience of Jews and Gentiles alike, God is merciful, he is ἔλεος and ד ֶ ס ֶ ח , as presented in the Old Testament texts. God’s choice to show mercy and compassion to whom‐ ever he will is his way of addressing the disobedience of Jews and Gentiles alike, and that constitutes God’s righteousness. 13 Romans 9-11 316 <?page no="317"?> 1 Jewett 2007, 724 2 Cf. Byrne 1996, 362; Fitzmyer 1993, 638, 686; Haacker 1999, 252. 14 Romans 12-15 and the relationship between theology and paraenesis Introduction In 12: 1, Paul begins a new section of his letter. Previously, I characterized 1-11 as the theological part of the letter, and 12-15 as the ethical or paraenetic part of the letter. In 12: 1-2, Paul sets a new ethical or paraenetic stage for the dis‐ course. This becomes evident if we observe that in 11: 33-36 he concludes the theological exposition of the letter with a hymn and the adverb ἀμήν. He turns to something quite different in 12: 1-2, and in the subsequent chapters the form of the discourse develops into something general and almost sweeping. The dialogical exchange of questions and answers with the fictive Gentile interloc‐ utor ceases in this section, and the language becomes dominated by imperatives. In this transition to something different, 12: 1-2 stands out as the main theme or title paragraph for the subsequent chapters of moral exhortation. However, 12-15 should not be taken as some sort of ‘ethic for the ages’, 1 even though some of the exhortations in 12-13 stand out as rather generalized. On the contrary, there is a distinctly eschatological urgency in this section (13: 11-14), and Paul turns to very specific and urgent matters in the Roman congregation (13: 1-7; 14: 1-15: 6). Hence, Paul is not delivering a universal and timeless doctrine for subsequent generations of believers to live by; he is presenting specific guide‐ lines and applied theology to a specific assembly in Rome, concerning matters urgent to them, and in direct continuity and progression of the theological ex‐ position in chapters 1-11. Chapters 12-15 may be divided roughly in two: Chapters 12-13 go together, and chapters 14: 1-15: 6 (or 15: 13) go together. 2 In 13: 11-14, Paul completes the first part of the paraenetic section. In these first two chapters of his ethical urge he turns, first to the internal organization of the believers’ community, that is, the assembly as the body of Christ (12: 3-8), and the necessity of mutual love (12: 9-13). Afterwards, he turns to the external relationships of the assembly: relationships to enemies (12: 14-21) and to political authorities (13: 1-7). He re‐ capitulates both the internal and external relationships in 13: 8-10 in a rather <?page no="318"?> 3 Thorsteinsson 2003, 47 4 Jewett 2007, 725; Thorsteinsson 2003, 47 5 Cf. Cicero Quint. Frat. 2.14; Seneca Epp. 19.1; 20.1; Pliny Ep. Tra. 4.6; 6.2. 6 For examples cf. White 1986, 194-196; Reed 1997, 267-268; White 1986, 118; Josephus Ant.Jud. 8.52. 7 Bjerkelund 1967, 110 8 Cf. the comments of Pseudo-Demetrius on the friendly type of letter (Ep. Typ. 1). 9 Cf. Thorsteinsson 2003, 50 general description concerning loving one’s neighbour as fulfilment of the (Mo‐ saic) law. Romans 12: 1-2 When Paul uses the words Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί (12: 1) in the opening of the paraenetic section of the letter, he applies a well-known epistolary formula of ancient letter-writing. 3 The formula was used by ancient authors to express requests of various sorts. 4 We find similar expressions used by other ancient authors, because these kinds of formulas were widespread in antiquity. 5 Exam‐ ples of the use of these formulas are petitions, family requests, letters of rec‐ ommendation, and official requests or exhortations. 6 In 2 Macc 9: 26, there is an exact parallel to the first three words in Rom 12: 1 (Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς) in the letter King Antiochus writes to the Jewish people to remind them of their rela‐ tionship. According to Carl Bjerkelund, the closest parallel to Paul’s use of this formula is in official correspondences, particularly in royal Hellenistic letters of a diplomatic character. 7 Paul could have used several other terms with variants of ἀξιῶ or δέομαι, but παρακαλέω was particularly appropriate, because it ex‐ presses a superior’s concern for his authority, without being unnecessarily or unwisely commanding. 8 Consequently, in using the word παρακαλέω Paul nei‐ ther pleaded nor commanded, but expressed something between the two. Hence, the meaning of the word could vary from ‘asking’ or ‘appealing’ to ‘urging’ or ‘exhorting. 9 By adding οὖν (therefore) to the opening phrase of the paraenetic section of Romans, Paul identifies the basis of his ethical appeal. The preceding theological argument of chapters 1-11 provides the foundation upon which Paul may right‐ fully state his appeal. This observation adds continuity and coherence to the discourse, and bespeaks the intimate relationship and connection of the theo‐ logical and ethical parts of Romans. It also indicates that chapters 12-15 should be read as dependent on the previous discourse, and not as an isolated entity. The audience would have clearly perceived the continuity of the discourse from 14 Romans 12-15 and the relationship between theology and paraenesis 318 <?page no="319"?> 10 For a list of references, cf. Jewett 2007, 730 n59. this inferential conjunction. Also, the use of the vocative ἀδελφοί (brothers) suggests presence, intimacy, and continuation of the previous discourse. In response to the mercy the Gentiles have received, they are to worship ethically. They should not conform to the present evil age, but should let their minds be transformed, and express and enact the restoration of righteousness due to Christ. Paul reiterates this invitation in the verses that close the paraenetic section (15: 9-13), to reaffirm his intention with regard to the entire paraenetic section: He wants to bring Gentiles into the proper relationship with the God of Israel, and make sure they worship the one God of Israel in a proper, ethical way (λογικὴν, 12: 1 and εὐσχημόνως, 13: 13) (together with His own people (Is‐ rael)). Instead of being impious and unrighteous Gentiles (as they previously were, cf. 1: 18-32) they should become living, holy, and acceptable sacrifices. Hence, Paul contrasts conformity with the present evil age (their previous lives) with transformation of the mind (their new lives). The fact that they are to present themselves as living (ζῶσαν), holy (ἁγίαν) and acceptable to God (εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ) specifically adds to the understanding of their former Gen‐ tile lives. Besides the stereotypical description in 1: 18-32, which focused on the Gentiles’ wrongful minds, hearts, and behaviours, Paul described the Gentile addressees in 5: 6, 8, and 10 as ‘ungodly’ (ἀσεβῶν), ‘sinners’ (ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων) and ‘enemies of God’ (ἐχθροὶ ὄντες), clearly contrastive identities to their new and holy identities. Now that they have been baptized into Christ’s death (6: 3-4) and received the spirit, they may walk in the newness of life (ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς, 6: 4), thus becoming truly ‘living‘ (ζῶσαν, 12: 1). Even though they once were slaves of sin (6: 17), they have become obedient from the heart, and are no longer sinners, but holy (ἁγίαν, 12: 1). Hence, instead of being enemies of God (5: 10) and practising all kinds of impious and immoral behaviour (1: 18-32) they have become acceptable to God (εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ, 12: 1). In sum, the short and pungent description of their reasonable worship (τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν) by way of being living, holy, and acceptable to God, not only contrasts with their former Gentile-ish way of life, but also aptly describes what God wills and, conversely, what God despises. Thereby, Paul brings the entire discourse of 1-11 into the paraenetic section, and consciously develops it. Also, as the Gentile addressees no longer live as impious Gentiles, they no longer adhere to the Gentiles who worship the creation (ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει, 1: 25) rather than the creator. Their worship has become reasonable or rational, or, as some translators prefer, ‘spi‐ ritual’. 10 They have exchanged a wrong kind of worship for a right and reason‐ able kind of worship. Romans 12: 1-2 319 <?page no="320"?> 11 I am not arguing that a clear-cut distinction between Greco-Roman and Jewish vo‐ cabulary may be made, since Paul’s Judaism was Hellenistic (cf. Engberg-Pedersen 1995 and 2001). 12 Cf. Keck 2005, 302-303; Haacker 1999, 256-257; Byrne 1996, 375; Fitzmyer 1993, 651- 652; Moo 1996, 771. Romans 12: 3-21 After the rather sweeping opening of the paraenetic part of Romans (12: 1-2) Paul adopts a more formal and distant tone in 12: 3. Paul mentions his apostolic authority ‘through the grace given to me’ (διὰ τῆς χάριτος τῆς δοθείσης μοι, 12: 3), and addresses everyone in the Roman congregation (παντὶ τῷ ὄντι ἐν ὑμῖν, 12: 3). The focus of this minor passage is the appropriate mindset or thinking that each member of the assembly should have. Paul emphasizes this by using variants of the word φρονέω four times (also cf. 12: 16). Paul admonishes the addressees to not think more of themselves than is necessary, but to be sober-minded (ἀλλὰ φρονεῖν εἰς τὸ σωφρονεῖν), according to the measure of faith God has allotted them (ἑκάστῳ ὡς ὁ θεὸς ἐμέρισεν μέτρον πίστεως). The rationale for this internal structuring of the assembly according to the measure of faith given to them by God is that they are all members of one body in Christ (ἐν Χριστῷ). And even though they are one body, not all members have the same function (πρᾶξιν). They have different gifts according to the grace given to them (ἔχοντες δὲ χαρίσματα κατὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν, 12: 6), and each should look to their own gift. In continuation of 12: 1-2, it seems evident that the right or sober mindset is their new way of living, in direct contrast to their former Gentile way of living (cf. 1: 18-32). This applies even if Paul uses more popular Greek philosophical vocabulary (σωφροσύνη, σωφρονέω) than specific ‘Jewish’ vocabulary. Clearly, the addressees are not to become like ethnic Jews, but to uphold jewishish ideals and standards where they live. And these come in contextualized Greco-Roman form. 11 The rationale must be that instead of being conformed to this world (τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, 12: 2) and continuing to live in a Gentile-ish way, they are to live and think according to the gifts they have received. The way in which they are members of one another (ἀλλήλων μέλη) is the way in which they relate to their gifts - one to prophecy, another to ministry, and so on (12: 6-8). Paul presents this in a contextualized Greco-Roman setting in these chapters, and more spe‐ cific to the Jewish perspective of food and Sabbath observations in chapters 14- 15. Verses 12: 9-21 does not seem to develop an argument. 12 Instead, these verses assemble and cluster together diverse materials such as Hellenistic Jewish 14 Romans 12-15 and the relationship between theology and paraenesis 320 <?page no="321"?> 13 Cf. Byrne 1996, 375 14 Cf. Engberg-Pedersen 2000, 265-277, 285-291. 15 For references on these, cf. Keck 2005, 302. 16 Jewett is one of the only commentators who thinks highly of this passage. He describes it as ‘artfully constructed for rhetorical impact…’ ( Jewett 2007, 756). 17 Brendan Byrne characterizes this passage as ‘the strangest and most controversial pas‐ sage in the entire letter’ (Byrne 1996, 385). For similar conclusions cf. Keck (2005, 311), Fatum (2015, 254-261), and Moo (1996, 790-791). 18 There is no textual basis for regarding 13: 1-7 as secondary or non-Pauline. Wisdom, 13 Stoic motifs, 14 and perhaps also some circulating oral Jesus tradi‐ tions. 15 Because of their lack of an argument, the verses stand out as a chain of individual injunctions juxtaposed by word or thought association. 16 The se‐ quence shows no evidence of any tight, intentional flow, but by gathering to‐ gether the diverse materials, 12: 9-21 moves beyond 12: 3-8 in specifying the kind of ethos that should characterize the assembly. Verses 12: 9 and 12: 21 frame the passage by contrasting good and evil, and everything between them may be seen as instantiating the contrast between good and evil. Verses 12: 9b-13 could be regarded as celebrating the qualities of genuine love, whereas 12: 14-20 pro‐ hibits the opposite of genuine love - retaliation and vengeance. In this way, love may be seen as governing the entire sequence (cf. 13: 8-10). This also includes leaving vengeance to God (12: 19-20), and not seeking vengeance for injuries received (μὴ ἑαυτοὺς ἐκδικοῦντες). Instead of seeking vengeance, Paul admon‐ ishes his audience to ‘go over to the offensive’ in the positive sense (12: 20), and in this way to overcome evil with good (νίκα ἐν τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὸ κακόν, 12: 21). Romans 13: 1-7 The general character of chapters 12-13 comes explicitly into view with regard to 13: 1-7. This minor passage does not seem to fit into the overall development of chapters 12-13. 17 This passage stands out as a mere ‘check‘ Paul must conduct before he can move on to more important matters. Had the discourse moved directly from 12: 21 to 13: 8, it would have seemed more deliberate. 18 Also, the request to subject to the governing authorities seems, on the face of it, to go directly against the programmatic request in 12: 2 to not be conformed to this world. There is no trace of the Pauline idea that the present era is passing away (cf. 1 Cor 7: 29-31), or that believers’ true ‘citizenship’ (πολίτευμα) is in heaven (cf. Phil 3: 20). And Paul does not seem to care that every rule and authority and power will be done away with in preparation for Christ’s handing over the Romans 13: 1-7 321 <?page no="322"?> kingdom to God (1 Cor 15: 24). Nevertheless, in a few verses (13: 11-14) he will appeal strongly to the approaching end. That kind of wavering seems rather strange. Besides, Christ plays no role in this minor passage. And even if 13: 1-7 concerns the hierarchical order of the earthly society, Paul avoids the metaphor of the body (cf. 12: 4-5), and does not demand that the addressees demonstrate love. Nevertheless, and despite all these incongruous points, if we approach this passage from a highly contextualized and specific historical perspective, it may be seen as continuing Paul’s exhortations to the Roman addressees within the overall lines of chapters 12-13. Romans 13: 1-7 may be seen as closely linked to its context when we consider 12: 3-16 as working ‘outwards’ from within the assembly, and affecting relations with outsiders (12: 17-21). Verses 13: 1-7 be‐ comes an extension of the command to live peaceably with all (μετὰ πάντων ἀνθρώπων εἰρηνεύοντες, 12: 18). Thus, even if the passage seems untimely, it continues Paul’s exhortations on a very specific subject. And it also bolsters the argument that Romans is a real letter with a specific purpose and situation, and not just various and general thoughts that Paul jumbled together incoherently and without intention. In 13: 1, Paul states that all must submit to the authorities (Πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω), because authority itself comes from God. All authorities exist because God has put them there, and they act in God’s service. As God has put the governing authorities in place, whoever resists these authorities resists what God has established. This does not mean that those who resist the governing authorities resist God; it means that they resist God’s deeds. And those who do such things will be condemned. However, if a person does the good (τὸ ἀγαθὸν ποίει, 13: 3), he will receive praise from the authority (ἕξεις ἔπαινον ἐξ αὐτῆς, 13: 3). The authorities are servants of God (θεοῦ διάκονός, 13: 4) and Paul admonishes the addressees to subject to them, not only to avoid God’s wrath, but also because of consciousness (οὐ μόνον διὰ τὴν ὀργὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν, 13: 5). In 13: 6-7, Paul explains that for this same reason (διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ) they pay taxes (φόρους τελεῖτε). They are to pay all that is due to them (ἀπόδοτε πᾶσιν τὰς ὀφειλάς). In these verses, (13: 6-7), Paul turns di‐ rectly to concrete concerns and problems confronting the Roman assembly. Διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ refers back to the discussion in the previous verses (13: 1-5), and supplies the practical point of this passage: Despite any pressures to the con‐ trary, the Roman assembly should continue to pay the tribute taxes (φόρους τελεῖτε). The logic expressed in this argument is that as they (of course) accept the ruling authorities as servants of God (13: 1-5), they should also continue to pay the taxes (13: 6-7). Recent commentators widely agree that the background of the discussion of tribute taxes (φόρους) and indirect taxes (τέλος) should be 14 Romans 12-15 and the relationship between theology and paraenesis 322 <?page no="323"?> 19 Cf. Jewett 2007, 798; Byrne 1996, 386; Fatum 2015, 256. 20 The following presentation rests on Coleman 1997. 21 Brunt 1990, 327 related to the unrest in Rome during the period before 58 CE, when a formal tax protest was brought before Nero. 19 The tax (φόρος) to which Paul refers in 13: 6-7 was a direct tax and an obli‐ gation for the inhabitants of all lands conquered by the Roman Empire. 20 The φόρος came in the form of a land tax (tributum soli) and a poll tax (tributum capitis), and it was levied on those living in the Roman provinces whether or not they were Roman citizens. The emperor Augustus considered exemption from this (and all other taxes) the greatest privilege of all. 21 Hence, all cities sought this exemption, even if it was seldom granted. Only those who lived in Roman colonies or had been awarded the ius Italicum were free of this obligation. If a person came from a conquered land and had resided in that land during the previous census (taken in 54-55 CE), this person would have to pay tribute (φόρος), just as all other provincials, even if the person had moved to the capital of the Empire. Now, foreigners or provincials who lived in Rome would have been liable for provincial taxes, and also indirect Roman taxes, such as τέλος. It is quite possible that they would have expressed discontent with this situation. From Tacitus’ Annales (13.50-51) we know that during the mid-50s there was growing anger among tax-payers, because the publicani (tax-collectors) had be‐ come very greedy. This led to such severe and violent protests among tax-payers that Nero considered changing the whole tax system in 58 CE. Hence, this sit‐ uation would provide a specific and historically contextualized setting for Paul to admonish the Roman addressees about φόρος and τέλος. He asks them to not contribute to the civic upheaval, but to be good citizens and pay their taxes. The admonitions should not be taken as a universal doctrine for all subsequent be‐ lievers, but as specific exhortations to those living in Rome who were discon‐ tented with the unfair tax system. Thus, the exhortations of 13: 1-7 may be seen as extensions of the exhortations in chapter 12, as binding commitments to those inside and outside the assembly. Romans 13: 8-14 Romans 13: 8-14 consists of two subunits (13: 8-10; 13: 11-14). The first subunit returns to the theme of love (cf. 12: 9-21), and the second subunit concerns the approaching end (13: 11-14). Together, these subunits summarize and conclude the first and more general section of the paraenetic part of Romans (12-13), Romans 13: 8-14 323 <?page no="324"?> 22 Brendan Byrne and Lone Fatum understand it in this way (Byrne 1996, 394; Fatum 2015, 261-262). 23 Jewett 2007, 808 24 Cf. Jewett 2007, 808 who quotes Philo (Praem. 83). 25 The first four come from Exod 20: 13-17 and Deut 5: 17-21; the last one is drawn from Lev 19: 18. before Paul turns to more specific exhortations concerning the behaviour of the believers when they meet (14: 1-15: 13). In 13: 8-10, Paul continues the line of thought from 12: 9-21. He explains to the Roman addressees how they are to practise love among each other, because love is the fulfilment of the (Mosaic) law. By telling them to not owe anyone anything (Μηδενὶ μηδὲν ὀφείλετε) except for love, he reaches back to an earlier passage (13: 1-7) where he used the word ὀφειλάς (13: 7). This underlines the continuity of the discourse across the thematic change from outer to inner ob‐ ligations among the believers. The idea of love fulfilling the requirements of the law (νόμον πεπλήρωκεν) is unmistakable in 13: 10 (πλήρωμα οὖν νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη), but in 13: 8 the matter is complicated, because of the expression ‘another’ (τὸν ἕτερον). Is this word to be taken for ‘another person’ or does it go together with ‘law’, meaning ‘another law’ (τὸν ἕτερον νόμον)? 22 I agree with Robert Jewett, who argues that the meaning of the phrase should be ‘the one who loves the other has fulfilled the law’, as Paul often refers to others with the term ἕτερος. 23 This would also continue the line of thought expressed in 13: 8a, where Paul used the word ‘another’ (τὸ ἀλλήλους). Αλλήλους clearly alludes to other believers within the assembly, and the statement in 13: 8b would then justify the statement provided in 13: 8a. In this way, 13: 8-10 anticipates the exhortations in 14: 1-15: 6 about welcoming one another (προσλαμβάνεσθε, 14: 1 and Διὸ προσλαμβάνεσθε ἀλλήλους, 15: 7), and not quarrelling over the observance of the law, concerning food and Sabbath prescriptions (14: 2, 5, 21). Love as the (Mosaic) law’s fulfilment is a typical Jewish expression for law observance. 24 In 13: 9, Paul cites five commandments from the (Mosaic) law to illustrate his point, 25 and in 13: 10, he concludes and summarizes the initial statement in 13: 8, and the quotations in 13: 9. Verses 13: 11-14 concludes the general admonitions in the first paraenetic part of Romans by emphasizing the moral obligations of the moment. These verses harken back to 12: 2 about not conforming to this age, and with 12: 1-2, they bracket the first paraenetic part of Romans. The general metaphor Paul applies proceeds from the image of people awakening from sleep in the morning. Paul adds urgency to his previous exhortations by calling attention to the time (τὸν καιρόν) in which they stand. The hour for them to wake from sleep is already 14 Romans 12-15 and the relationship between theology and paraenesis 324 <?page no="325"?> 26 Karris 2001 [1977], 65ff. 27 Cf. Sampley 1995, 40ff.; Jewett 2007, 834; Haacker 1999, 278f. here (ὥρα ἤδη ὑμᾶς ἐξ ὕπνου ἐγερθῆναι), and this provides the justification for them (the Roman addressees) to lay aside the works of darkness (τὰ ἔργα τοῦ σκότους, 13: 12). The works of darkness represent their old Gentile way of living (cf. 1: 18-32), which they are to lay aside so they may put on the armour or weapons of light (τὰ ὅπλα τοῦ φωτός). They are to walk honourably (εὐσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν, 13: 13), and not in reveling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarrelling and jealousy (μὴ κώμοις καὶ μέθαις, μὴ κοίταις καὶ ἀσελγείαις, μὴ ἔριδι καὶ ζήλω). Instead, they should put on (ἐνδύσασθε) the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to gratify its desires (εἰς ἐπιθυμίας). The imagery of putting on Christ and laying aside the works of darkness is reminiscent of the description of baptism in 6: 3- 4 (also cf. Gal 3: 27). They have died to their old life so they may walk in the newness of life (ἡμεῖς ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς περιπατήσωμεν, 6: 5). Also, as in 6: 12- 13, where Paul tells the addressees to not present their members to sin as weapons of righteousness (μηδὲ παριστάνετε τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν ὅπλα ἀδικίας τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ), so he tells them here to put on the weapons or armour of light (τὰ ὅπλα τοῦ φωτός, 13: 12). They no longer live as ‘regular’ Gentiles, but live in a jewishish way in which they fulfil the (Mosaic) law by loving one another (13: 8). They should not let sin exercise dominion in their mortal bodies so they obey their desires (Μὴ οὖν βασιλευέτω ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ θνητῷ ὑμῶν σώματι εἰς τὸ ὑπακούειν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις αὐτοῦ, 6: 12). They should live decently or honourably (εὐσχημόνως, 13: 13) and not give in to their (Gentile-ish) desires (εἰς ἐπιθυμίας, 13: 14; cf. 1: 24; 6: 12; 7: 7). The ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ in 14: 1-15: 6 Some scholars doubt that Paul addresses a specific problem in the Roman con‐ gregation in 14: 1-15: 6, because the paraenesis emerges as a generalized reprise of the argument in 1 Cor 8-10, 26 or because it appears deliberately oblique, and thus opaque. 27 However, certain factors indicate that this passage is important for Paul’s purpose in writing Romans, and that it addresses specific concerns of the Roman congregation. These factors pertain to the space Paul devotes to the problems, his careful description of the opposing positions, and the prominence of the passage at the end of the paraenesis. These factors support the claim that The ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ in 14: 1-15: 6 325 <?page no="326"?> 28 Cf. Moo 1996, 855; Fitzmyer 1993, 697; Jewett 2007, 862; Gagnon 1998, 688. 29 This interpretation is preferred by John Barclay, cf. Barclay 1996, 287-308. Paul’s general intention in Romans is to secure the unity and order of the as‐ sembly, and it marks the passage as important. Paul’s exhortations in 14: 1-15: 6 concern the behaviour of ‘the strong’ and ‘the weak’ when they eat together. Verses 14: 1-12 calls the Roman congregation to mutually accept and be patient with one another (14: 1-9), and rebukes them for judging and despising one another (14: 10-12). ‘The weak’ who follow a more restricted diet should not judge ‘the strong’ who eat and drink everything. ‘The strong’ should not despise ‘the weak’ because of their freedom (14: 16). 28 Verses 14: 13-23 continues the preceding exhortations, but focuses specifically on the offence that might be caused by consuming certain food (14: 15). Paul appeals to ‘the strong’ to adapt to the behaviour of ‘the weak’, so they may mutually build each other up. He continues in this vein in 15: 1-6, where he brings in Christ as an example to follow. Paul’s exhortation culminates in a call for both groups to ‘welcome one another, just as Christ has welcomed you’ (προσλαμβάνεσθε ἀλλήλους, καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς προσελάβετο ὑμᾶς, 15: 7). The second-person plural prepares the reader for the explicit identification of the (implied/ encoded) audience, with the explicitly mentioned ‘Gentiles’ (τὰ ἔθνη … τῶν ἐθνῶν) in 15: 14ff. The (Mosaic) law in 14: 1-15: 6 The term ‘law’ (νόμος) does not appear in 14: 1-15: 6. However, in this passage we are given valuable insights into the practical effects of Paul’s stance on the (Mosaic) law. In 14: 1-15: 6, Paul discusses law-observance in relation to food and Sabbath prescriptions, and he presents the practical consequences of his theo‐ retical and theological instructions. The two topics directly referred to are the restriction of diet to vegetables, as opposed to eating everything (14: 2, 21), and the observance of certain days, in preference to others (14: 5). A third topic, the drinking of wine (14: 21; cf. 14: 17), may be purely hypothetical, as drinking is normally combined with eating. 29 These questions must refer to Jewish scruples - of either Jews or Gentiles - about the consumption of meat considered unclean, and the observance of certain Jewish feasts or fasts. The obvious reason for this is that Paul describes the question as one concerning purity and impurity in a specialized or technical Jewish sense by way of the word κοινός (14: 14). In standard Greek, κοινός means ‘common’ in the sense of ‘shared’, but in a Jewish 14 Romans 12-15 and the relationship between theology and paraenesis 326 <?page no="327"?> 30 Cf. the same use in Mark 7: 15-23; Acts 10: 9-10; 11: 5-9; 1 Macc 1: 62. Also cf. Jewett 2007, 859f.; Haacker 1999, 277f.; Barclay 1996, 290; Esler 2003, 343; Byrne 1996, 404; Fredriksen 2010, 244. 31 Cf. Nanos 2015a; Johnson Hodge 2015. context it means ‘impure’, and this meaning is unattested in non-Jewish Greek. 30 Thus, the questions at stake in 14: 1-15: 6 concern prescriptions from the (Mosaic) law. The ‘weak’ keep Jewish kosher laws and observe the Sabbath, whereas the ‘strong’ do not. The ‘weak’ are law-observing Gentiles who wish to continue the Jewish practices of observing the law, whereas the ‘strong’ are non-law-observing Gentiles who do not wish to keep up the Jewish practice of observing the law on these matters. The tension between the two groups springs from this dissent. A perspective on the (Mosaic) law from inside and outside the covenant In Rom 3: 31, Paul states that the (Mosaic) law is still valid or upheld. Christ’s faithfulness incorporates the Gentiles into the family of Israel without making them Jews, but still partaking in the blessings related to Abraham. 31 This means that God somehow engrafts the Gentiles onto Israel’s family tree (cf. 11: 17ff.) as heirs of Abraham, even if they are not circumcised or under the law (cf. 6: 15). These observations are drawn from the theological exposition in Romans 1-11. However, in chapters 14-15 in the paraenetic part of Romans, Paul seems to simultaneously consider the (Mosaic) law from within and without Judaism. From within Judaism, the (Mosaic) law is still valid and in force, but Paul also supports the suspension or abrogation of the (Mosaic) law, because the law (as an expression of God’s covenant with Israel) is not for Gentiles. Thus, the (Mo‐ saic) law is still valid for the ‘weak’ if they wish to observe certain days, and abstain from eating certain foods, as long as they do it in honour of the Lord (14: 6), but the (Mosaic) law may simultaneously be suspended for the ‘strong’ if they wish to eat what they please, and not observe certain days, as long as they do it in honour of the Lord (14: 6). Hence, the (Mosaic) law is both in force and not in force. Both groups give thanks to God, and both answer only to Christ (14: 4). According to Paul, what matters is not specific behaviour that conforms to or repudiates the (Mosaic) law; what matters is loyalty to the Lord (14: 18). Whether or not one observes certain days or (do not) eats certain foods, such mutually exclusive practice should be made with reference to the Lord (14: 6-9). A perspective on the (Mosaic) law from inside and outside the covenant 327 <?page no="328"?> What Paul seems to be driving at in the abovementioned passages is a logic similar to that in Gal 5: 6. In Gal 5: 6, Paul states that neither circumcision nor foreskin counts for anything, only faith working through love, does. The logic undergirding chapters 14-15 in Romans is expressed four times in this passage, and forms an inclusio: In 14: 3, Paul states that God has welcomed ‘them’ (ὁ θεὸς γὰρ αὐτὸν προσελάβετο) (into the family of Israel as heirs of Abraham), so they should act accordingly (14: 1). In 15: 7, he states that Christ has welcomed them/ ’you’ to the glory of God (ὁ Χριστὸς προσελάβετο ὑμᾶς εἰς δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ) (into the family of Israel as heirs of Abraham), so they should also welcome each other (Διὸ προσλαμβάνεσθε ἀλλήλους). Thus, it is quite significant of these exhortations that Paul depicts the participants in the quarrel, not by referring to their ethnic backgrounds, but in terms of their relationship to Christ. This indicates that - in light of my consistent and continuous reading of Romans - both groups, ‘strong’ and ‘weak’, derive their identity from Christ, and that also tells us that both groups are Gentiles. But Paul, as an ‘insider’ of Israel κατὰ σάρκα, can consider the (Mosaic) law from either perspective, as he is an Isra‐ elite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin (ἐγὼ Ἰσραηλίτης εἰμί, ἐκ σπέρματος Ἀβραάμ, φυλῆς Βενιαμίν, 11: 1), but he is also apostle to the Gentiles (εἰμι ἐγὼ ἐθνῶν ἀπόστολος, 11: 13). He speaks as a natural insider to those defined as outsiders by the Jews, but his gospel concerns the inclusion of those outside, the ones who were not God’s people, whom God will now call his people (9: 25). 14 Romans 12-15 and the relationship between theology and paraenesis 328 <?page no="329"?> 32 According to Mark Nanos, a Gentile becomes a Jew when he undergoes circumcision (Nanos 2014, 28 n5; Nanos 2015a, 140). According to Nanos, this logically implies that if Paul addressed proselytes (i.e. circumcised Gentiles), he would no longer be addressing Gentiles, but Jews. However, I would argue for a more nuanced and non-essentialist definition of proselytized Gentiles as Jews. From a theoretical perspective, I endorse J.Z. Smith’s polythetic mode of classification, according to which inclusion in a group cannot be established through a determinate number of attributes, and hence not through a ‘final’ attribute such as circumcision (Smith 1982, 1-18). From a historical perspective, I consider Shaye Cohen’s examples of seven different degrees of ‘becoming Jewish’ as evidence that, even if a Gentile converted to Judaism and became a proselyte, he would still not be regarded as a Jew equal (in social status, ethnicity, religion, etc.) to a historical-ethnic Jew (Cohen 1999, 140ff.; especially 160). 33 Scholars who consider this option, cf. Byrne 1996, 404; Dunn 1988, 2.811. Could ‘the strong’ and ‘the weak’ be proselytes and/ or God-fearers? 32 In Rom 14, Paul writes with sympathy, or at least a concern, for the views of the ‘weak’, as one who understands and appreciates their point of view, although he personally diverges it. He knows exactly how deeply rooted their convictions are, and what Scriptural support they could claim, because he is a Jew κατὰ σάρκα himself. It is not difficult to imagine Gentile proselytes or ‘God-fearers’ in Rome continuing their Jewish commitments after accepting Christ as the Messiah of the Gentiles, and who therefore judged the non-law-observing Gen‐ tiles as sinners. 33 These ‘weak’ Gentiles might well have judged non-law-ob‐ serving Gentiles as sinners, or lectured them about the (Mosaic) law (cf. 2: 17- 24), and Paul did not want to intimidate or antagonize the latter. After all, he did not found the assembly, and he explicitly states that he has written rather boldly on some points, because of the grace given to him by God to be a minister of Christ to the Gentiles, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable (15: 15-16). Thus, Paul cannot be as outspoken, harsh, and direct in his exhor‐ tations to the Roman Gentiles as he could be in the other letters to his ‘own’ assemblies, because this was not his ‘own’ assembly, and he did not wish to build on somebody else’s foundation (15: 20). Therefore, in order to state his case and attempt to mediate the conflict, he must walk cautiously, and not alienate, an‐ tagonize, or estrange the ‘weak’, law-observing Gentiles in Rome. If they were proselytes or ‘God-fearers’, they had an interest in maintaining ethical, social, and theological relations with Jewish society, and Paul would wish to maintain and secure them in this relationship. But his gospel to the Gentiles concerning God’s righteousness implies certain ethical, social/ practical, and theological ad‐ justments, and these are the ones he attempts to communicate to the Roman assembly in the theological (1-11) and paraenetic (12-15) part of Romans. Could ‘the strong’ and ‘the weak’ be proselytes and/ or God-fearers? 329 <?page no="330"?> Paul assumes that the ‘weak’ consider their vegetarian practices and observ‐ ance of certain days central to their faith, because their way of life is ‘in honour of the Lord‘ (14: 6). Thus, even if they were Jewish proselytes or ‘God-fearers’, they still considered themselves as having some relation to Christ. If these ‘weak’ ones were pressured to drop their practices, they might lose their faith (14: 20- 23). If the ‘weak’ insist on observing certain days and abstaining from eating certain foods, Paul allows them to do that, as long as they do it in honour of the Lord. But it does not make sense to claim that the ‘weak’ represent a histor‐ ical-ethnic Jewish segment of the assembly, as Paul positions himself on the side of the ‘strong’ (15: 1). That Paul was on the side of the ‘strong’ indicates that at least one Jew was reckoned among the ‘strong’. And although there was no particular need to declare his own position in the debate, in this context, Paul is quite comfortable in declaring that he knows and is persuaded in the Lord that nothing is unclean in itself (οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, 14: 14). He follows this statement with the claim that ‘all things are clean’ (πάντα μὲν καθαρά, 14: 20). These claims constitute nothing less than a fundamental rejection of the (Mo‐ saic) law with regard to food. Yet Paul still does not tell the ‘weak’ to stop ob‐ serving the (Mosaic) law - he does not overthrow the law, but upholds it. Thereby, he carves out a position for imitators of Judaism (jewishish Gentiles or ex-pagan pagans) to remain closely related to Judaism in an assembly where such behaviour is not necessary. That Paul numbers himself among the ‘strong’ indicates that he has not been arguing with the ‘strong’ throughout chapters 2-11 in the dialogue. The focus of Paul’s discourse has been the ‘weak’, which is why the exhortations in 14-15 parallel the position of the pretentious Gentile in 2-11. In 14: 3, Paul appeals to the ‘weak’ to not judge (ὁ δὲ μὴ ἐσθίων τὸν ἐσθίοντα μὴ κρινέτω) those who eat all foods. The ‘weak’ are the ones inclined to judge (cf. 14: 3, 10, 22), and this clearly echoes Paul’s rebuke, in 2: 1ff., of the pretentious, fictive Gentile who wants to boast of his Jewishness: one who judges others (πᾶς ὁ κρίνων) con‐ demns himself (σεαυτὸν κατακρίνεις), because he does the exact same things (τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ πράσσεις ὁ κρίνων). In 14: 10, Paul asks this Gentile why he passes judgement on his brother (Σὺ δὲ τί κρίνεις τὸν ἀδελφόν σου), and in 14: 22 (and 14: 4 (ὁ κρίνων)) he repeats the address from 2: 1 almost verbatim (ὁ μὴ κρίνων), which, just as in 2: 1, leads to a judgement of himself (κατακέκριται, 14: 23). In 2: 3, Paul explains that the one who judges will not escape the judgement of God, and in 14: 10 he reiterates that whether you judge your brother or sister, or whether you despise your brother or sister, everyone will face God’s judgement. In 14: 23, Paul states that it will have fatal consequences for the ‘weak’, if they have doubts about what they eat, because they thereby condemn themselves. 14 Romans 12-15 and the relationship between theology and paraenesis 330 <?page no="331"?> 34 I take the speaking subject of 7: 7-25 to represent the fictive Gentile with whom Paul has been arguing since 2: 1. For a similar stance, cf. Stowers 1994, 180-202; Das 2007, 212-235. 35 Cf. Barclay 2013, 202 Such a situation, where a person ‘realizes’ that he has acted contrary to the way he intended, recalls the soliloquy of the penitent Gentile in 7: 7-25, where he confessed that he could not keep the law, even though he had given the im‐ pression that he could. 34 All these observations add to and support the argument concerning the unity, coherence, and progression of Romans from the beginning of the discourse in 1: 18 to the conclusions in 15: 13. And they also strengthen the conclusion that the problems in the Roman assembly seemed to revolve around the fact that the faith of the ‘weak’ was vulnerable. 35 This would very closely match a situation where a Gentile proselyte or ‘God-fearer’ wanted to appear jewishish (and ‘calls himself a Jew’ (2: 17)), in order to gain, or give the impression of ethno-socio-religious Jewish status, honour, and respect. Why does Paul’s position vacillate with regard to the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’? Although Paul holds his own opinions, and positions himself among the ‘strong’, he allows himself an element of subjectivity in the definition of ‘proper conduct’ related to diet and calendar. In 14: 14, he declares that food is unclean to anyone who considers it such. The same kind of reasoning is evident in 14: 5-6, where the questions of observed days and food are paralleled: Each person must act according to his own conviction (ἕκαστος ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ νοῒ πληροφορείσθω, 14: 5). This means that anyone may act as he pleases - even if the effect is the opposite - as long as it honours the Lord: Let those who observe the day, observe it in honour of the Lord; those who eat, eat in honour of the Lord; those who abstain from eating certain things, abstain in honour of the Lord, and give thanks to God (cf. 14: 6). This individual stance towards moral issues is further reinforced in 14: 22, when Paul states that the faith of the individual is between himself and God (σὺ πίστιν [ἣν] ἔχεις κατὰ σεαυτὸν ἔχε ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ). The consequence of this is that matters of diet or the Sabbath cannot act as part of the defining structure of the assembly. Instead, the kingdom of God must be considered ‘righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit’ (14: 17). However, this does not imply a lack of moral seriousness. Each individual must live as the household slave (οἰκέτης) of the Lord (κύριος) (14: 4), in anticipation of the final judgement, when a personal account must be given before God (14: 12). Everything must be Why does Paul’s position vacillate with regard to the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’? 331 <?page no="332"?> done to honour the Lord, and all actions will be judged by God (cf. 2: 6-16). In this sense, living ‘inside’ or ‘outside’ the (Mosaic) law makes no difference. But the foundation upon which one enters into a relationship with the (Mosaic) law differs. As we saw in the analysis of 3: 31, the (Mosaic) law may be viewed from various perspectives, or involve different approaches. What matters to Paul in this passage is that the Roman believers should ‘welcome each other’ (προσλαμβάνεσθε ἀλλήλους, 15: 7) and tolerate each other, even if they differ in observing the rules under discussion. Mutual acceptance requires that neither the ‘strong’ nor the ‘weak’ allow their convictions to determine the contours of the assembly. Thus, in one sense, the law is overthrown, but in another, it is upheld. Because Paul requires both the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ to mutually accept each other, and not judge or condemn each other (Μηκέτι οὖν ἀλλήλους κρίνωμεν, 14: 13), he asks the ‘strong’ to avoid acting in a way that would cause the ‘weak’ to stumble or fall. He warns the ‘strong’ to not act in a way that would result in the injury or destruction of the ‘weak’ (14: 15). Obviously, the ‘weak’ were more vulnerable than the ‘strong’, and the ‘strong’ might have pressured them (ἐξουθενεῖν, 14: 3) to act contrary to their convictions. Such despising could undermine the commitment of the ‘weak’ to the assembly. Thus, the situation seems to be that the ‘weak’, law-observing Gentiles were socially vulnerable and more easily induced to adopt the practices of the ‘strong’ than vice versa. There‐ fore, Paul instructs the ‘strong’ to not despise them, and, instead, protect the law-observance by the ‘weak’, both for their own sakes and for the sake of Christ, who redeemed them (14: 15; 14: 20). As Paul does not return to the problem of observing certain days as more important than others (14: 5-6), the ‘strong’ ac‐ commodating the ‘weak’ - thereby confirming the validity of the (Mosaic) law - might ultimately concern the practices of the ‘weak’ in relation to food (14: 15, 20). Thus, the instruction must be that the ‘strong’ should cease to offer food at the communal meals, if the ‘weak’ are unable to eat it (cf. 14: 21). Consequently, when the two groups meet, the communal meal should consist only of food (and drink) that the ‘weak’ may consume without scruples. When they ‘welcome each other’ (15: 7) at the communal meals, the ‘strong’ should adapt to the ‘weak’, and allow for Jewish scruples arising from the (Mosaic) law. Paul allows for both the observance and non-observance of the (Mosaic) law, so the assembly may meet and stay together. The effect of Paul’s advice was that the law-observing ‘weak’ Gentiles were able to preserve their relationship with the Jewish community when eating and attending synagogue gatherings, thereby enabling them to uphold their place and position in the Jewish community, and preserve their Jewish identity. The 14 Romans 12-15 and the relationship between theology and paraenesis 332 <?page no="333"?> way in which Paul grants this permission is somewhat patronizing. He positions himself on the side of the ‘strong’, he affirms the mindset of the ‘strong’, and he designates the ‘weak’ as ‘the weak’. Consequently, Paul may grant the ‘weak’ permission to observe the (Mosaic) law, but his own theological taste tips to‐ wards the ‘strong’. Thus, his genuine concern for the validity of the position of the ‘weak’ is upheld, but his own conviction in the Lord is that observance of the (Mosaic) law regarding food may be abandoned (for the ‘strong’). He simul‐ taneously supports the observance of, and disregard for, the (Mosaic) law. One of the consequences of Paul’s instructions in 14: 1-15: 6 may be fatal - in the long run - to the social and cultural integrity of the law-observing Gentiles. However, I do not think Paul considers this a problem. In taking the position of the ‘strong’, Paul effectively undermines the position of the ‘weak’. No matter how palliative his instructions are in the short term, they preserve the tensions within the assembly, which, at some point, could result in a difficult social choice between observance and non-observance of the (Mosaic) law. Although he val‐ idates the expression of Jewish cultural tradition by the ‘weak’, he relativizes its significance, and undermines key aspects of its theological and intellectual foundations (for Gentiles). Paul tells these ‘weak’ Gentiles that their law-ob‐ serving commitment to the assembly is accepted, but not required, effectively saying that one may ignore or observe the Sabbath, and still honour God in equal measure. Why does Paul do that - why does he maintain the validity and le‐ gitimacy of the law, instead of telling the ‘weak’ to stop following the law, as he obviously considered the ‘strong’ position to be correct? I believe the reason is to be found on rhetorical grounds. Paul neither founded the Roman assembly, nor had he visited it before. Sometimes, he even indicated that his reputation or preaching was perceived as mixed or misunderstood (e.g. 3: 7-8; 14: 16). Thus, Paul had to proceed with tact, thoughtfulness, and finesse, embedding the ethical exhortations in a well-composed literary and rhetorically refined discourse. Chapters 1-11 may be perceived as exactly such a well-composed literary and rhetorically refined discourse. Hence, Paul could not just write to the Roman assembly as he did to the one in Galatia. He could not simply and crudely give the impression that he thought himself entitled to regulate their affairs in detail. He could not straightforwardly tell them what to do, but had to couch the in‐ struction in generalized terms, and exemplify the problems through a literary and theological discussion with a fictive interlocutor who was not completely stupid, but nevertheless represented the position of the ‘weak’, who needs in‐ struction. Consequently, in Romans Paul presents and formulates his exhorta‐ tions in apparently general terms, with the same kind of diplomacy or discretion that requires him to insist that all he has written is only a reminder (15: 15). Why does Paul’s position vacillate with regard to the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’? 333 <?page no="334"?> Discreetly, he walks a thin line between knowing the actual problems of the assembly, and not pronouncing directly on them, and thereby dishonouring them, so he proceeded with tact, finesse, and a rhetorically refined and literarily exemplified discourse. He couches the exhortations in generalized terms, yet with enough specificity to indicate to whom the instructions apply. In line with these speculations we must simultaneously and firmly emphasize that Paul has not yet in stricto sensu made the difficult social choice between observance and non-observance of the law the defining feature of group identity. On the contrary, in Romans 14: 1-15: 6 he made room for the observance of the (Mosaic) law for the ‘weak’ Gentiles. He has firmly established his position as consistent with contemporary Judaism by supporting the law, and there is no talk of a ‘third way’ or a ‘supersession’ of Judaism here. And we have to question whether this was any sort of option in Paul’s mind: If Paul’s gospel involved the inclusion of end-time jewishish Gentiles into the family of Israel, would the emphasis then be on the possibility of freedom from the law, or the possibility of maintaining relations with Jewish society and theology? Because of our Christian reception history, we may read more into the posi‐ tion of the ‘strong’ than Paul would have allowed. After all, both ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ Gentiles are merely wild branches engrafted unto the holy and cultivated tree of Israel (11: 17ff.). And there was no doubt in contemporary Judaism that the law was God-given, and observance of the Jewish way of life represented the most pious and virtuous mode of conduct conceivable. All Jewish literature from the period bears witness to this - particularly Josephus’s apology, Contra Apionem, which accurately states that Jews are utterly committed to the ob‐ servance of the law. Consequently, there may not be any paradox in this passage (14: 1-15: 6), because the defining feature of Paul’s gospel was the relation to, and continuation of Judaism, not the invention of Christianity. Therefore, it may not be as crucial a problem for Paul to uphold the law for the ‘weak’ while simul‐ taneously suspending the law for the ‘strong’, as it has become in our Christian tradition. Romans 15: 7-13 - Christ as servant of the circumcision to the Gentiles In Romans 4, we witnessed how Paul developed the argument that by sharing in the faith of Abraham, one necessarily shares in his circumcision. In this way, Abraham became a ‘father of circumcision’ (πατέρα περιτομῆς) even ‘according to the flesh’ of those who walk in the footsteps of his pre-circumcision faith 14 Romans 12-15 and the relationship between theology and paraenesis 334 <?page no="335"?> 36 Jewett 2007, 890; Fitzmyer 1993, 706; Keck 2005, 355; Haacker 1999, 296f.; Moo 1996, 877; Byrne 1996, 429. 37 Cf. the discussion in Garroway 2008, 166-171. 38 Cf. Gaston 1987, 133; Williams 1980, 286. 39 Jewett and Keck translate as do Williams and Gaston (cf. Jewett 2007, 886; Keck 2005, 355). 40 E.g. Byrne 1996, 428; Witherington 2004, 343; Haacker 1999, 292; Lohse 2003, 387 n6. 41 I agree with Joshua Garroway in his rendering of 15: 7-13 (cf. Garroway 2008, 173ff.). Garroway translates διάκονον περιτομῆς as ‘agent of circumcision’. (4: 11-12). Through faith, Gentiles share in Abraham’s circumcision, and thereby become Abraham’s heirs, ‘even according to the flesh’. In 15: 7-13, Paul makes a similar argument to the foregoing. Many scholars identify the reappearance of terms and phrases from chapter 4, 36 and my claim is that the two passages relate to each other, as theology relates to ethics. In chapter 4, Paul explained how Gentiles could be incorporated into the family of Israel by having Abraham as their father, and in 15: 7ff. he nails down the argu‐ ment with a scriptural florilegium from the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, describing Gentiles as worshipping side-by-side with God’s people. The meaning of this passage seems fairly simple, and the only problem is the tricky construction in 15: 8-9a, which has led scholars to at least five different possible meanings. 37 Sam K. Williams and Lloyd Gaston have presented a strong sug‐ gestion, where they read the genitive of Χριστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς in 15: 8 as a genitive of origin, and therefore translate thus: ‘Christ has become a servant of the circumcision’. 38 This implies that Christ comes from the Jews (i.e. the circumcised) as Paul stated in 9: 5 (ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα). 39 However, that Christ comes from the Jews does little better than Christ as a servant to the circumcision (i.e. the Jews), as the majority of scholars have it. 40 Neither rendering adheres to Paul’s words. They have to emphasize how Christ became a servant to all peoples, how Christ welcomed all peoples (15: 7), how he confirmed the promises to all peoples (15: 8), and how all people now glorify God (15: 9) that is, a traditional Christianizing and universal under‐ standing. But Paul does not say that Christ became a servant to all people. He says that Christ became a ‘servant of the circumcision’. The interpretation of Χριστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς in 15: 8 should be consistent with the meaning of 4: 1-12. This implies that Christ becomes an ‘agent of circumcision’. 41 Circumcision does not refer to circumcised Jews, but to circumcision itself. Christ enables Gentiles to be incorporated into the patri‐ archal covenant as though circumcised. This means that Gentiles will be con‐ sidered circumcised (even ‘according to the flesh’), because of Christ. This is the meaning of 15: 7: ‘Therefore, you should welcome one another just as Christ has Romans 15: 7-13 - Christ as servant of the circumcision to the Gentiles 335 <?page no="336"?> 42 So Lohse argues (Lohse 2003, 387). 43 Garroway 2008, 180 welcomed you for the glory of God’. Christ welcomed the Gentiles by becoming a minister of circumcision, in order to confirm the promises to the fathers (15: 8). Christ enables Gentiles to be admitted into the family of Israel, just as God promised. Thereby, Paul confirms that the (implied/ encoded) audience is en‐ tirely Gentile, and therefore he may continue to proclaim that Gentiles are glo‐ rifying God on behalf of mercy (15: 9a). There are no Jews in the picture, and Paul does not turn equally to Jews and Gentiles. 42 He focuses solely on Gentiles. Christ became an ‘agent of circumcision’ in order to confirm the patriarchal promises, and this happened a) in order that God may be truthful (15: 8) and b) in order that Gentiles might glorify God (15: 9). Christ facilitated an efficacious circumcision for Gentiles as διάκονον περιτομῆς, and that is why he welcomes them for the glory of God. Thus, the correspondence between Romans 4 and 15 amounts to this observation: Gentiles have found Abraham to be a ‘father of circumcision’ (πατέρα περιτομῆς), because Christ has become an ‘agent of cir‐ cumcision’ (διάκονον περιτομῆς) to them. Metaphorically, Christ becomes the agent that engrafts Gentiles onto the family tree of Israel (11: 17-24), because he is an agent of circumcision. Consequently, the Gentile situation described in 1- 11 finds redemption in the ethical admonitions of 12-15. The superiority of the interpretation of Christ as an ‘agent of circumcision’ follows from at least four points. Firstly, this reading accounts perfectly for the meaning of ‘the promises to the fathers’ in 15: 8. In 4: 13-17, Paul addressed the question of these promises, and he focused on God’s promise to Abraham that he would inherit the earth, and be the father of many nations (πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν). It also follows from the interpretation of chapters 9-11, with their em‐ phasis on God’s merciful election, which Paul reiterates in 15: 9 (ὑπὲρ ἐλέους). Secondly, the scriptural catena in 15: 9-12 focuses solely on Gentiles. Gentiles are glorifying God for the sake of mercy ‘just as it has been written’ (καθὼς γέγραπται). As Joshua Garroway points out, ‘Paul marshals evidence from each sector of the Hebrew Bible to show that the glorification of God by Gentiles has been a part of God’s plan all along’. 43 Only because scholars perceive Paul as addressing both Jews and Gentiles do they broaden the perspective of the quo‐ tations to include both groups. However, this has little to commend it, as only one of the citations of 15: 9-12 refers, even remotely, to Jews. Thirdly, in the subsequent passage (15: 14-21) Paul addresses a collective ‘you’ (περὶ ὑμῶν, 15: 14) which clearly refers to Gentiles. Paul apologizes for his harshness throughout the letter, but refers his practice to the fact that he is a servant of 14 Romans 12-15 and the relationship between theology and paraenesis 336 <?page no="337"?> Christ to the Gentiles (εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, 15: 16). The purpose of his mission is that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable (ἵνα γένηται ἡ προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν εὐπρόσδεκτος). Finally, 15: 7 opens with a Διὸ, which refers back to, and tran‐ sitions from 14: 1-15: 6. Consequently, Paul continues an appeal to someone who matches the audience addressed in 14: 1-15: 6. My firm interpretation of this passage is that Paul does not address Jews and Gentiles, but Gentiles exclusively. And if the only proof of the presence of Jews in 14: 1-15: 6 is the mention of Christ as διάκονον περιτομῆς in 15: 8, then one cannot claim that 15: 7-13 addresses Jews and Gentiles, simply because 14: 1-15: 6 does. In 14: 1-15: 6, Paul mediates a real conflict in the Roman congregation, where ‘the strong’ know that Gentiles need not rely on the (Mosaic) law, because only the faithfulness of Christ grants them admission to the family of Israel. However, ‘the weak’ - as Paul has pre‐ sented such a person by way of προσωποποιία throughout chapters 2-11 - might believe that observance of the (Mosaic) law is still required for reconci‐ liation with the God of Israel. Such behaviour would precisely match the prac‐ tices of a proselyte or ‘God-fearer’ prior to his conversion to Christ. Conse‐ quently, Paul addresses only Gentiles in his letter to the Romans, and his staging of a fictive Gentile interlocutor through προσωποποιία in a dialogue dovetails with the overall intent of the letter, and the relationship between the first, theo‐ logical (1-11), and the second, paraenetic (12-15), part. Thus, the Gentile situa‐ tion described in 1-11 finds its redemption, consummation, and realization in the exhortations in chapters 12-15, whereby the unity, progression, and coher‐ ence of Romans comes full circle. Romans 15: 7-13 - Christ as servant of the circumcision to the Gentiles 337 <?page no="338"?> Conclusion As I have argued throughout the close reading presented here, Paul wrote the letter to the Romans to inform the Gentile believers in Rome about his Gen‐ tile-oriented mission, and to advise the ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ Gentiles to live to‐ gether peacefully. He organized the letter in two major sections, one theological (1-11), the other paraenetic (12-15). In this book, I have argued that the latter, ethical section follows naturally from the theological, and that the theological part supports and validates the ethical. Hence, Paul composed the letter as one continuous discourse from beginning to end, with one specific group of addres‐ sees in mind: Gentiles. To conclude this interpretative exploration, I will summarise my results and reflect on them. Recapitulation of interpretative findings In the introductory chapters, I began by examining various proponents of the radical new perspective on Paul. The scholars I examined suggested narrowing the focus to Gentiles as the exclusive objects and addressees of Paul’s epistolary efforts. Also, the proponents of the radical new perspective suggested that these Gentiles should be conceived of as ‘Gentiles wanting to be Jews’ (jewishish Gentiles or ex-pagan Gentiles). This would make them similar to ancient groups described as ‘proselytes’ and ‘God-fearers’. From my examination of various features of Romans - first, the opening and closing sections of the letter (1: 1- 17; 15: 14-33; 16: 1-27), and also the stereotypical descriptions of Gentiles in 1: 18- 32, and the ongoing dialogue with an interlocutor throughout Romans - I ac‐ cepted that in Romans, Paul addressed Gentiles exclusively, as my point of de‐ parture. I found support for this interpretative perspective when reading Ro‐ mans, applying the ancient rhetorical concept of προσωποποιία, as applied by Paul in chapters 1-11 of Romans. Pairing my own investigations with insights from the radical new perspective, I approached Paul’s letter to the Romans with the intention of interpreting the letter straightforwardly, continuously, and comprehensively, as only and exclusively addressing Gentiles. In continuation of this, my interpretation did not aim for any specific historical reconstruction of the Roman assembly. I did not explore historical discussions about the actual <?page no="339"?> and historical effects of Claudius’ edict in greater detail, or the possible presence of historical-ethnic Jews in Rome at the time of the composition of Romans. Instead, I sought to offer a comprehensive interpretation of the letter as a letter in which Paul addressed Gentiles exclusively, in order to examine how far this interpretative perspective may be applied to a reading of Romans. I sought to substantiate this point of departure throughout my interpretation. My investigation of Romans from the above-described preconditions pro‐ duced new interpretations. For chapters 1 and 2 of Romans, my views were consistent with previous research, but as a consequence of my interpretation of Rom 2: 17 (in extension of Runar Thorsteinsson’s and Joshua Garroway’s work), I proposed a new and different interpretation of the dialogical exchange in Rom 3: 1-9: If Paul addresses a Gentile (and not a Jew) throughout chapter 2, it has consequences for the dialogical exchange in 3: 1-9 (and the rest of the letter): The dialogue from 2: 17ff. reflects the concerns of a Gentile who wants to asso‐ ciate with Judaism, instead of being a dialogue between Paul and a Jewish teacher of Gentiles (the position taken by Stanley Stowers and various other scholars). Hence, a Gentile is asking about the advantages and disadvantages of circumcision. In chapter 4 of Romans, I further developed Richard Hays’ suggestion con‐ cerning the understanding of Rom 4: 1. I followed Hays in regarding the question in 4: 1 as a nominative with infinitive, rather than an accusative with infinitive. As a result, I concluded that the question was posed by the same Gentile inter‐ locutor as Paul had argued with in chapter 3. In continuation of the discussion in chapter 3, the Gentile interlocutor again wanted to know more about his relation to, and position within Judaism, only this time in relation to the fore‐ father, Abraham. Paul answered the question by pointing out that Abraham became the father of not only the circumcised Jews, but also of those who follow in his footsteps without being circumcised (4: 11-12). Hence, the Gentile inter‐ locutor could also consider Abraham his forefather - even ‘according to the flesh’ - because he followed the example of Abraham’s pre-circumcisional faith. To be able to name a respectable forefather would be considered a major social advantage for a Gentile Christ-believer who wanted to associate with Judaism. In chapter 5 of Romans, I offered examples of Paul’s construction of the Gen‐ tile identity of the interlocutor. Paul’s description of Gentiles (including the ad‐ dressees of Romans) as (former) ungodly sinners and enemies of God (5: 6, 8, 10) confirmed the initial impression that Paul was conversing with a Gentile. In this chapter, Paul also informed the Gentile interlocutor about the background to his sinful nature. In keeping with other Second Temple Jewish authors, Paul exposed a perception of Gentiles as being radically different from Jews. Jews were able Recapitulation of interpretative findings 339 <?page no="340"?> to follow the (Mosaic) law and live a (relatively) sinless life with means of ex‐ piation within the covenant, if necessary. Because Jews had a covenant with God, they could overcome the mortal nature of human beings (which derives from Adam), and be raised by God on the Day of Judgement to eternal life. Gentiles were not able to follow the law, and could not conquer the mortal nature of human beings, because they did not live in a covenant between God and Israel. However, as the consequences of the work of Christ were so much greater than the consequences of Adam’s trespass, which was responsible for the mortal na‐ ture of human beings, Paul states that God has made it possible for Gentiles to conquer their mortal nature. In Christ, God has given the Gentiles an opportu‐ nity for eternal life (5: 21). If the Gentiles are to hold on to their opportunity of eternal life in Christ, they should not continue to sin. That is what chapters 6 and 7 of Romans expound upon. Previously, Gentiles were slaves under sin, but now, as they are baptized into Christ’s death, they should stop living in sin. They are no longer slaves of sin, just as though they had obtained a divorce (from a former spouse) (7: 1-6). Paul allows the Gentile interlocutor the opportunity to tell about his experiences of what it was like, earlier, to live as a Jew under the law. In exemplary fashion, the Gentile interlocutor bears witness to the ambiguous and unbearable situa‐ tion of wanting to fulfil the (Mosaic) law without being able to (7: 7-25). According to the reading proposed here, in chapter 8 of Romans Paul explains to the Gentile interlocutor about life in the spirit and future glory. Now that the Gentiles in Christ have received the spirit of God or the spirit of Christ - or because Christ is in them (8: 9-10) - they are no longer slaves of sin and death. They have been adopted into the family of God. They are no longer part of a futile creation, but live in the spirit. Because Paul has explained to the Gentile interlocutor that he may consider himself adopted into the family of God, where Christ is the firstborn son and Paul is a brother and co-heir, in chapters 9-11 Paul ensures that the Gentile does not think too highly of himself. Even if the Gentiles have been adopted into the family of Israel, there are still social distinctions within the family to be con‐ sidered. By being included into the family of Israel, the Gentiles have experi‐ enced increased status and honour. However, this social elevation is not uncon‐ ditional. The historical-ethnic Jews must be considered biological children, whereas the Gentiles are to be considered adopted children or wild, engrafted branches on a holy and cultivated tree (8: 15 and 11: 17-24). This means that social distinctions between biological and adopted children are to be upheld, even if they live together in the family, or on the olive tree. God chose Israel first, and the Jews have all the privileges (9: 3-5). But in Christ, the Gentiles have received Conclusion 340 <?page no="341"?> an opportunity to join the family and receive eternal life. This opportunity is superior to not being part of the family, but it is not as privileged as being a natural branch among engrafted branches. In chapters 12-15, Paul draws the ethical consequences of his theology as presented in chapters 1-11. The Gentiles used to live sinful lives, but now that they live in Christ, they should live accordingly (12: 1-2). This implies several individual and public precautions. Paul explains these in chapters 12 and 13. But most importantly, it has consequences for their behaviour within the assembly of believers in Rome. Paul addresses the behaviour of the ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ Gentiles in Rome, in chapters 14-15. Just as they (the Gentiles) have been wel‐ comed into the family of Israel by God and Christ (14: 3; 15: 7), they should wel‐ come and not despise one another because of what one eats or which days one observes. Even if the ‘strong’ are right in principle, they should concede their superior position, and carry the failings of the ‘weak’. Similarly, the ‘weak’ should stop judging the ‘strong’. They should accept each other’s behaviour, as they all live in honour of Christ, and answer to the same God. If they succeed in living like this, they will be regarded as worshipping God side-by-side with his people, Israel (15: 9-12). The achievements and limitations of my interpretation My interpretation of Paul’s letter to the Romans contributes to Pauline studies in at least three ways. First, my interpretation enlarges the field of scholarly interpretations of Romans. Second, my interpretation offers new alternatives for understanding the person Paul. Third, my interpretation provides further perspectives for our understanding of Paul’s missionary activity as an apostle. A main focus of my work has been the comprehensive and continuous in‐ terpretation of the letter, which has been a desideratum for more recent studies on Romans. Within the last century, the study of Romans has developed in var‐ ious ways. In the post-World War II years, scholars focused mainly on the first eight chapters of Romans, and the centre of attention was the ‘justification by faith’ in 3: 21-26. Krister Stendahl (and before him, Johannes Munck) was one of the pioneers of the next era. He sought to shift the focus, and include more chapters in the interpretation of Romans. Stendahl became renowned for his interpretation of Romans in light of chapters 9-11, and his outspoken attention to the ethnic interest of Paul between Jews and Gentiles. With the advent of the so-called ‘new perspective’ on Paul, and the contextualization of Romans within the larger body of Greco-Roman literature, more attention was given to the The achievements and limitations of my interpretation 341 <?page no="342"?> paraenetic parts of the letter, even though the emphasis often remained on the theological chapters. Parallel to this, a more content-oriented approach to Ro‐ mans involved a discussion of which chapters belonged to the original manu‐ scripts. Scholars discussed whether to include chapters 14, 15, and 16, or whether they were later additions. Even though more and more chapters were included in the overall interpretation of Romans, scholars still found it difficult to agree on a unified reading. In the 1980s, E.P. Sanders argued that chapter 2 was not originally Pauline (Sanders 1983, 123). The most influential interpretation of Romans within the last 25 years, by Stanley Stowers, had difficulty accounting for the shift in interlocutor from 2: 17ff. Even proponents of the radical new perspective, who focused on Gentiles as Paul’s primary objects of missionary activity, followed Stowers, and had difficulty distributing the right emphasis to various parts of the whole. In this monograph, my intent has been to present a straightforward, contin‐ uous, and coherent interpretation of Paul’s letter to the Romans, which considers the surface level of the discourse, from beginning to end. The opening part of the letter lays the foundation for the latter parts. The most important part of the letter comes towards the end of the body of the letter (chapters 14-15). Hence, Paul wrote Romans as a real letter, with the intention of intervening in the actual situation in the Roman assembly. He composed the letter as one consistent letter, which explained the Gentile situation to the Roman Gentiles, and gave them a theological horizon within which they could invest their lives with meaning. I believe this to be the simplest, most straightforward and coherent interpretation. My interpretation of Romans also contributes to Pauline studies with regard to a deeper exploration of Paul’s educational level. If Paul had the ability to conceive the idea of an exemplary fictive dialogue with a Gentile interlocutor, and to compose Romans by way of the rhetorical device of προσωποποιία, as argued here, he must have received instruction at the level of the Progymnas‐ mata. As a consequence, Paul must have come from a family that had the means to provide him with a proper Greco-Roman education. Such an education pro‐ vided Paul with the tools to orchestrate an international movement of assemblies by way of letter writing. Thus, the intellectual level of his approach to theolog‐ ical argumentation becomes more significant than hitherto considered, when analysing his communicative choices in light of the ancient Greco-Roman lit‐ erate education. In short, analysing Paul’s letter by drawing conclusions with regard to his literate education illuminates his situatedness in contemporary standards of rhetoric and rationality. A third way in which my interpretation of Romans may stimulate Pauline studies concerns our overall understanding of Paul’s missionary activity as an Conclusion 342 <?page no="343"?> apostle to the Gentiles. Many scholars - including scholars who do not endorse the radical new perspective - agree that Paul addressed Gentiles. But the letter to the Romans has always hindered the affirmation that Paul exclusively ad‐ dressed his message to Gentiles, mainly because scholars have identified a Jew as Paulʼs interlocutor in 2: 17ff. (and because of the influence of Acts on the understanding of Paul’s letters). However, my interpretation of Romans may inform Pauline studies in such a way that the agreement between Paul and Peter, as described in Galatians 2, may be taken at face value: Paul addressed his mes‐ sage exclusively to Gentiles, and Peter addressed his message exclusively to Jews. If this division between Paul and Peter constitutes the point of departure for our understanding of Paul’s letters, it affects every proposition in Paul’s letters to the extent that we must re-evaluate every one of them in light of this new rhet‐ orical possibility. Paul’s theology is specifically and exclusively addressed to Gentiles, and his message has no bearing on the proclamation of Christ to the Jews. Paul and Peter’s division between them of Gentiles and Jews would situate Paul firmly within Second Temple Judaism. Thus, in my interpretation, Paul should be seen as neither a cultural critic of Judaism, nor as an initiator of a ‘third way’ or a ‘spiritual Israel’. His missionary activity consists of paving the way within Pharisaic Judaism for end-time Gentiles, who wished to worship with Israel when Christ returns to judge the world, although bound to remain Gentiles, according to OT prophesies. Above, I have presented a renewed rhetorical situation of Paul’s propositions, which has important consequences for the interpretation of Romans. To begin with, we cannot take Paul’s propositions as valid theological statements about humanity in general. Paul’s statements concern Gentiles exclusively. Hence, ac‐ cording to the interpretation proposed here, there is no universalism in Paul. Instead, his propositions should be seen as coming from a stereotypical, intra-ethnic position - that is, Second Temple Judaism - concerning ‘us’ and ‘them’. Because, as I have argued here, Paul’s letters address Gentiles exclusively, his propositions should not be seen as affecting the perception of Jews in any general sense. If Jews maintain the covenant between God and Israel, they are saved (more or less). On the other hand, the Gentiles have no means of expiation to rectify the imbalance in their sinful relation to the God of Israel. At least, not until God sent Christ. Now, if, in consequence, Gentiles live in Christ, they may obtain a position within the family of Israel. However, this position reflects that of adopted children living with biological children, or that of wild olive branches engrafted onto a holy and cultivated tree. In such an interpretation, Paul con‐ structs a clearly hierarchical relationship among members of the family of Israel. Jews are already ‘in’, and have all the privileges, because they are, so to speak, The achievements and limitations of my interpretation 343 <?page no="344"?> biological children. Some Gentiles have gained access and are ‘getting in’ to the family through Christ, but these Gentiles should not be considered equal to Jews, because they used to be sinful Gentiles. Even more inferior are those Gentiles who have not gained access to the family of Israel. These Gentiles continue to live sinful lives because of their sinful nature. They will not be saved on the Day of Judgement, because they are not in Christ. This reconstruction of Paul’s the‐ ology leads to the proposal of two different types of anthropology - one for Jews and one for Gentiles. We see this outlook mirrored in Paul’s letters, in the re‐ curring problems of jewishish Gentiles or ex-pagan Gentiles, who try to live new and sinless lives. The application of this anthropological outlook may echo and foster new interpretations of Paul’s theology. Various critical questions and arguments, against the interpretation proposed here, could be raised. These may reveal the limitations of my reading. First, one might question how reasonable it would be, in a historical sense, for Paul to have exclusively addressed Gentiles in Romans? As I have stated above, the primary goal of reading Romans in light of a coherent argument is to understand the letter as an argumentative unity, by imagining an exclusive Gentile group of addressees. This is a proposal made by means of literary, rhetorical, argumen‐ tative, and theological analysis. I do not claim that my reading reflects the his‐ torical reality of the Christ-believing assembly in Rome in the late fifties CE. There may also have been Jewish members in the assembly, but conclusions on these matters would enter the realm of historical speculation. Instead, my in‐ tention has been to show how - for various reasons (e.g. his self-understanding as apostle) - Paul composed Romans programmatically as a letter to Gentiles only. My reading aims to illuminate how Romans presents itself, when put in this interpretative framework. A second question concerning my conclusions is, how can we know about Paul’s educational level? As with much other historical research, my reasoning about Paul’s educational level may be accused of being circular. From my reading of Romans, I infer an educational level that matches some plausible socio-eco‐ nomic level of education in ancient Greco-Roman society, for someone like Paul. I examine this educational level historically, and project it back onto Paul and his text, to check whether it matches. And it clearly does, as I extracted it in the first place from the text itself. Nevertheless, I would still argue that this percep‐ tion of Paul’s educational level is more historically plausible than a position that argues, for instance, that Paul composed his letters from an outburst of religious genius. In some way, I consider it evident that Paul received training at the level of the Progymnasmata, even if it has to be shown in the text that he actually is able to express such knowledge. But this conclusion is a contextualizing argu‐ Conclusion 344 <?page no="345"?> ment that draws its strength from its historical nearness to the progress and situation of Paul’s life. Besides, my position offers a more plausible account of several textual, literary, and rhetorical features of this text, which a position that argues from Paul’s genius cannot. Ultimately, there seems no better way of ap‐ proaching these matters than the one proposed here. Questions might be raised concerning my proposal about the non-universal‐ izing perspective of Paul’s missionary activities, or my presentation of Paul’s unbroken Jewish identity. These questions aim for the core of any reconstruction of a Pauline theology. Hence, any involvement with Paul should include a read‐ iness to discuss these matters, and not merely sketch possible outlines. Like any other scholarly reconstruction of this subject, my presentation is naturally limited by my own perceptions and proclivities. But I willingly bring these forth for further scholarly discussion and reconsideration. Any discussion of this subject may be of interest to historical scholars of Paul and systematic theolo‐ gians, and they may be open to further investigations. For instance, how plau‐ sible is a presentation of a dual anthropological outlook, in a historical compar‐ ison with other ancient authors who described the crossing over, or transition of former ‘outsiders’ to a group of ‘insiders’? Or how should we, theologically, evaluate the Pauline proposition of a more privileged group of believers as more natural and holy than a less privileged group of believers within a community of faith? I leave others to pursue such paths. The achievements and limitations of my interpretation 345 <?page no="346"?> Bibliography Sources Aphthonius, 2003, Progymnasmata - Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric, Brill, Leiden, 89-127 Hermogenes, 2003, Progymnasmata - Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhet‐ oric, Brill, Leiden, 74-88 Hippocrates, 1975, ‘Diseases of Women 1’ transl. by A.E. Hanson in Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 567-584 Josephus, 1956, Josephus in Eight Volumes, transl. by H. St. J. Thackeray, LCL, Harvard UP, Cambridge Josephus, 1963-1982, De Bello Judaico - Der jüdische Krieg, transl. by O. Michel & O. Bauernfeind, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt Josephus, 1959, Autobiographie, transl. by A. Pelletier, Les Belles Lettres, Paris Justinianus I, 1985, The Digest of Justinianus - Latin text ed. by Theodor Mommsen; English translation ed. By Alan Watson, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia Philo, 1935, Works, transl. by F.H. Colson, 10 vols, LCL, Harvard UP, Cambridge Philo, 1961-1992, Oeuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie, transl. by R. Arnaldez et al., Les Belles Lettres, Paris Plutarch, 1867-1935, Moralia, transl. by W.C. Helmbold, 15 vols., LCL, Harvard UP, Cam‐ bridge Plutarch, 1956-2004, Vies, transl. by R. Flacelière et al., Budé Polemo, 1893, Scriptores Physiognomici 2 vols. ed. by R. Foerster, Leipzig Pseudo-Phocylides, 1978, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides - With Introduction and Commentary by P.W. van der Horst, Leiden, Brill Quintilian, 1966-1969, Institutio Oratoria, transl. by H.E. Butler, 4 vols., LCL, Harvard UP, Cambridge Quintilian, 1956, Ausbildung des Redners, transl. by H. Rahn, 2 vol., Darmstadt Seneca the Younger, 1917-1925, Epistulae Morales, transl. by R.M. Gummere, LCL, Har‐ vard UP, Cambridge Seneca the Younger, 1945-1964, Lettres à Lucilius, transl. by H. Noblot, Budè Theon, A., 1997, Progymnasmata, Les Belles Lettres, Paris - 2003, Progymnasmata - Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric, Brill, Leiden, 1-72 <?page no="347"?> Secondary Literature Albl, M.C., 1999, ‘And Scripture Cannot Be Broken’: The Form and Function of the Early Testimonia Collections, Brill, Leiden Anderson, B.A., 2011, Brotherhood and Inheritance: A Canonical Reading of the Esau and Edom Traditions, Bloomsbury, New York Anderson Jr., R.D., 1996, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul, Pharos, Kampen Arnold, B.T., 2009, Genesis, Cambridge UP, Cambridge Assis, E., 2006, ‘Why Edom? On the Hostility Towards Jacob’s Brother in Prophetic Sour‐ ces’ Vetus Testamentum LVI,1, 1-20 Attridge, H., 1976, First-Century Cynicism in the Epistles of Heraclitus, Missoula Augustine, A., 1982, ‘Expositio quarundam propositionum ex epistula ad Romanos’ in Fredriksen 1982 Aune, D.E., 1991, ‘Romans as a Logos Protreptikos in the Context of Ancient Religious and Philosophical Propaganda’ in Hengel & Heckel 1991, 91-124 Badenas, R., 1985, Christ the End of the Law: Romans 10: 4 in Pauline Perspective, JSOT Press, Sheffield Barclay, J.M.G., 1996, ‘Do we undermine the Law? ’ in Dunn 1996, 287-308 - 1996a, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, T&T Clark, Edinburgh - 2013, ‘Faith and Self-Detachment from Cultural Norms: A Study in Romans 14-15’ in Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche 104/ 2, 192-208 - 2013a, ‘Under Grace: The Christ-Gift and the Construction of a Christian Habitus’ in Gaventa 2013, 59-76 Barr, J., 1992, The Garden of Eden and the Hope for Immortality, SCM Press, London Bartchy, S.S., 1973, ΜΑΛΛΟΝ ΧΡΗΣΑΙ, SBL Barton, J., 1998a, ‘Introduction’ in Barton 1998, 1-6 - 1998b, ‘Historical-critical approaches’ in Barton 1998, 9-20 - 2007, The Nature of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox, London Barton, J. (ed.), 1998, The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation, Cambridge UP, Cambridge Barton, T.S., 1994, Power and Knowledge: Astrology, Physiognomics, and Medicine under the Roman Empire, The University of Michigan Press Bassler, J.M., 1982, Divine Impartiality, Scholars Press, Chico - 1984, ‘Divine Impartiality in Paul’s Letter to the Romans’ Novum Testamentum 26, 1 Bauckham, R., 1989, The Bible in Politics: How to Read the Bible Politically, SPCK, London Baur, F., 1978, The Church History of the First Three Centuries, Williams and Norgate, London [Baur, F.C., Kierchengeschichte der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 1853] Secondary Literature 347 <?page no="348"?> Becker, E.-M., 2008, ‘Text und Hermeneutik am Beispiel einer textinternen Hermeneutik’ in Wischmeyer & Scholz 2008, 193-215 Becker, E.-M., Dietrich, J. & Holm, B.K. (eds.), ‘What is Human? ’ Theological Encounters with Anthropology, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen Becker, E.-M. & Pilhofer, P. (eds.), 2005/ 2009, Biographie und Persönlichkeit des Paulus, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen Bell, R.H., 1994, Provoked to Jealousy, J.B.C. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen - 2002, ‘The Myth of Adam and the Myth of Christ in Romans 5.12-21’ in Christophersen, Clausen, Frey & Longenecker 2002, 21-36 Benhabib, S. & Cornell, D. (eds.), 1987, Feminism as Critique, Polity Press, Cambridge Bernstein, N.W., 2005, ‘Mourning the ’Puer Delicatus”: Status Inconsistency and the Eth‐ ical Value of Fostering in Statius, ’Silvae” 2.1’, American Journal of Philology 126/ 2, 257-280 Bjerkelund, C.J., 1967, Parakalô: Form, Funktion und Sinn der parakalô-Sätze in den pau‐ linischen Briefen, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo Black, C.C. II, 1984, ‘Pauline Perspectives on Death in Romans 5-8’ JBL 103/ 3, 413-433 Black, M., 1973, Romans, Oliphants, London Blanton, W., 2007, Displacing Christian Origins, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago - 2011, ‘Dispossessed Life’ in Breton 2011, 1-29 - 2013a, ‘Mad with the Love of Undead Life’ in Frick 2013, 193-216 - 2013b, ‘Paul and the Philosophers - Return to a New Archive’ in Blanton & de Vries 2013, 1-38 Blanton, W. & de Vries, H. (eds.), 2013, Paul and the Philosophers, Fordham UP, New York Blumenfeld, B., 2001, The Political Paul, Sheffield Academic Press, London Boer, R., 2009, Criticism of Religion: On Marxism and Theology, II, Brill, Leiden - 2013, ‘Paul of the Gaps’ in Frick 2013, 57-67. Boers, H., 2001, ‘The Structure and Meaning of Romans 6: 1-14’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63, 664-682 Bolt, J., 1995, ‘The Relation between Creation and Redemption in Romans 8: 18-27’ CTJ 30, 34-51 Borgen, P. & Giversen, S. (eds.), 1995, The New Testament and Hellenistic Judaism, Aarhus University Press, Aarhus Bornkamm, G., 1991, ‘The Letter to the Romans as Paul’s Last Will and Testament’ in Donfried 1991, 16-28 Borse, U., 1994, ‘Schlusswort des Römerbriefes: Segensgruss (16: 24) statt Doxologie (VV.25-27)’ Studien zum Neuen Testament und Seiner Umwelt, Serie A 19, 173-192 Boyarin, D., 1994, A Radical Jew, University of California Press, Berkeley Bradley, K.R., 1987, Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire, Oxford UP, Oxford Bibliography 348 <?page no="349"?> Brand, M.T., 2013, Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen Brandenburger, E., 1962, Adam und Christus: Exegetisch-Religionsgeschichtliche Untersu‐ chung zu Röm. 5: 12-21 (1. Kor. 15), Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen - 1986, ‘Alter und neuer Mensch, erster und letzter Adam-Anthropos’ in Strolz 1986, 182- 223 Bredin, M.R.J., 1998, ‘The Synagogue of Satan Accusation in Revelation 2: 9’ Biblical The‐ ology Bulletin 28 no 4 Brenner, A. & Fontaine, C. (eds.), 1997, A Feminist Companion to Reading the Bible, Shef‐ field Academic Press, Sheffield Brunt, P.A., 1990, Roman Imperial Themes, Clarendon Press, Oxford Bryan, C., 2000, A Preface to Romans, Oxford UP, Oxford Burke, T., 2001, ‘Pauline Adoption: a Sociological Approach’ Evangelical Quarterly 73: 2, 119-134 - 2006, Adopted into God’s Family: Exploring a Pauline Metaphor, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove Burchard, C. (ed.), 2003, Joseph und Aseneth kritisch herausgegeben, Brill, Leiden Byrne, B., 1979, ‘Sons of God’ - ‘Seed of Abraham’: A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of all Christians against the Background Jewish Background, Biblical Institute Press, Rome - 1981, ‘Living out the Righteousness of God: The Contribution of Rom 6: 1-8: 13 to an Understanding of Paul’s Ethical Presuppositions’ The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43, 557-581 - 1996, Romans, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville Cameron, M., 2012, Christ Meets Me Everywhere: Augustine’s Early Figurative Exegesis, Oxford UP, Oxford Campbell, D.A., 1984, ‘Determining the Gospel through Rhetorical Analysis in Paul’s Letter to the Roman Christians’ in Jervis & Richardson 1984, Campbell, W.S., 1981, ‘Romans III as a Key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter’, NovT 23 - 2010, ‘The Addressees of Paul’s Letter to the Romans’ in Wil & Wagner 2010, 171-195 Caragounis, C.C., 1985, ‘Romans 5: 15-16 in the Context of 5: 12-21: Contrast or Com‐ parison’ NTS 31/ 1, 142-148 Carras, G.P., 1992, ‘Romans 2,1-29: A Dialogue on Jewish Ideals’, Bib 73 Carrol, R.P., 1998, ‘Poststructuralist approaches New Historicism and postmodernism’ in Barton 1998, 50-66 Castelli, E.A., Moore, S.D., Phillips, G.A. & Schwarz, R.M. (eds.), 1995, The Postmodern Bible, Yale UP, New Haven Secondary Literature 349 <?page no="350"?> Chesnutt, R.D., 1995, From Death to Life: Conversion in Joseph and Aseneth, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield Christoffersson, O., 1990, The Earnest Expectation of the Creature - The Flood-Tradition as the Matrix of Romans 8: 18-27, Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm Christophersen, A, Claussen, C., Frey, J. & Longenecker, B. (eds.), 2002, Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honor of Alexander J.M. Wedderburn, Sheffield Academic Press, London Clifford, A.M. & Godzieba, A.J. (eds.), 2003, Christology: Memory, Inquiry, Practice, Orbis Press, Maryknoll Clifton Black II, C., 1984, ‘Pauline Perspectives on Death in Romans 5-8’ JBL 103/ 3, 413- 433 Cohen, J., 2002, ‘A Different Insignificance’ in Paragraph 25/ 2, 36-51 Cohen, S.D.J., 1999, The Beginnings of Jewishness, University of California Press, Berkeley - 2005, Why Aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised? : Gender and Covenant in Judaism, Uni‐ versity of California Press, Berkeley - 2010, The Significance of Yavneh and Other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen Coleman, T.M., 1997, ‘Binding Obligations in Romans 13: 7: A Semantic Field and Social Context’ Tyndale Bulletin 48/ 2, 307-327 Collins, J.J., 2001, ‘The Origin of Evil in Apocalyptic Literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls’ 287-300 in idem., Seers, Sibyls, and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism, Brill, Boston - 2003, ‘Before the Fall: The Earliest Interpretations of Adam and Eve’ in Najman & Newman 2003, 293-308 - 2003a, ‘The Mysteries of God: Creation and Eschatology in 4QInstruction and the Wisdom of Solomon’ in Martínez 2003, 287-305. - 2005, The Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids Collins, J.J. (ed.), 2006, The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism vol 1, Continuum, New York Collins, N.L., 2005, ‘The Jewish Source of Rom 5: 17, 16, 10, and 9’ Revue Biblique 112/ 1, 27-45 Collins, R.F., 2002, ‘The Case of a Wandering Doxology: Rom 16: 25-27’ in Denaux 2002, 293-303 Cosgrove, C.H., 1996, ‘Rhetorical Suspense in Romans 9-11’ JBL 115/ 2 Cousar, C.B., 1995, ‘Continuity and Discontinuity: Reflections on Romans 5-8’ in Hay & Johnson 1995, 196-210 Cribiore, R., 1996, Writing, Teachers, and Students in Graeco-Roman Egypt, Scholars Press, Atlanta - 2001, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, Princeton UP, Princeton Bibliography 350 <?page no="351"?> Cranfield, C.E.B., 1975, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans vol. 1, T&T Clark, Edinburgh - 1979, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans vol. 2, T&T Clark, Edinburgh Crockett, C., 2011, Radical Political Theology, Columbia UP, New York Crook, J.A., 1967, Law and Life in Rome, Thames and Hudson, London Das, A.A., 2001, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant, Baker Academics, Grand Rapids - 2003, Paul and the Jews, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody - 2007, Solving the Romans Debate, Fortress Press, Minneapolis Dasen, V. & Späth, T. (eds.), 2010, Children, Memory, and Family Identity in Roman Cul‐ ture, Oxford UP, Oxford Daube, D., 1949, ‘Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric’ HUCA 22, 239-264 Davidsen, O., 1995, ‘The Structural Typology of Adam and Christ. Some Modal-Semiotic Comments on the Basic Narrative of the Letter to the Romans’ in Borgen & Giversen 1995, 244-262 de Boer, M.C., 2013, ‘Paul’s Mythologizing Program in Romans 5-8’ in Gaventa 2013, 1- 20 Deissmann, A., 1923, Licht vom Osten, Mohr (Siebeck), Tübingen (4’th ed.) Delatte, L., 1942, Les Traités de la royauté d’Ecphante, Diotogène et Sthénidas, Faculté de philosophie et lettres, Liège Denaux, A. (ed.), 2002, New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis, Leuven UP, Leuven Dinkler, E., 1974, ‘Römer 6,1-14 und das Verhältnis von Taufe und Rechtfertigung bei Paulus’ in Lorenzi 1974, 83-103 Dochhorn, J., 2015, ‘Romerbrevet 16: Eksegetiske problemer og teologiske perspektiver’ in Larsen & Engberg-Pedersen 2015, 295-322 Donaldson, T.L., 1993, ‘’Riches for the Gentiles” (Rom 11: 12)’ JBL 112/ 1 - 2006, ‘Jewish Christianity, Israel’s Stumbling and the Sonderweg Reading of Paul’ JSNT 29.1 - 2015, ‘Paul within Judaism: A Critical Evaluation from a ’New Perspective” Perspective’ in Nanos & Zetterholm 2015, 277-301 Donfried, K.P. (ed.), 1991 [1977], The Romans Debate, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids Donfried, K.P., 1991a, ‘Introduction’ in Donfried 1991, xliv-lxxii - 1991b, ‘False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans’ in Donfried 1991, 102-125 Dunn, J.D.G., 1983, ‘The New Perspective on Paul’ Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 65/ 2, 95-122 - 1988, Romans 1-8, Word Books, Dallas - 1988, Romans 9-16, Word Books, Dallas - 1998, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids Secondary Literature 351 <?page no="352"?> - 1999, ‘Who Did Paul Think He Was? A Study of Jewish-Christian Identity’ NTS 45, 174-193 - 2005, The New Perspective on Paul, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen - 2005, ‘Yet Once More - ’The Works of the Law”, A Response’ in Dunn 2005, 207-220 Dunn, J.D.G. (ed.), 1996, Paul and the Mosaic Law, J.C.B. Mohr, Tübingen Earnshaw, J.D., 1994, ‘Reconsidering Paul’s Marriage Analogy in Romans 7.1-4’ NTS 40, 68-88 Easter, M.C., 1994, ‘The Pistis Christou Debate’ JBL 113/ 2, 265-285 Eastman, S., 2002, ‘Whose Apocalypse? The Identity of the Sons of God in Romans 8: 19’ JBL 121/ 2, 263-277 - 2010, ‘Israel and Divine Mercy in Galatians and Romans’ in Wilk & Wagner 2010, 147- 170 - 2013, ‘Double Participation and the Responsible Self in Romans 5-8’ in Gaventa 2013, 93-110 Edelman, D.V. (ed.), 1995, ‘You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He is Your Brother’: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition, Scholars Press, Georgia Eisenbaum, P., 2005, ‘Paul, Polemics, and the Problem with Essentialism’ Biblical Inter‐ pretation 13/ 3, 224-238 - 2009, Paul was not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle, Har‐ perOne, New York Elliott, N., 1990, The Rhetoric of Romans, JSOT Press, Sheffield - 1995 [1994], Liberating Paul, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield - 2008, The Arrogance of Nations, Fortress Press, Minneapolis Engberg-Pedersen, T., 2000, Paul and the Stoics, T&T Clark, Edinburgh - 2003a, ‘Afslutning’ in Engberg-Pedersen 2003, 252-283 - 2008, ‘The Political Paul’ in Theologische Literaturzeitung, vol 133 no 2, 159-162 - 2010, ‘Paulus und das Politische’ in Reinmuth 2010, 50-67 - 2013a, ‘Paul, Philosophy, and the Theopolitcal Vision’ in Review of Biblical Literature 15, 398-403 - 2013b, ‘Paul and Universalism’ in Blanton and de Vries 2013, 87-104 - 2015, ‘Paulus som filosof (Rom 7,1-8,13)’ in Larsen & Engberg-Pedersen 2015, 189-212 Engberg-Pedersen, T. (ed.), 1995, Paul in his Hellenistic Context, T&T Clark, Edinburg - 2001, Paul Beyond the Judaism-Hellenism Divide, Westminster John Knox Press, London - 2003, Den Nye Paulus og hans Betydning, Gyldendal, Copenhagen Erickson, R.J., 1999, ‘The Damned and the Justified in Romans 5.12-21: An Analysis of Semantic Structure’ in Porter & Reed 1999, 282-307 Esler, P.F., 2003a, Conflict and Identity in Romans, Fortress Press, Minneapolis - 2003, ‘Ancient Oleiculture and Ethnic Differentiation’ JSNT 26.1 Bibliography 352 <?page no="353"?> Evans, E.C., 1969, ‘Physiognomics in the Ancient World’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 59/ 5, 1-101 Fatum, L., 2015, ‘Livet i Kristus som gudstjeneste på Jorden (Rom 12-13)’ in Larsen & Engberg-Pedersen 2015, 239-269 Feldman, L.H., 1993, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian, Princeton UP, Princeton Finkelstein, L. (ed.), 1989, Sifra, Jewish Theological Seminary, New York Fiorenza, E.S., 1983, In Memory of Her, SCM Press, London - 1993, Discipleship of Equals, Crossroad, New York - 1994, ‘Introduction’ in Fiorenza & Matthews 1994, 1-24 - 1999, Rhetoric and Ethic, Fortress Press, Minneapolis - 2007, The Power of the Word, Fortress Press, Minneapolis Fiorenza, E.S. & Matthews, S. (eds.), 1994, Searching the Scriptures, vol 1, SCM Press, London Fitzmyer, J.A., 1993, Romans, Doubleday, New York - 1993a, ‘The Consecutive Meaning of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ in Romans 5.12’ NTS 39, 321-339 Flebbe, J., 2008, Solus Deus, Walther de Gruyter, Berlin/ New York Fredriksen, P., 1982, Augustine on Romans, Scholars Press, Chico, California - 1988, From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Christ, Yale UP, New Haven - 1991, ‘Judaism, The Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2’ Journal of Theological Studies 42/ 2, 532-564 - 1995, ‘Did Jesus Oppose the Purity Laws’ Bible Review 11/ 3, 20-47 - 2000, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christi‐ anity, Vintage Press - 2003, ‘What does Jesus Have To Do With Christ’ in Clifford & Godzieba 2003, 3-17 - 2005, ‘Paul, Purity, and the Ekklesia of the Gentiles’ in Pastor & Mor 2005, 205-217 - 2009, ‘Historical Integrity, Interpretive Freedom: The Philosopher’s Paul and the Problem of Anachronism’ in Caputo & Alcoff 2009, 61-73 - 2009a, ‘One Nation, Under Gods’ Bostonia Spring 2009, 27-29 - 2010a, Augustine and the Jews, Yale UP, New Haven - 2010, ‘Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel’ NTS 56/ 2 - 2011, ‘Augustine on Jesus the Jew’ Augustinian Studies 42/ 1, 1-20 - 2014, ‘Paul’s Letter to the Romans, the Ten Commandments, and Pagan ’Justification by Faith”’ JBL 133/ 4, 801-808 - 2015, ‘Why Should a ’Law-Free” Mission Mean a ’Law-Free” Apostle? ’ JBL 134/ 3, 637- 650 Secondary Literature 353 <?page no="354"?> Fredriksen, P. & Reinhartz, A. (eds.), 2002, Jesus, Judaism, and Christian Anti-Judaism: Reading the New Testament After the Holocaust, Westminster John Knox Press, Louis‐ ville Gadenz, P.T., 2009, Called from the Jews and the Gentiles, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen Gager, J., 1983, The Origins of Anti-Semitism, Oxford UP, Oxford - 2002, Reinventing Paul, Oxford UP, Oxford Gagnon, R.A.J., 1998, ‘The Meaning of ὙΜΩΝ ΤΟ ἈΓΑΘΟΝ in Romans 14: 16’ in JBL 117/ 4, 675-689 Gamble, H. Jr., 1977, The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids Gardner, J.F., 1989, ‘The Adoption of Roman Freedmen’ Phoenix 43/ 3, 236-257 - 1998, Family and Familia in Roman Law and Life, Clarendon Press, Oxford Garroway, J., 2008, Neither Jew nor Gentile, but Both: Paul’s ‘Christians’ as ‘Gen‐ tile-Jews’, Dissertation from Yale - 2012, Paul’s Gentile-Jews, Palgrave Macmillan, New York Gaston, L., 1987, Paul and the Torah, Wipf & Stock Publishers, Eugene Gaventa, B.R., 2013, ‘The Shape of the ’I”: The Psalter, the Gospel, and the Speaker in Romans 7’ in Gaventa 2013, 77-91 Gaventa, B.R. (ed.), 2013, Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5-8, Baylor University Press, Waco Gerhard, G.A., 1909, Phoinix von Kolophon, Leipzig Gibbs, J.G., 1971, ‘Pauline Cosmic Christology and Ecological Crisis’ JBL 90, 466-479 Gieniusz, A., 1993, ‘Rom 7,1-6: Lack of Imagination? Function of the Passage in the Ar‐ gumentation of Rom 6,1-7,6’ Biblica 74/ 3, 389-400 Gillihan, Y., 2012, Civic Ideology, Organization, and Law in the Rule Scrolls, Brill, Leiden Given, M.D., 1999, ‘Restoring Inheritance in Romans 11: 1’ JBL 118/ 1 Glad, C.E., 1995, Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Pedagogy, Brill, New York Goguel, M., 1953 [1946], The Birth of Christianity, Allen & Unwin, London Gorday, P., 1983, Principles of Patristic Exegesis, Mellen, New York Gorringe, T., 1998, ‘Political readings of Scripture’ in Barton 1998, 67-80 Graybill, R., 2015, ‘Jeremiah, Sade, and Repetition as Counterpleasure in the Oracles against Edom’ in Holt, Kim & Mein 2015, 128-144 Grieb, A.K., 2010, ‘Paul’s Theological Preoccupation in Romans 9-11’ in Wilk & Wagner 2010, 391-400 - 2012, ‘The Righteousness of God in Romans’ in Sumney 2012, 65-78 Gutierrez, G., 1999, ‘The task and content of liberation theology’ in Rowland 1999, 19- 38 Haacker, K., 1999, Der Brief des Paulus and die Römer, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Leipzig Bibliography 354 <?page no="355"?> Hanneken, T.R., 2015, ‘The Sin of the Gentiles: The Prohibition of Eating Blood in the Book of Jubilees’ Journal for the Study of Judaism 46, 1-27 Harink, D., 2010, Paul, Philosophy, and the Theopolitical Vision, Cascade Books, Eugene Harrison, C., 2006, Rethinking Augustine’s Early Theology, Oxford UP, Oxford Harrisville, R.A. III, 2006, ‘Before ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ’ Novum Testamentum 48, 4, 353-358 Hawthorne, G.F. & Betz, O. (eds.), 1987, Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testa‐ ment, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids Hay, D.M. & Johnson, E.E. (eds.), 1995, Pauline Theology vol. III: Romans, Fortress Press, Minneapolis Hays, R.B., 1983, The Faith of Jesus Christ, Scholars Press, Chico - 1985, ‘’Have We Found Abraham To Be Our Forefather According To The Flesh? ” A Reconsideration Of Rom 4: 1’ Novum Testamentum XXVII, 1 - 1989, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, Yale UP, New Haven - 1995, ‘Adam, Israel, Christ: The Question of Covenant in the Theology of Romans: A Response to Leander E. Keck and N.T. Wright’ in Hay & Johnson 1995 - 1996a, ‘’The Gospel is the Power of God for Salvation to Gentiles Only? ” A Critique of Stanley Stowers’ A Rereading of Romans’ in Critical Review of Books in Religion 9, 27- 44 - 1996b, ‘Three Dramatic Roles - The Law in Romans 3-4’ in Dunn 1996, 151-164 Hengel, M. & Heckel, U. (eds.), 1991, Paulus und das antike Judentum, J.C.B. Mohr, Tü‐ bingen Hofius, O., 1996, ‘Die Adam-Christus-Antithese und das Gesetz. Erwägungen zu Röm 5,12-21’ in Dunn 1996, 165-206 Holsclaw, G., 2010, ‘Subjects between Death and Resurrection: Badiou, Zizek, and St. Paul’ in Harink 2010, 155-175 Holt, E.K., Kim, H.P.C. & Mein, A. (eds.), 2015, Concerning the Nations: Essays on the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, T&T Clark Hooker, M.D., 1989, ‘PISTIS CHRISTOU’, NTS 35, 321-342 Hopkins, K., 1983, Death and Renewal, Cambridge UP, Cambridge Horn, F.W., 2011, ‘Götzendiener, Tempelräuber und Betrüger’ in Wischmeyer & Scor‐ naienchi 2011, 209-232 Horn, F.W. (ed.), 2013, Paulus Handbuch, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen Horsley, R.A., 1997a, ‘General Introduction’ in Horsley 1997, 1-8 - 1997b, ‘Introduction’ in Horsley 1997, 10-24 - 1997c, ‘1 Corinthians: A Case Study of Paul’s Assembly as an Alternative Society’ in Horsley 1997, 242-252 - 2000a, ‘Introduction’ in Horsley 2000, 1-16 - 2000b, ‘Rhetoric and Empire - And 1 Corinthians’ in Horsley 2000, 72-102 - 2003a, Jesus and Empire, Fortress Press, Minneapolis Secondary Literature 355 <?page no="356"?> - 2003b, Religion and Empire, Fortress Press, Minneapolis - 2004a, ‘Introduction’ in Horsley 2004, 1-23 Horsley, R.A. (ed.), 1997, Paul and Empire, Trinity Press International, Harrisburg - 2000, Paul and Politics, Trinity Press International, Harrisburg - 2004, Paul and the Roman Imperial, Trinity Press International, Harrisburg Hultgren, A.J., 2011, Romans, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids Hübner, H., 1996, ‘Zur Hermeneutik von Röm 7’ in Dunn 1996, 207-214 Hvalvik, R., 1990, ‘A ’Sonderweg” for Israel’ JSNT 38 Janicaud, D. (ed.), 2000, Phenomenology and the ‘Theological Turn’, Fordham UP, New York Jervell, J., 1960, Imago Dei, Gen 1: 26f. im Spätjudentum, in der Gnosis und in den paulini‐ schen Briefen, Göttingen Jervis, L.A., 1991, The Purpose of Romans: A Comparative Letter Structure Investigation, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield - 2004, ‘’The Commandment Which Is For Life” (Romans 7: 10): Sin’s Use of the Obedience of Faith’ JSNT 27.2 - 2012, ‘The Spirit Brings Christ’s Life to Life’ in Sumney 2012, 139-156 Jervis, L.A. & Richardson, P. (eds.), 1994, Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield Jewett, R., 1982, ‘Romans as an Ambassadorial Letter’, Int 36, 5-20 - 2007, Romans, Fortress, Minneapolis Jobling, D. & Moore, S.D. (eds.), 1992, Poststructuralism as Exegesis, Semeia 54, Scholars Press, Atlanta Johnson, E.E., 2012, ‘God’s Covenant Faithfulness to Israel’ in Sumney 2012, 157-167 Johnson, L.T., 1997, Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary, Crossroad, New York Johnson, S.L. Jr., 1974, ‘Romans 5: 12 - An Exercise in Exegesis and Theology’ in Longe‐ necker and Tenney 1974, 298-316 Johnson Hodge, C., 2005, ‘Apostle to the Gentiles: Constructions of Paul’s Identity’ Bib‐ lical Interpretation 13/ 3, 270-288 - 2007, If Sons, Then Heirs, Oxford UP, Oxford - 2015, ‘The Question of Identity: Gentiles as Gentiles - but also Not - in Pauline Com‐ munities’ in Nanos and Zetterholm 2015, 153-174 Kalmanofsky, A., 2015, ‘’As She Did, Do To Her! ”: Jeremiah’s OAN as Revenge Fantasies’ in Holt, Kim & Mein 2015, 109-127 Kaminsky, J.S., 1995, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield - 1997, ‘The Sins of the Fathers: A Theological Investigation of the Biblical Tension Be‐ tween Corporate and Individualized Retribution’ Judaism 46/ 3, 319-332 Bibliography 356 <?page no="357"?> Karris, R.J., 2001 [1977], ‘Romans 14: 1-15: 13 and the Occasion of Romans’ in Donfried 1991, 65-84 Keck, L.E., 1995, ‘What Makes Romans Tick? ’ in Hay & Johnson 1995, 3-29 - 2005, Romans, Abingdon Press, Nashville Kennedy, G.A., 2003, ‘Introduction’ in Theon 2003, ix-xvi Kim, K.S., 2014, ‘Another Look at Adoption in Romans 8: 15 in Light of Roman Social Practices and Legal Rules’, Biblical Theology Bulletin 44/ 3, 133-143 Kimber Buell, D., 2005, Why This New Race, Columbia UP, New York Kirby, J.T., 1987, ‘The Syntax of Romans 5.12: A Rhetorical Approach’ NTS 33, 1987, 283- 286 Kister, M., 2007, ‘Rom 5: 12-21 against the Background of Torah-Theology and Hebrew Usage’ HTR 100: 4, 2007, 391-424 Klein, G., 1991, ‘Paul’s Purpose in Writing the Epistle to the Romans’ in Donfried 1991, 29-43 Kraus, W., 2013, ‘Die Anfänge der Mission und das Selbstverständnis des Paulus als Apostel der Heiden’ in Horn 2013, 227-237 Kümmel, W.G., 1975, Introduction to the New Testament, rev. and enl. ed. transl. by H.C. Kee, Abingdon, Nashville Käsemann, E., 1980, Romans, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids Holt. E.K., Kim, H.C.P & Mein, A. (eds.), 2015, Concerning the Nations: Essays on the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Bloomsbury, London Laes, C., 2010, ‘Delicia-Children Revisited’ in Dasen & Späth 2010, 245-272 Larsen, K.B., 2015, ‘At læse Romerbrevet bagfra. Konfliktmægling per korrespondance i Rom 14: 1-15: 13’ in Larsen & Engberg-Pedersen 2015, 271-294 Larsen, K.B. & Engberg-Pedersen, T. (eds.), 2015, Paulusevangeliet: Nye Perspektiver på Romerbrevet, Anis, Copenhagen Lampe, P., 1987, Die Stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten, Unter‐ suchungen zur Socialgeschichte, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen - 1991, ‘The Roman Christians of Rom 16’ in Donfried 1991, 216-230 Lawrence, L.J., 2003, An Ethnography of the Gospel of Matthew: A Critical Assessment of the Use of the Honour and Shame Model in New Testament Studies, Mohr Siebeck, Tü‐ bingen Lawson, J.M., 1994, ‘Romans 8: 18-25 - The Hope of Creation’ Review and Expositior 91, 559-565 Legarreta-Castillo, F. de J., 2014, The Figure of Adam in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, Fortress Press, Minneapolis Levison, J.R., 1988, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism, from Sirach to 2 Baruch, JSOT Press, Sheffield Secondary Literature 357 <?page no="358"?> Lieu, J.M., 2002, Neither Jew nor Greek? Constructing Early Christian Identity, T&T Clark, Edinburgh Lincoln, A.T., 1995, ‘From Wrath to Justification’ in Hay & Johnson 1995, 130-159 Lindsay, H., 2009, Adoption in the Roman World, Cambridge UP, Cambridge Little, J.A., 1984, ‘Paul’s Use of Analogy: A Structural Analysis of Romans 7: 1-6’ The Qatholic Biblical Quarterly 46, 82-90 Loades, A., 1998, ‘Feminist interpretation’ in Barton 1998, 81-94 Lodge, D. & Wood, N. (eds.), 2000, Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader, Longman, Harlow Loewenstein, K., 1973, The Governance of Rome, Martinus Nijhoff, Haag Lohse, E., 2003, Der Brief an die Römer, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen Longenecker, B.W., 1991, Eschatology and the Covenant, ( JSNTSup 57) JSOT Press, Shef‐ field Longenecker, R.N. & Tenney, M.C. (eds.), 1974, New Dimensions in New Testament Studies, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids Lorenzi, L. de (ed.), 1974, Battesimo e giustizia in Rom 6 e 8, Peeters Lühmann, D., 1989, ‘Paul and the Pharisaic Tradition’ JSNT 36, 75-94 Luther, M., 1908, ‘Wider die räuberischen und mörderischen Rotten der Bauern’ 344ff. in D. Martin Luthers Werke 18. Band, H. Böhlaus, Weimar Lyall, F., 1984, Slaves, Citizens, Sons: Legal Metaphors in the Epistles, Zondervan, Grand Rapids Maccoby, H., 1986, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Barnes & Noble, New York - 2002, The Philosophy of the Talmud, RoutledgeCurzon Malherbe, A.J., 1970, ‘Gentle as a Nurse: The Cynic Background of I Thess. 2’. Novum Testamentum 12, 203-217 - 1977, Social Aspects of Early Christianity, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge & London - 1989, Paul and the Popular Philosophers, Fortress Press, Minneapolis Malina, B., 1992, ‘Is There a Circum-Mediterranean Person? Looking for Stereotypes’ Biblical Theology Bulletin 22, 66-87 - 1996, The Social World of Jesus and the Gospels, Routledge - 2001, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, Westminster John Knox (3 rd ed.) - 2002, ‘We and they in Romans’ HTS 58/ 2 Manson, T.W., 1991, ‘St Paul’s Letter to the Romans - and Others’ in Donfried 1991, 3- 15 Marmorstein, A., 1920, The Doctrine of Merits in Old Rabbinic Literature, Oxford UP, London Bibliography 358 <?page no="359"?> Marrou, H., 1964, A History of Education in Antiquity, The New American Library, New York Marshall, I.H., 1999, ‘Romans 16: 25-27 - An Apt Conclusion’ in Soderlund & Wright 1999, 170-184 Martin, B.L., 1989, Christ and the Law in Paul, E.J. Brill, Leiden Martin, D., 1990, Slavery as Salvation, Yale UP, New Haven & London - 2009, ‘The Promise of Teleology, the Constraints of Epistemology, and Universal Vision in Paul’ in Caputo and Alcoff 2009, 91-108 Martínez, F.G. (ed.), 2003, Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, Leuven UP, Leuven Marxsen, W., 1963, Einleitung in Das Neue Testament: Eine Einführung in ihre Probleme, Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, Gütersloh Mason, S., 2007, ‘Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History’, Journal for the Study of Judaism 38, 457-512 Matlock, R.B., 2002, ‘Even the Demons Believe’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 300-318 McGinn, S.E. (ed.), 2004, Celebrating Romans: Template for Pauline Theology, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids McKeown, J., 2008, Genesis, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids McKnight, E.V., 1998, Postmodern Use of the Bible, Abingdon Press, Nashville McLean, B.H., 2012, Biblical Interpretation and Philosophical Hermeneutics, Cambridge UP, Cambridge Meeks, W.A., 1987, ‘Judgment and the Brother: Romans 14: 1-15: 13’ in Hawthorne & Betz 1987, 290-300 Meggitt, J., 1996, ‘Review of Bruce Malina’s The Social World of Jesus and the Gospels, Routledge, London’, JTS 49, 215-219 Melanchthon, P., 1944, The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon, transl. by C.L. Hill, Meader, Boston - 1955-1983, Werke in Auswahl, Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, Gütersloher Millard, A.R., 1994, ‘Story, History, and Theology’ in Millard, Hoffmeier & Baker 1994, 37-64 Millard, A.R., Hoffmeier, J.K. & Baker, D.W. (eds.), 1994, Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in its Near Eastern Context, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake Minear, P.S., 1971, The Obedience of Faith: The Purposes of Paul in the Epistle to the Ro‐ mans, SCM Press, London Moo, D.J., 1996, The Epistle to the Romans, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids Moreau, P., 1992, ‘Les Adoptions Romains’ Droit et Culture, 23, 13-35 Morgan, T., 2007, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds, Cambridge UP, Cambridge Secondary Literature 359 <?page no="360"?> Mortensen, J.P.B., ‘Anthropology or Ethnic Stereotyping in Paul? ’, in Becker, Dietrich & Holm 2017, 135-154. Munck, J., 1959, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, John Knox, Atlanta Mussner, F., 1979, Traktat über die Juden, Kösel, München - 1981, ‘Heil für Alle: Der Grundgedanke des Römerbriefs’ Kairos 23/ 4, 207-214 - 1987, Die Kraft der Wurzel, Herder, Freiburg Müller, H., 1967, ‘Der rabbinische Qal-Wachomer-Schluss in paulinischer Typologie’ ZNW 58, 73-92 Müller, J.-W., 2003, A Dangerous Mind, Yale UP, New Haven Moxnes, H., 1980, Theology in Conflict, Brill, Leiden Myers, B., 2013, ‘A Tale of Two Gardens: Augustine’s Narrative Interpretation of Romans 5’ in Gaventa 2013, 39-58 Nanos, M., 1996, The Mystery of Romans, Fortress Press, Minneapolis - 2014, ‘Paul’s Non-Jews Do Not Become ’Jews”, But Do They Become ’Jewish”? : Reading Romans 2: 25-29 Within Judaism, Alongside Josephus’ JJMJS 1: 26-53 - 2015, ‘Introduction’ in Nanos & Zetterholm 2015, 1-29 - 2015a, ‘The Question of Conceptualization: Qualifying Paul’s Position on Circumcision in Dialogue with Josephus’s Advisors to King Izates’, in Nanos & Zetterholm 2015, 105-152 Nanos, M. & Zetterholm, M. (eds.), 2015, Paul Within Judaism: Restoring the First-Century Context to the Apostle, Fortress Press, Minneapolis Najman, H. & Newman, J.H. (eds.), 2003, The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, Brill, Leiden Nesholm, E.J., 2005, Rhetoric and Epistolary Exchange in Ovid’s Heroides 16-21, PhD Dis‐ sertation University of Washington Neusner, J. (ed.), 1988, Sifra: An Analytical Translation volume 1, Scholars Press, Georgia Neyrey, J., 1990, Paul in other Words: A Cultural Reading of his Letter, Westminster/ John Knox Press - 1991, The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, Hendrickson Niebuhr, K.-W., 2013, ‘Der vorchristliche Paulus’ in Horn 2013, 49-55 Noffke, E., 2007, ‘Man of Glory or First Sinner? Adam in the Book of Sirach’ ZAW 119, 618-624 Nongbri, B., 2008, ‘Dislodging ’Embedded” Religion’ in Numen 55, 440-460 Norris, A. (ed.), 2005, Politics, Metaphysics, and Death, Duke UP, Durham & London Nygren, A., 1949, Commentary on Romans, Fortress Press, Philadelphia Odell-Scott, D. (ed.), 2007, Reading Romans with Contemporary Philosophers and Theolo‐ gians, T&T Clark, New York O’Neill, J.C., 1975, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth Bibliography 360 <?page no="361"?> Parsons, S.F. (ed.), 2002, The Cambridge Companion to Feminist Theology, Cambridge UP, Cambridge Pastor, R. & Mor, M. (eds.), 2005, The Beginnings of Christianity, Yad Izhak Ben-Tzvi, Jerusalem Peterman, G.W., 2009, ‘Δικαιωθῆναι διὰ τῆς ἐκ Χριστοῦ πίστεως: Notes on a Neglected Greek Construction’ NTS 56, 163-168 Petersen, A.K., 2015, ‘Romerbrevet 6: Kristusfigurens realitet hos Kristustilhængerne’ in Larsen & Engberg-Pedersen 2015, 161-188 Peterson, J., 1997, ‘Book Review: A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles’ Restoration Quarterly 39/ 1, 50-53 Pilch, J.J. & Malina, B., 1993, Social Values and Their Meaning, Hendrickson Porter, S.E., 1991, ‘The Argument of Romans 5: Can a Rhetorical Question make a Dif‐ ference? ’ JBL 110/ 4, 655-677 Porter, S.E. & Reed, J.T. (eds.), 1999, Discourse Analysis and the New Testament, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield Price, S.R.F., 1984, Rituals and Power, Cambridge UP, Cambridge Räisänen, H., 1983, Paul and the Law, J.C.B. Mohr, Tübingen - 1990, Beyond New Testament Theology, SCM Press, London Rauer, M., 1923, Die ‘Schwachen’ in Korinth und Rom nach den Paulusbriefen, Herder, Freiburg Rawson, B., 2010, ‘Degrees of Freedom’ in Dasen & Späth 2010, 195-222 Reasoner, M., 1999, The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14.1-15.13 in Context, Cambridge UP, Cambridge Reed, J.T., 1997, A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate over Literary Integrity, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield Rehmann, L.S., 2000, ‘The Doorway into Freedom: The Case of the ’Suspected Wife” in Romans 7.1-6’ JSNT 79, 91-104 Reinhartz, A., 1997, ‘Feminist Criticism and Biblical Studies on the Verge of the Twenty-First Century’ in Brenner & Fontaine 1997, 30-39 Reinmuth, E., 2010a, ‘Politische Horizonte des Neuen Testaments. Perspektiven einer neuen Fragestellung’ in Reinmuth 2010, 9-27 Reinmuth, E. (ed.), 2010, Politische Horizonte des Neuen Testaments, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt Reminick, R.A., 1983, Theory of Ethnicity: An Anthropologist’s Perspective, University Press of America, Lanham Rhyne, C.T., 1981, Faith Establishes the Law, Scholars Press, Chico Robbins. J.W., 2005, ‘The Politics of Paul’ in Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory 6/ 2, 89-94 Secondary Literature 361 <?page no="362"?> Rohrbacher, D., 2010, ‘Physiognomics in Imperial Latin Biography’, Classical Quarterly, 29/ 1, 92-116 Rossel, W., 1952, ‘New Testament Adoption - Graeco-Roman or Semitic? ’ JBL 71, 233- 234 Rutgers, L.V., 1995, The Jews in Late Ancient Rome, Brill, Leiden Said, E., 1979, Orientalism, Vintage Books, New York Sampley, J.P., 1995, ‘The Weak and the Strong: Paul’s Careful and Crafty Rhetorical Strategy in Romans 14: 1-15: 13’ in White & Yarbrough 1995, 40-52 Sanday, W. & Headlam, A.C., 1898 [1960], A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Edinburgh Sanders, E.P., 1977, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, Fortress Press, Minneapolis - 1983, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, Fortress, Philadelphia - 1993, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Penguin Press, London - 2009, ‘Paul between Judaism and Hellenism’ in Caputo & Alcoff 2009, 74-90 Schellenberg, R.S., 2014, ‘Does Paul Call Adam a ’Type” of Christ? ’ ZNW 105/ 1, 54-63 Schenck, K., 2008, ‘2 Corinthians and the Πίστις Χριστοῦ Debate’, Catholic Biblical Quar‐ terly, 524-537 Schleiermacher, F., 1998, Hermeneutics and Criticism and other writings, Cambridge UP, Cambridge Schliesser, B., 2007, Abraham’s Faith in Romans 4, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen Smith, J.Z., 1982, Imagining Religion, University of Chicago Press, Chicago Schmithals, W., 1975, Der Römerbrief als historischer Problem, Gütersloh Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, Gütersloh Schnackenburg, R., 1950, Das Heilsgeschehen bei der Taufe nach dem Apostel Paulus, Mün‐ chen Schreiner, T., 1993, The law and its Fulfillment, Baker Books, Grand Rapids - 1993a, ‘Did Paul Believe in Justification by Works? Another Look at Romans 2’ Bulletin for Biblical Research 3, 131-158 - 1998, Romans, Baker, Grand Rapids Scott, J.M., 1992, Adoption as Sons of God: An Investigation into the Background of ΥΙΟΘΕΣΙΑ in the Pauline Corpus, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen Segovia, F.F., 1996a, ‘The Gospel at the Close of the Century: Engagement from the Di‐ aspora’ in Segovia 1996, 211-216. Segovia, F.F. (ed.), 1996, What is John? , Scholars Press, Atlanta Sharp, C.J., 2015, ‘Embodying Moab: The Figuring of Moab in Jeremiah 48 as Reinscription of the Judean Body’ in Holt, Kim & Main 2015, 108 Sherwin-White, A.N., 1963, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, Oxford UP, Oxford Bibliography 362 <?page no="363"?> Shogren, G.S., 2000, ‘’Is the Kingdom of God about Eating and Drinking or isn’t it? ” (Romans 14: 17)’, Novum Testamentum XLII, 3, 238-256 Smith, J.Z., 1982, Imagining Religion, University of Chicago Press, Chicago Snodgrass, K.R., 1986, ‘Justification by Grace - to the Doers’ NTS 32 Soderlund, S.K. & Wright, N.T. (eds.), 1999, Romans and the People of God, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids Song, C., 2004, Reading Romans as a Diatribe, Peter Lang Publishing, New York Staples, J.A., 2011, ‘What Do the Gentiles have to Do with ’All Israel”? ’ JBL 130/ 2 Stendahl, K., 1963, ‘Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West’ in HTR 56 - 1976, Paul among Jews and Gentiles, Fortress Press, Philadelphia - 1995, Final Account: Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Fortress Press, Minneapolis Stone, M.E., 1990, Fourth Ezra, Fortress Press, Minneapolis Story, J.L., 2010, ‘An Inclusive Olive-Tree (Romans 11: 11-24)’ American Theological In‐ quiry vol. 3 issue 2 Stowers, S., 1981, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Scholars Press, Chico - 1986, Letter-Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia - 1994, A Rereading of Romans, Yale UP, New Haven - 1995, ‘Romans 7.7-25 as Speech-in-Character (προσωποποιία)’ in Engberg-Pedersen 1994, 180-202 - 2005, ‘Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans 2: Function and identity in the context of ancient epistolography’ The Journal of Theological Studies 56/ 2, 561-565 - 2013, ‘Paul as Hero of Subjectivity’ in Blanton & de Vries 2013, 159-174 Strecker, C., 2013, ‘Die Logistik der paulinischen Mission’ in Horn 2013, 266-273 Strolz, W., 1986, Vom Alten Zum Neuen Adam, Herder, Freiburg . Basel . Wien Strubel, R., 1986, ‘Zur Tiefenpsychologischen Auslegung der Adam-Christus-Typologie’ in Strolz 1986, 151-181 Stuhlmacher, P., 1989, Der Brief an die Römer, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen und Zürich Sumney, J.L. (ed.), 2012, Reading Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta Swancutt, D.M., 2001, Pax Christi: Romans as Protrepsis to live as Kings, Dissertation from Duke University Sweetnam, J., 1980, ‘The Curious Crux at Romans 4: 12’ Biblica 61 Tannehill, R.C., 1967, Dying and Rising with Christ: A Study in Pauline Theology, Töpel‐ mann, Berlin Taylor, M.L., 2011, The Theological and the Political: On the Weight of the World, Fortress Press, Minneapolis Theobald, M., 2013, ‘Römerbrief ’ in Horn 2013, 213-226 Thielman, F., 1994, Paul & the Law, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove Secondary Literature 363 <?page no="364"?> - 1995, ‘The Story of Israel and the Theology of Romans 5-8’ in Hay & Johnson 1995, 169-195 Thimmes, P., 2004, ‘’She Will Be Called an Adulteress…” Marriage and Adultery Analogies in Romans 7: 1-4’ in McGinn 2004, 190-203 Thiselton, A., 1998, ‘Biblical interpretation and theoretical hermeneutics’ in Barton 1998, 95-113 Thompson, T.L., 1999, The Bible in History - How Writers Create a Past, Jonathan Cape, London Thorsteinsson, R.M., 2003, Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans 2, Almqvist & Wiksell Interna‐ tional, Stockholm Tobin, T.H., SJ, 2004, Paul’s Rhetoric in its Contexts, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody Too, Y.L. (ed.), 2001, Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity, Leiden UP, Leiden Trebilco, P., 2012, Self-designations and Group Identity in the New Testament, Cambridge UP, Cambridge Tsui, T.K., 2013, ‘Reconsidering Pauline Juxtaposition of Indicative and Imperative (Ro‐ mans 6: 1-14) in Light of Pauline Apocalypticism’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 75, 297- 314 Upton, B.G., 2002, ‘Feminist theology as biblical hermeneutics’ in Parsons 2002, 97-113 VanderKam, J.C., 1989, The Book of Jubilees - Translated by James C. VanderKam, Peeters, Louvain - 2006, ‘Messianism and Apocalypticism’ in Collins 2006, 193-228 van der Horst, P.W., 2000, ‘Only then will All Israel be Saved’ JBL 119/ 3 Visscher, G.H., 2009, Romans 4 and the New Perspective on Paul, Peter Lang Publishing, New York Wallis, I.G., 1995, The Faith of Jesus Christ in Early Christian Traditions, Cambridge UP, Cambridge Wasserman, E., 2008, The Death of the Soul in Romans 7, WUNT, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen Watson, A., 1967, The Law of Persons, Oxford Watson, F., 1991, ‘The Two Roman Congregations: Romans 14: 1-15: 13’ in Donfried 1991, 203-215 - 2007 [1986], Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids Webb, R., 2001, ‘The Progymnasmata as Practice’ in Too 2001, 289-314 Wedderburn, A.J.M., 1987, Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against Its Graeco-Roman Background, Mohr, Tübingen - 2001 [1977], ‘The Purpose and Occasion of Romans Again’ in Donfried 2001 [1977], 195-202 - 2004, ‘Eine Neuere Paulusperspektive? ’, in Becker & Pilhofer 2004, 46-64 Bibliography 364 <?page no="365"?> Weima, J.A.D., 1994, ‘Preaching the Gospel in Rome: A Study of the Epistolary Framework of Romans’ in Jervis & Richardson 1994 West, G., 1999, ‘The bible and the poor: a new way of doing theology’ in Rowland 1999, 129-152 Westerholm, S., 2004, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The ‘Lutheran’ Paul and His Critics, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids - 2013, ‘Righteousness, Cosmic and Microcosmic’ in Gaventa 2013, 21-38 White, J., 1986, Light from Ancient Letters, Fortress Press, Philadelphia White, L.M. & Yarbrough, O.L. (eds.), 1995, The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks, Fortress Press, Minneapolis Wilk, F. & Wagner, J.R. (eds.), 2010, Between Gospel and Election, WUNT 257, Mohr Sie‐ beck, Tübingen Wilkens, U., 1978-1982, Der Brief an die Römer, Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen-Vluyn Williams, S.K., 1980, ‘The ’Righteousness of God” in Romans’ in JBL 99: 2 - 1987, ‘Again Pistis Christou’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 431-447 Wischmeyer, O., 2006, ‘Römer 2.1-24 als Teil der Gerichtsrede des Paulus gegen die Menschheit’ in NTS 52, 356-376 - 2012, ‘The Letter to the Romans’ in Wischmeyer 2012, 245-276 Wischmeyer, O., (ed.) 2012, Paul, T&T Clark, London Wischmeyer, O. & Scholz, S. (eds.), 2008, Die Bibel als Text, A. Francke Verlag, Tübingen und Basel Wischmeyer, O. & Scornaienchi, L. (eds.), 2011, Polemik in der frühchristlichen Literatur, De Gruyter, Berlin Wise, M., Abbeg, M. & Cook, E., 2004, The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader vol 4, (ed. by D.W. Parry and E. Tov), Brill, Leiden Witherington, B. III, 2004, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids Wittgenstein, L., 1999, Tractatus logico-philosophicus in Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Werkaus‐ gabe in 8 Bänden, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main Wright, N.T., 1992, The Climax of Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology, For‐ tress Press, Minneapolis - 1995, ‘Romans and the Theology of Paul’ in Hay & Johnson 1995, 30-67 - 1996, ‘The Law in Romans 2’ in Dunn 1996, 131-150 - 2002, ‘The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections’ in The New Interpreters Bible 10, Abingdon, Nashville, 395-770 - 2010, ‘Romans 9-11 and the ’New Perspective”’ in Wilk & Wagner 2010, 37-54 - 2013, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis Young, I.M., 1987, ‘Impartiality and the Civic Public’ in Benhabib & Cornell 1987 Secondary Literature 365 <?page no="366"?> Zeller, D., 1973, Juden und Heiden in den Mission des Paulus: Studien zum Römerbrief, Katolisches Bibelwerk, Stuttgart Zetterholm, M., 2009, Approaches to Paul, Fortress Press, Minneapolis Ziegler, P.G., 2013, ‘The Love of God is a Sovereign Thing’ in Gaventa 2013, 111-130 Ziesler, J., 1989, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, SCM, London Zoccali, C., 2008, ‘’And so all Israel will be saved”: Competing Interpretations of Romans 11.26 in Pauline Scholarship’ JSNT 30.3 Bibliography 366 <?page no="367"?> ISBN 978-3-7720-8656-4 www.francke.de This exciting new interpretation of Paul’s Letter to the Romans approaches Paul’s most famous letter from one of the newest scholarly positions within Pauline Studies: The Radical New Perspective on Paul (also known as Paul within Judaism). As a point of departure, the author takes Paul’s self-designation in 11: 13 as “apostle to the Gentiles” as so determining for Paul’s mission that the audience of the letter is perceived to be exclusively Gentile. The study nds con rmation of this reading-strategy in the letter’s construction of the interlocutor from chapter 2 onwards. Even in 2: 17, where Paul describes the interlocutor as someone who “calls himself a Jew,” it requests to perceive this person as a Gentile who presents himself as a Jew and not an ethnic Jew. If the interlocutor is perceived in this way throughout the letter, the dialogue between Paul and the interlocutor can be perceived as a continuous, uni ed and developing dialogue. In this way, this interpretation of Romans sketches out a position against a more disparate and fragmentary interpretation of Romans. 28 Herausgegeben von Eve-Marie Becker, Jens Herzer, Friedrich W. Horn, Oda Wischmeyer und Hanna Zapp