M17b
Third, Paul also utilizes his Hellenistic rhetorical training. He applies themes that are common within Hellenistic and Roman philosophy, such as his appeal to “natural law” in Rom 1:26 and to conscience in Rom 2:15. Relying on these established concepts, he frequently uses a Cynic-Stoic technique called diatribe which gives the letter a lively character that echoes Paul’s conversations with people from various segments of society. Diatribe sets up a dialogue with an imaginary conversation partner called an “interlocutor.” Consequently, it is not always clear whether Paul targets a specific person(s) in Rome or whether he is creating an anticipated hearer(s)/reader(s).
This technique is performed by making a claim that is accompanied by anticipated objections in the form of rhetorical questions. For instance, in 3:1, Paul rhetorically asks, “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.” And in 6:1–2, he inquires, “What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it?”
​
His flexible use of diatribe results in an argument that unfolds in stages, but is not always sequential. For example, the questions posed in 3:1–9 appear to be answered in different sections of the letter. More specifically, the questions about Israel’s disobedience in 3:3 appear to be connected with chapters 9–11, the issue of moral relativism in 3:8 is taken up in chapter 6, and the role of the law introduced in 3:31 is discussed in 7:7–25.
​
Novice readers of Romans should also be aware of certain words and phrases that can link units of thought. The main ones include “but now” (e.g. 7:17), therefore” (e.g. 1:25; 8:12) “likewise” (e.g. 7:4) “for this reason” (e.g. 8:7), “what then?” (e.g. 6:15; 7:7), and the occasional use of “Amen” (e.g. 9:5, 11:36) which can signal changes or pauses for anticipated audible responses when the letter was read to an audience. While the identification of linking language should be part of every interpretive task, it is especially important for tracking the lengthy flow of Romans.
​
​
​
​
Info Box 17.4: The Importance of Women in Paul’s Ministry
​
Of the twenty-four personal names that Paul mentions in his final greeting at the end of the letter (Romans 16), ten are women (vv. 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 15). Three of these are especially noteworthy.
The first is Phoebe who was not only the bearer of the letter to the Roman congregations, but is described as a benefactor and a deacon in her home congregation of Cenchreae (Rom 16:1–2).
The second is Prisca (or Priscilla, see Acts 18:2) who is essential to Paul’s ministry since she, along with her husband, “risked her neck” for Paul and earned his gratitude. (Rom 16:3–4).
And third is Junia who is described as being “prominent among the Apostles” (Rom 16:7). The Greek name Junia could be read as either a male or a female name. In the nineteenth century, many scholars assumed that since Junia was an apostle, this person must have been a man. As a result, it was often translated in the masculine form as Junias. However, most modern scholars have argued for the retention of the feminine form Junia, because the name never occurs in ancient sources in masculine form.
​
17.5 Themes
Theological themes abound more in Romans than any other writing in the New Testament. The ones selected here are intended simply to be an entry into the rich tapestry that Paul weaves. They can be dissected into more refined themes such as the relationship between Adam and Christ, the moral implications of being “in Christ,” the liberation from the Mosaic Law, and the implication of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life. All the themes are interrelated since they find their centrality in God’s revealed righteousness through the sending of his Messiah. For Paul, this is the culmination of God’s grace given to humanity throughout history.
​
Christ’s Death and Resurrection
The decisive event that shapes Paul’s theological thinking is the death and resurrection of Christ. This combined event is commemorated in the ritual of baptism, where initiates identify with Christ’s death and resurrection. Paul views the identification with Christ’s death, which conveys an end to the dominance of sin and death in the life of the believer, as a real change in the human condition. Likewise, identification with Christ’s resurrection, which effects a new way of life in anticipation of the future resurrection, affects a change in human identity. The change does not merely alter perspective about life, but life itself (Rom 6:3–11). For Paul, the believer is transformed from being “in Adam” to being “in Christ,” which is a common phrase that he uses to designate Jesus-followers who are now united across ethnic lines in anticipation of Christ’s return and the fulfillment of the union with him in resurrection.
Paul’s main line of argument for a new human identity is based on an inference stemming from the death and resurrection of Jesus. Since he only conveys the new state of affairs of the believer, and does not explain how the believer’s identity is changed, scholars have commonly proposed one of two models that aim to reconstruct the assumed process in Paul’s thought.
​
The first model, often called “the judicial model,” views Paul’s conception of the human predicament in legal terms whereby God is the lawmaker and judge of the world (i.e. Jews and Gentiles). Since everyone is guilty of having violated God’s laws, and has thus sinned (Rom 3:23), the just sentence is death (Rom 6:23). Sin, in this view, is the act of disobedience to God. While God spares humanity, he cannot spare the guilt which still deserves punishment. In his graciousness, God provides a solution by providing the perfect atoning representative in the crucifixion of Jesus who is punished in humanity’s place. When Jesus pays the “wages of sin” by being the perfect sacrifice, God’s wrath is abated and justice prevails. Since Jesus was obedient to the point of death, and not guilty of sin, God vindicated him by raising him from the dead (Rom 3:23–24; 4:24–25). The outcome for those who follow Christ and trust that he died for them is “justification,” which means that they are considered righteous and not guilty before God.
​
The second model, often called “the participation model,” likewise views sin as a human problem that is resolved by Christ’s death and resurrection, but it views sin differently. The word sin is not something that a person does, as a transgression against God’s law. Instead, the singular use of sin, as distinguished from the plural use of sins as transgressions, refers to an entity that has dominion over humanity. More specifically, sin, together with death, is described as ruling over people (Rom 5:13, 5:21; 6:12). As a power, people can be enslaved to it, die to it, and even be freed from it (Rom 6:6, 11, 17, and 18). In this sense, sin is a cosmic power or evil force, personified as the enemy of God that tries to win people to its side. The human problem, then, is not that people transgress God’s law, but that they are enslaved and in need of freedom. The liberation which Christ brings, empowers his followers to live a life that is no longer under the reign of sin and death.
​
Reconstructing Paul’s thought is challenging since he tends to assume a judicial model in chapters 1–4 and the participatory model in chapters 6–8. The two models appear to overlap, resulting in a combined framework whereby one model expands on the other. For example, in Rom 3:23, everyone has sinned because everyone has disobeyed God’s laws. This is the judicial model. But why has everyone sinned? Why do people sin even though they wish to do otherwise? Because, as Romans 3:9 says, everyone is enslaved to the power of sin. Why is everyone enslaved to sin? Because Adam disobeyed God (judicial model) and through that disobedience, the power of sin came into the world (Romans 5:12; participatory model). How the rest of humanity has inherited Adam’s sin is not specifically explained, but this question became important in the formulation of the doctrine of Original Sin in Western Christianity.
​
​
Info Box 17.5: What Did Humanity Inherit from Adam?
​
The answer to this significant theological question depends on how the last four words of Rom 5:12 are translated. The verse in the NRSV reads, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned (Greek: eph ho pantes hamarton).”
In late antiquity, the last four Greek words were translated into the Latin as in quo omnes peccaverunt (“in whom [i.e. in Adam] all men have sinned”) which supported the view that Adam’s guilt was inherited by all his descendants. This idea was connected with the doctrine of “original sin” which became (and continues to be) a widespread belief in Western Christianity. In Eastern Christianity, the Greek rendering “because” instead of “in whom” was retained, which conveys the view that death, as the “wages of sin” (Rom 6:23), is inherited by Adam’s descendants, and not the guilt of Adam’s first sin.
Another way of viewing the effect of the fall of Adam is that humanity inherited mortality instead of sinfulness, which is merely a consequence of mortality. If humanity is under the sway of both physical and spiritual death, then Christ, who has overcome death, restores our original non-mortal humanness.
​
​
The Righteousness of God
​
As mentioned above in our discussion of Paul’s argument, the main thesis in Romans is that the good news of God’s righteousness, to which the scriptures have testified, has now been fully revealed “through faith for faith” (Rom 1:17). This is the heart of Paul’s message for unifying Jews and Gentiles in Christ. The phrase “through faith for faith” (which can also be translated “from faith to faith”) is difficult to understand because the Greek term for “faith” (pistis) is highly nuanced. It can mean “belief,” “trust,” and even “faithfulness.” The prepositions “through” (or “from”) and “for” (or “to”) add to the interpretive challenge. In light of Paul’s emphasis on Christ’s “obedience to the point of death,” which resulted in his vindication through resurrection, a strong possibility is that the phrase is a summary statement that captures the cause and effect sequence initiated by God’s provision of his Messiah.
This reading also aligns with Paul’s underlying conception that the coming of Christ was the pivotal event in God’s self-disclosure to humanity. In this sense, God’s righteousness is revealed through the faithfulness (pistis) of Jesus, who is an active participant with God in salvation, for the benefit of the faithfulness (pistis) of the believer. For the believer, pistis is the only means to “see” God’s self-disclosure through Christ. While this is a probable rendering, it certainly is not the only one since Abraham’s faith may be assumed in the subsequent quotation from Hab 2:4, “The one who is righteous will live by faith.” The possibilities are well worth contemplating.
​
God’s righteousness speaks to his character as being equitable, just, and gracious through his fidelity to the promise initially given to Abraham that all nations will be united by the same faith that he showed to God. Other aspects of God’s righteousness include his generosity and mercy in his aversion of wrath and extreme displeasure with disobedience. God did not just show mercy to his elect people, but extended it to all peoples. At the same time, God remained loyal to his covenant with Israel despite their disobedience. The dominant attribute of God that emerges through Paul’s argument and indeed throughout the New Testament is compassion.
​
Justification by Faith
The phrase “justification by faith alone” may be familiar to students who have attended Lutheran and Reformed churches. It has been a foundational doctrine in Protestant theology since the beginning of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Martin Luther famously said that it is the article upon which the church stands or falls. The doctrine teaches that God’s forgiveness of sins takes place when an individual comes to faith in Christ. In contrast to the merits of good works and ecclesiastical pronouncements of grace (which are also important in Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy along with faith), it is only faith for many Protestants, as belief in the saving work of Jesus, that justifies the individual before God. It is true that Paul sometimes contrasts faith and works (of the Law), but for many Pauline scholars today who would identity with the so-called “New Perspective” on Paul, the traditional contrast between belief and acts of good works is unsupportable since Judaism was also a religion of grace.
Today, many think that Paul’s use of the “works of the Law” is a reference to specific identity markers that separated Gentiles from Jews, such as circumcision, sabbath, and food laws. Note the Info Box below.
Along similar lines, some scholars claim that Paul is not targeting specific identity markers, but rather specific perceptions about how his Jewish audience relates to the law in general. Since obedience to the law was equated with obedience to God in Judaism, Paul argues on the basis of Abraham’s faith that observance of the law, which chronologically followed his faith, does not alone create a right relationship with God.
​
​
Info Box 17.6: The New Perspective on Paul: Romans 3:28 as a Case Study
​
A helpful way of understanding how revolutionary the New Perspective on Paul has been is to look at its reading of specific texts. Consider the passage: “A person is justified by faith, apart from works of the law.” (Rom 3:28). What did Paul mean here? It depends on the interpreter’s perspective. While all can agree that people are made right with God by trusting in what God has done through Christ, the same cannot be said about the “works of the law.” According to the “Traditional Perspective” which represents the Reformation’s emphasis on justification by faith alone, the “works of the law” refers to meritorious acts of human achievement. They are, in short, the doing of good works. In this sense, faith and works are contrasted.
According to the “New Perspective” on Paul, the “works of the law” have nothing to do with the practice of good works as acts that might merit salvation. Instead, “works of the law” is viewed as a Jewish construct that refers to the covenant markers that identify Jews as belonging to God’s chosen nation. In this reading, Paul is saying to Gentile believers that they are justified by faith instead of needing to become ethnic Jews. Their faithfulness is enough for being included “in Christ.”
​
​
​
​
The varied theological views expressed in the three major traditions of Christianity (Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy) bring with them their accompanying readings of Romans. In Romans, “justification,” which stems from the same Greek root for “righteousness,” conveys a right relationship with God. The explanation of that reconciliation, however, is contingent upon whether one holds to a judicial or participatory model. While there is no question that Paul teaches the important of faith for the pardoning of one’s guilt (Rom 3:28; 5:1), the difficulty arises when once again we try to make sense of what Paul actually means by “faith” (pistis). If he means “belief,” then justification is based on cognitive and emotional assent, submission, and trust, which has been the common Protestant view. While a life of obedience is viewed as the result and even evidence of faith, good acts do not in themselves merit justification.
​
If, however, pistis means “faithfulness,” then it also incorporates human actions and decisions that could be included under the category of good works, which has been the Catholic and Orthodox position. In accordance with the latter view, some scholars point to the meritorious importance of good deeds in Rom 2:6–8, which reads, “For he [God] will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.”
Furthermore, other scholars have pointed out that religious belief as we might understand it today in Christianity should not be imposed onto Paul. Today religious belief and unbelief tend to be contrasted and played against each other. In antiquity, this contrast was not of importance since some kind of adherence to deities was widespread. What mattered more was the performance of acts of worship so as to appease the gods that ruled over the Empire, the elements, regions, cities, and families. Faithfulness better expresses the religious ethos of the world in which Paul lived.
​
In addition, Romans is not always clear whose pistis effects the justification. Is it the individual’s pistis in God that justifies? Christ certainly enables a life of faith. Is it God’s pistis to his covenantal promises that justifies? Or is it Christ’s pistis as obedience to God’s will that justifies? Could it be a collaboration of all three? The roles of God, Christ and human beings in the justification process has generated lively discussion since the Reformation.
Another difficulty that has occupied interpreters of Romans since the early Middle Ages, is whether God declares or makes the sinner just (or righteous). Protestant thinkers who hold to “the judicial model” have tended toward the former, whereas Catholic and Orthodox thinkers who hold “the participatory model” have tended toward the latter. Nevertheless, while these are enduring theological questions, they tend to represent our concerns and not always Paul’s concerns. Paul does not appear to be troubled by the ambiguity that we might want to resolve. He appears to have had a more comprehensive and integrative understanding of faith(fulness) than many modern readers. It is also possible that the ambiguity did not originate with Paul, but was already present in earlier traditions that Paul appropriated.
What is of main importance for him is that justification is rooted in Christ’s obedience and vindication through which is expressed God’s faithfulness to his promises and compassion for both Jews and Gentiles (Rom 4:25; 5:18). Human beings participate in this through their faith(fulness).
​
Info Box 17.7: Images of Justification in Summary
​
Paul uses four dominant images to explain how Christ’s death and resurrection result in justifying believers.
(1) The Image of Substitution. Since all people are guilty of not living as God commands, their penalty is death. Jesus as the innocent sacrifice takes on the guilt of humanity which diverts God’s wrath and brings restoration (Rom 3:23–24; 5:6–8; 6:23).
(2) The Image of Redemption. People are like slaves, owned by a hostile personified power (e.g. sin, death). The ransom for freedom is the blood of Christ. God pays the ransom so that people can be in covenant relationship with God (Rom 3:24; 8:23).
(3) The Image of Reconciliation. Since humanity has severely damaged its relationship with God, Jesus offers his Messiah as a mediator who restores the relationship (Rom 5:10).
(4) The Image of Participation. Left to its own devices, since humanity lives under the power of sin and death, it cannot escape the inevitable mortality that affected Adam. God provides another Adam who is obedient, namely Christ. Faith through the act of baptism allows humanity to participate in the new Adam who offers an escape from mortality (Rom 6:1–11).
​
​
​
​
Universal Salvation
In broader Christian theological discussion, the phrase “universal salvation” usually refers to the view that God will inevitably save every human being. The result is that none will be eternally punished, but will instead live with God forever.
When, however, the phrase is applied to Paul’s writings, it has an ethnic focus, referring to the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles, though not necessarily all Jews and Gentiles. Paul argues that the election of Israel was never intended to be exclusively for its own benefit. It was always supposed to culminate in the rescuing of the whole world, by which is meant both the Jews and Gentiles. Since Israel failed to achieve this mandate, God nevertheless continued with his plan by providing the Messiah who was the representative of Israel. While the Messiah came from the Jewish people, he did not come solely for them. The grace that extended first to the Jews, is now extended to the Gentiles, who are equal members of the new covenant people of God.
In Paul’s conception, both ethnic groups have transgressed God’s laws and have been dominated by the power of sin and death. However, by placing their pistis in the obedience of Christ Jesus who is declared the Son of God, each is liberated and the two become one people.
​
Paul uses the noun “salvation” and verb “to save” broadly in relation to time. While salvation comes to everyone who has faith, the terms are used in relation to a liberation in the past, present, and future. In relation to the past, Paul writes, for example, “for in hope we were saved” (8:24) and “But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles” (11:11). In relation to the present, he writes that the gospel “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith” (1:16). Finally, in relation to the future, which occurs most often, he writes, “For salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers” (13:11), “now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God” (5:9), and “having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life” (5:10).
​
Since the salvation of the Jewish and Gentile believers steer much of Paul’s argument, many contemporary scholars argue that it should be viewed as the central theme that guides the interpretation of Romans. This represents a major shift since the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, which has advocated for centuries that the central theme of Romans is justification by faith in contrast to works of the law. Over the last several decades in Pauline studies, advocates of the “New Perspective” on Paul, which focusses on locating Paul within the Judaism of his day, have displaced the centrality of justification by faith with the centrality of the universality of God’s salvation.
​
God and Israel
How does Israel fit into God’s redemptive plan? Paul spends three chapters addressing why many Jews have rejected the good news of Christ. He often shows that this rejection and subsequent loss of salvation of national Israel does not invalidate the scriptures (Rom 9:6a). He makes sense of the demise of national Israel by making a distinction between two kinds of Israel, whereby one is authentic and the other is inauthentic. While he does not specifically press that one is true and the other is false, he makes the distinction through statements like, “not all Israelites truly belong to Israel” (Romans 9:6b). For Paul, truly belonging to Israel is based on adherence to gospel of Christ. Thus, truly belonging to Israel means that one belongs to a remnant that has accepted the gospel message (Rom 11:1–6). God remains faithful to Israel through his faithfulness to the remnant of Israel.
​
In Romans 11, toward the end of his long argument, Paul conveys an unexpected twist. National Israel still plays a role in the salvation of the world. Israel’s rejection of Christ serves a useful purpose in that it prompted the gospel message to go out beyond the Jewish people into the Gentile world (Rom 11:11–24). Hope for national Israel remains in Paul’s conception of salvation. He believes that eventually, perhaps through the remnant, “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26). Paul is even willing to give up his own salvation to make this happen (Rom 9:3). Some scholars, however, are not convinced that national Israel is intended here, arguing instead that “all Israel” refers to everyone who will eventually believe.
​
​
​
QUIZ
COMING SOON
​
​
Bibliography
​
Commentaries
Achtemeier, Paul J. Romans. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985.
Barrett, Charles Kingsley. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Rev. ed.
Black's New Testament Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.
​
Byrne, Brendan. Romans. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996.
Cranfield, Charles E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: Clark, 1975, 1979.
———. Romans. A Shorter Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, l985.
Dunn, James D. G. Romans. 2 vols. Word Biblical Commentary 38a, 38b. Dallas: Word, 1988.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. Anchor Bible, 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993.
Jewett, Robert. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.
Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Stuhlmacher, Peter. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Translated by Scott J. Hafemann from the 1989 German edition. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.
Wright, N. T. The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections. The New Interpreter’s Bible 10 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002) 395-770.
Ziesler, John. Paul's Letter to the Romans. Trinity Press International New Testament Commentaries. Philadelphia: Trinity, 1989.
Books and Articles on Romans
Boers, Hendrikus. The Justification of the Gentiles: Paul’s Letters to the Galatians and Romans. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994.
Cosgrove, Charles H. Elusive Israel: The Puzzle of Election in Romans. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997.
Dahl, Nils A. “The Missionary Theology in the Epistle to the Romans” and “The Doctrine of Justification: Its Social Function and Implications.” Pages 70–94 and 95–120 respectively in his Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977.
Donfried, Karl P., ed. The Romans Debate. Rev. ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.
Dunn, James D. G., ed. Paul and the Mosaic Law. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1996; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Guerra, Anthony J. Romans and the Apologetic Tradition: The Purpose, Genre, and Audience of Paul’s Letter. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Hay, David M., and E. Elizabeth Johnson, eds. Pauline Theology: Volume III: Romans. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
Käsemann, Ernst. “‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul.” Pages 168–82 in his New Testament Questions of Today. London: SCM, 1969.
Moxnes, Halvor. Theology in Conflict: Studies in Paul’s Understanding of God in Romans. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 53. Leiden: Brill, 1980.
Nanos, Mark D. The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.
Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.
Stendahl, Krister. Final Account: Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
———. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Note his highly influential essay
“The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West” (78–96).
Wedderburn, A. J. M. The Reasons for Romans. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988.
Paragraph narrow
Paragraph wide