Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen - ciando.com fileWissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungenzum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe

Herausgeber / Editor

Jörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber / Associate EditorsMarkus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala)

Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) · Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg)J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

445

Marcus A. Mininger

Uncoveringthe Theme of Revelation

in Romans 1:16–3:26

Discovering a New Approachto Paul’s Argument

Mohr Siebeck

Marcus A. Mininger, born 1976; 2002 MDiv; 2009 ThM; 2017 PhD; 2012–2016 Assistant Pro-fessor of New Testament, Mid-America Reformed Seminary; since 2016 Associate Professorof New Testament, Mid-America Reformed Seminary.

ISBN 978-3-16-155649-4ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe)

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbiblio -graphie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2017 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproduc-tions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems.

The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen on non-aging paper and bound byBuchbinderei Nädele in Nehren.

Printed in Germany.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-155673-9

To Chandra,

wonderful one times one

Preface

This book originated from work done during advanced study at Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, N.J. It then took its present form as a doc-toral dissertation at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pa., where it was approved in September of 2016. Now it appears here in slightly revised and updated form. Given that it steeped in several different environ-ments over the years, there are many people that it is proper to thank, only some of whom can be mentioned here.

I would like to thank Dr. Henning Ziebritzki and the Mohr Siebeck staff for their warm welcome into this monograph series and their valuable admin-istrative support, making the publication process a smooth one. I would also like to thank Drs. Ross Wagner and Jörg Frey for their work on the WUNT editorial board and for seeing the value this project might have for wider Romans and Pauline scholarship. Dr. Wagner also made important contribu-tions to the early thought-formation of this project in Princeton. Not only did he help encourage me to consider apocalyptic readings of Paul, which opened up important avenues of interpretation seen below, but he has also consistent-ly practiced Augustine’s hermeneutic of charity (something he loves to im-press upon his students) when interacting with me and my work, even in my younger and more foolish days, for which I remain very grateful.

I am grateful too for Dr. Beverly Gaventa’s influence upon this project. Her insistence upon close attention to Paul’s language and to the way a good interpretative question helps shape what one does or does not perceive in a text pushed me to be more self-critical as a reader. She also suggested an earlier research topic to me, which, as I worked on it, helped generate the observations that led to the present one.

I also wish to thank Dr. Moisés Silva for giving generously of his time to read a dense doctoral dissertation, to offer valuable critical feedback, and to urge its publication. I was disappointed as a young M.Div. student to just miss the opportunity to have Dr. Silva as a professor, but his writing – and especially the balanced and exacting methodology therein – still impacted me greatly, which I hope shows itself (however inadequately) in the thought-process and re-sifting of evidence upon which this study is based.

I certainly owe a great debt of gratitude to the faculty at Westminster. Dr. Vern Poythress was an ideal doctoral advisor in so many ways, recognizing

VIII Preface

the value in this project early on, providing timely and substantive feedback that always challenged me in weak areas, and yet consistently encouraging me to enjoy academic freedom to make this work truly my own. Dr. Poythress champions flexible and non-reductionistic thinking, listening pa-tiently and charitably to uncomfortable data, and considering interpretative angles that others may neglect. Because of such things, I now value more than ever so many of the Christian graces that his multi-perspectival herme-neutic promotes. Dr. Brandon Crowe, as second reader, and Dr. Douglas Moo, as external reader at Wheaton College, also added important value to this project, asking probing questions and making keen observations that I benefited greatly from having opportunity to address. I also remain greatly indebted to Dr. Richard Gaffin for forming my understanding of Paul at the most fundamental levels and thereby also forming my view of Christ, the world, and history. Both he and Dr. Lane Tipton interacted with this project at several points. May their school of thought, which was especially formed by wrestling with Pauline eschatology, impact the field of New Testament studies more widely, now and into the future.

I am grateful as well to President Cornel Venema and the faculty and Board of Mid-America Reformed Seminary. This project took longer than they or I expected when I was hired as professor some years ago. But I great-ly appreciate the institution’s patience, for a lightened teaching load on more than one occasion, and for financial and administrative support of other kinds – all very necessary in order to teach, research, and write at the same time. As part of that, I also appreciate the services of Associate Librarian Bart Voskuil and the editorial assistance of Ruben Zartman and Dan Ragusa, who each cheerfully added their efforts to this project.

On a more personal note, I want to thank Chad and Emily Van Dixhoorn for valuing the combination of scholarship and service to the church, for seeing potential for those in me, and for wanting to help create the time and space necessary for that potential to develop through advanced study. I am even more thankful for their friendship and for the callings that we share in common with each other.

I also want to thank my parents, Larry and Gail Mininger, for raising me in a broad-minded yet principled Reformed home, for cultivating my appetite for biblical theology through their Christ-centered teaching and living, and for encouraging me always to work for the Lord, not for earthly honors. “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness.”

To my children, Hans, Anastasia, and Malena, thank you for your patience through long hours when I was with you in body only, as I read and thought and typed. You have given up a lot for this project! I look forward to seeing what all our sacrifices, and some day even the content of this project itself, produce in each of you as you continue to grow in the Lord.

Preface IX

And to Chandra, my sine qua non in so many things, I am glad that, as a mere means to recognition or a way of climbing a career-ladder, this project has always meant little to you, as it should. Your perspective is too broad and your goals too far-sighted for that. But I am even more glad that, as a form of diligence in God’s Word, as an effort to delve into Paul’s theology, and as a way of serving others, this project and the calling that surround it have always meant much to you. Thank you for loving what is ultimate and for the sacrifice and companionship that flow intertwined together from that. As my constant friend in such things you have given more to this endeavor than anyone else.

Above all, may the Lord Jesus Christ, whom Paul preached and in whose death the true nature of God’s righteousness is now displayed as nowhere else, be glorified in this project, and may he return soon to display God’s grace and glory even more fully in this world. July 2017 Marcus A. Mininger Dyer, Indiana

Table of Contents

Preface ....................................................................................................... VII

Chapter One: Introduction .......................................................... 1 A. Prominent Disagreements in Past Scholarship on Rom 1:16–3:26 ............ 1 B. A Neglected Area of Study: Past Scholarship on Revelation, Its

Inadequacies, and Its Contributions ......................................................... 22 C. Toward Rereading Rom 1:16–3:26: Uncovering a Neglected Theme ....... 34 D. Approaching Romans ............................................................................... 40

Chapter Two: The Revelation of God’s Righteousness: Revelation as Proof of Power unto Salvation in Rom 1:16–17 ......................................................................... 52 A. Neglect of Revelation in Past Scholarship on Rom 1:16–17 ..................... 53 B. The Contours of Revelation in Rom 1:17a ................................................ 61

1. Source and Destination of Revelation: ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν ............... 64 a. The syntactical function of the phrases ............................................. 67 b. General parameters concerning the senses of ἐκ and εἰς .................... 72 c. Specific evidence about prepositions describing revelation .............. 74 d. Further implications: divine source and human destination .............. 80 e. The gospel from God’s faithfulness to human faith in 1:1–15 ........... 81 f. Objections to a theological interpretation of ἐκ πίστεως .................... 83 g. Summary .......................................................................................... 86

2. The Location of Revelation: ἐν αὐτῷ ...................................................... 86 a. Sense of the preposition ἐν .................................................................. 86

XII Table of Contents

b. Meaning of “gospel” ........................................................................ 88 c. Meaning of the present-tense verb .................................................... 94 d. Argumentative significance .............................................................. 98

3. The Content of Revelation: δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ ......................................... 98 a. Righteousness from God revealed? ................................................... 99 b. God’s activity revealed? ................................................................. 103 c. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 107

C. The Significance of Revelation within Rom 1:16–17 .............................. 108

1. Revelation as Proof of Power in Rom 1:16b and 17a .......................... 108 2. Eschatological Life by Faith, Promised Beforehand in Rom 1:17b ..... 110 3. From Accomplishment of Revelation to Application of Salvation ...... 114

Chapter Three: The Revelation of God’s Wrath: Powerful Effects Already Manifest upon Some in Rom 1:18–32 ............ 116 A. Problems in Past Approaches to Rom 1:18–32 ....................................... 117

1. Neglect of Revelation in Past Approaches to the Passage ................... 121 2. Related Problems in Past Interpretative Paradigms ............................. 125

B. The Contours of Revelation in Rom 1:18 ................................................ 131

1. Content of the Revelation: ὀργὴ θεοῦ ................................................... 132 2. Source of the Revelation: ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ ................................................ 132 3. Location of the Revelation: ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν τῶν κατεχόντων .... 134 4. Source and Location Together: Invisible Revealed in the Visible ....... 139

C. How Wrath Is Revealed in Rom 1:19–32 ................................................ 141

1. Revelatory Location: Humans Who Reject the Truth of God .............. 143 2. Revelatory Power: God’s Handing People over in Wrath ................... 144 3. Revelatory Display: Holistic Condition Expresses God’s Wrath ......... 146 4. Conclusions concerning verses 19–32 ................................................ 151

D. Conclusions concerning Rom 1:18–32 ................................................... 153

Chapter Four: The Present Hiddenness of God’s Righteous Judgment: Future Revelation and What Is Not Seen in Rom 2:1–16 ......................................................................... 157

Table of Contents XIII

A. Problems in Past Approaches to Rom 2.................................................. 157

1. General Inadequacies.......................................................................... 157 2. Neglect of Revelation in Past Approaches to Rom 2 ........................... 163

B. What Is Not Yet Revealed: Revelation-History and Paul’s Argument

in Rom 2:1–16 ........................................................................................ 166

1. Invisible Wrath, Visible Kindness: The Revelation-Historical Basis of the Interlocutor’s Hypocrisy in Rom 2:1–4 ........................... 167 a. Problems in past explanations ......................................................... 167 b. The revelation-historical basis of the interlocutor’s claims ............. 171

2. Future Revelation of Righteous Judgment: Paul’s Response in Rom 2:5–10 .................................................................................... 173 a. Future revelation and wrath in verse 5 ............................................ 174 b. Description of future revelation in verses 6–10 .............................. 177

(i) Connections of verses 6–10 to verse 5 ....................................... 177 (ii) Connections of verses 6–10 to 1:18–32 .................................... 179 (iii) Conclusions concerning verses 6–10 ....................................... 182

c. Conclusions concerning verses 5–10 .............................................. 183 3. The Implications of Future Revelation in Rom 2:11–16 ..................... 183

a. What is not clear in verses 11–16: problems with past interpretations ......................................................................... 184 (i) Soteriological indeterminacy ..................................................... 184 (ii) Social indeterminacy ................................................................ 191

b. What remains hidden and what is shown: toward a revelation-historical approach to verses 11–16 ................................................ 197 (i) What remains hidden: accounting for indeterminacy

in verses 12–16 .......................................................................... 197 (ii) What is shown: a new dynamic in revelation-history

in verse 15 .................................................................................. 199 (iii) The revelation-historical basis for impartiality ........................ 203

c. Conclusions concerning verses 11–16 ............................................ 205 C. Conclusions concerning Rom 2:1–16 ..................................................... 208

Chapter Five: The Hiddenness of the Jew and Circumcision: What Is and Is Not Seen in the Sphere of the Law in Rom 2:17–29 ....................................................................... 213

A. Embodiment of the Truth: The Jewish Teacher’s Claims

in Rom 2:17–20 ...................................................................................... 214

XIV Table of Contents

1. Problems in Past Approaches ............................................................. 214 2. Initial Observations: Structure and Emphases in Rom 2:17–20 ........... 221 3. Τὴν µόρφωσιν τῆς γνώσεως καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας as Outward Form ..... 223 4. The “Form of Knowledge” as Bodily Circumcision? .......................... 224

a. Evidence in the preceding context .................................................. 226 b. The anthropological focus of verses 19–20 ..................................... 228 c. Paul’s focus on circumcision in his response .................................. 230 d. Corroborating evidence in contemporary Jewish literature ............. 232 e. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 234

5. ᾿Εν τῷ νόµῳ as a Sphere of Power in Rom 2:20 ................................ 235 B. What Is and Is Not Seen in the Sphere of the Law: Paul’s Response

in Rom 2:21–29 ...................................................................................... 238

1. What Is Seen in the Sphere of the Law: Transgression and Dishonor in Rom 2:21–24 .................................................................. 238 a. Adultery, stealing, and temple-robbery in verses 21–22.................. 238 b. Transgression, dishonor, and cause for blasphemy

in verses 23–24 .............................................................................. 243 2. What Is Not Seen in the Sphere of the Law: The Hiddenness

of the Jew and Circumcision in Rom 2:25–29 .................................... 245 a. What is not embodied through circumcision in verses 25–27 .......... 246 b. The hiddenness of the Jew and circumcision in verses 28–29 ......... 248

(i) Recovering the meaning and importance of the φανερός-κρυπτός contrast ......................................................... 248

(ii) The γράµµα-πνεῦµα contrast ................................................... 255 (iii) The ἂνθρωποι-θεός contrast ................................................... 261 (iv) Conclusions concerning verses 28–29 ..................................... 263

C. Conclusions concerning Rom 2:17–29 and Implications ........................ 264 D. Conclusions concerning Rom 2 .............................................................. 267

Chapter Six: An Inverse Demonstration of God’s Righteousness: Constructing Jewish Advantage through David in Rom 3:1–8 ................................................................. 272

A. Problems in Past Interpretation of Rom 3:1–8 ....................................... 272 B. Rereading Rom 3:1–8 ............................................................................ 281

1. An Alternative Claim about Jewish Advantage in Rom 3:1–2 ............ 281

Table of Contents XV

2. Response to a Familiar Question: What David Demonstrates in Rom 3:3–4...................................................................................... 282

3. Dismissing Familiar Criticisms: Not Ashamed of the Gospel in Rom 3:5–8...................................................................................... 289

C. Conclusions concerning Rom 3:1–8 ....................................................... 292

Chapter Seven: What is Visible in the Sphere of the Law: Knowledge of Sin’s Power Undermines the Law’s Power in Rom 3:9–20 ......................................................................... 294

A. Problems in Past Approaches to Rom 3:9–20......................................... 294 B. Rereading Rom 3:9–20 ........................................................................... 304

1. Selection and Arrangement in the Catena: The Holistic Condition of People ............................................................................ 305

2. Paul’s Interpretative Framing of the Catena ........................................ 309 a. Sin as power in verse 9 ................................................................... 310 b. Knowledge of Sin in verse 20 ......................................................... 312 c. The Law as power and the condition of those “in the Law” ............ 314

3. The Argumentative Rationale of the Passage ...................................... 317 4. Laundry List of Other Problems ......................................................... 319

Chapter Eight: The Revelation of God’s Righteousness in Christ: The Power of God unto Salvation of which Paul Is Not Ashamed in Rom 3:21–26 ............................................. 323

A. Problems in Past Approaches to Rom 3:21–26 ....................................... 323 B. Rereading Rom 3:21–26 ......................................................................... 331

1. Initial Description: Revelation of God’s Righteousness in Rom 3:21–22a ................................................................................ 332 a. How God has not revealed his righteousness in verse 21 ................ 332 b. How and to whom God has revealed his righteousness

in verse 22a .................................................................................... 334 2. Initial Explanation: What This Revelation Shows about Sin and

Justification in Rom 3:22b-24 ............................................................ 342 3. Further Explanation: How, Where, and Why God’s

Righteousness is Revealed in Rom 3:25–26 ....................................... 344

XVI Table of Contents

a. Προέθετο ὁ θεός ................................................................................ 345 b. ∆ιὰ [τῆς] πίστεως ............................................................................. 347 c. ᾿Εν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵµατι ......................................................................... 348 d. ∆ιὰ τὴν πάρεσιν … ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ ..................................... 350 e. ᾿Εν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ .............................................................................. 352 f. Εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ

πίστεως Ἰησοῦ .................................................................................. 354 4. Conclusions and Observations ............................................................ 357

Chapter Nine: Summary and Further Reflections ......................... 361

A. Summary ................................................................................................ 361 B. Further Reflections ................................................................................ 366

Bibliography............................................................................................... 378 Index of References .................................................................................... 391 Index of Authors ........................................................................................ 402 Index of Subjects ........................................................................................ 408

Chapter One

Introduction

The burden of this study is relatively simple in its essence: to show that a crucial theme in Rom 1:16–3:26 has been neglected and misunderstood in the past and that paying more careful attention to it leads to a better reading of those verses than past interpretative approaches have been able to provide. Defined in this way, the study stands at the intersection of two problems in past scholarship. The first is highly visible and widely recognized, namely protracted disagreements between traditional and revisionist scholars over the essential rationale and flow of argument in Rom 1:16–3:26. The second, by contrast, has gone almost entirely unnoticed, despite the fact that it too stands in plain sight. Though Paul speaks regularly about revelation in Rom 1:16–3:26, studies devoted to this theme are both few in number and marked by serious methodological problems. The present study will show how these two problems can be addressed together, since solving the second will also help remedy the first. Toward that end, the present chapter will begin by defining these problems further, which will also lead to explaining the meth-odology and central claims of this study. Then the study’s general approach to Romans will also be described, as background to the detailed exegetical chapters that follow later.

A. Prominent Disagreements in Past Scholarship

on Rom 1:16–3:26 A. Disagreements in Past Scholarship on Rom 1:16–3:26

This dissertation arose inadvertently and out of frustration when reading Rom 1:16–3:26 for the sake of another project.1 The other project intended to trace one theme (related to Paul’s frequent interest in the human body) through all of Romans. However, that project ran aground early on because of complex questions arising over the fundamental logic and flow of thought in Rom 1–3

1 Such frustration has not been uncommon in Romans scholarship. Thomas H. Tobin’s

monograph opens: “This book began with dissatisfaction” (Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts: The Argument of Romans [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004]), 1. More recently, Alain Gignac describes “the dissatisfaction” that prompted him to develop a new approach to Rom 1–4 (“The Enunciative Device of Romans 1:18–4:25: A Succession of Discourses Attempting to Express the Multiple Dimensions of God’s Justice,” CBQ 77 [2015]: 481).

2 Chapter One: Introduction

as a whole. In short, it is impossible to study one subsidiary theme fruitfully if the basic rationale of a given section of Paul’s argument seems to evade clear explanation. Yet this has been the situation with interpretation of Rom 1–3 for some time, as a survey of scholarship over the last several decades helps show.

When it comes to surveying previous scholarship, some of the detail to be desired in that regard will be saved for later chapters, each of which treats one passage in Paul’s unfolding argument. This is because of a fundamental concern to stay close to the text of Romans itself when evaluating past inter-pretative efforts. Amidst the welter of disagreements that past interpretation has generated – including theological, methodological, and historical debates, among others – at the center of everything still stands the essentially un-changing text of Romans itself, in black and white on the page. Moreover, this text comprises the fixed data that interpretative approaches must seek to account for and illuminate. When all is said and done, a paradigm for under-standing Rom 1–3 truly stands or falls on its ability to shed light on those chapters themselves, both in their parts and as a whole. After all, while broad proposals and synthetic interpretative systems may sound plausible when considered in the abstract, they often still betray crucial weaknesses when considered against the concrete details of individual texts. With this in mind, many of the interpretative problems generated by past approaches will be detailed more thoroughly later, in closer relation to careful exegesis of indi-vidual passages.

In the meantime, though, a broad account of recent trends in scholarship on Rom 1–3 still provides necessary background for understanding the nature and significance of this study as a whole. Of course, past scholarship on Rom 1–3 is inescapably quite complex and cannot be reviewed here in all of its detail.2 What is said below must therefore be selective. With that in mind, because the present project seeks to develop a new interpretative approach to Rom 1–3 by drawing attention to a topic that previous approaches have ne-glected, the burden of this project’s interaction with past scholarship will

2 For helpful surveys that provide entry into the diversity to be found in recent interpreta-

tions of Romans and of Paul in general, see Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The ‘Lutheran’ Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 101–258; Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles, rev. and exp. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 1–56; Douglas A. Campbell, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 172–203, 284–466; Magnus Zetter-holm, Approaches to Paul: a Student’s Guide to Recent Scholarship (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009); Daniel Patte and Cristina Grenholm (eds.), Modern Interpretations of Romans: Tracking Their Hermeneutical/Theological Trajectory, Romans through History and Cultures Series 10 (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013). For survey of some less recent interpretations, see Jeffrey P. Greenman and Timothy Larson (eds.), Reading Romans through the Centuries: From the Early Church to Karl Barth (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005).

A. Disagreements in Past Scholarship on Rom 1:16–3:26 3

especially be to highlight what topics past approaches have focused upon, which help define their interpretative perspectives on the text. In other words, while past scholarship is multifaceted, and various aspects of its complexity will come into view all throughout this study, the nature of this study espe-cially calls for attention to a hermeneutical or paradigmatic question concern-ing what topics of central concern have defined and so guided past approach-es to Rom 1–33 and how well those approaches have or have not illuminated the content of those chapters as a result.

When surveyed with this paradigmatic concern in mind, three observations will especially come to the fore in what follows. First, even with all the di-versity that otherwise pertains within it, by and large recent scholarship on Rom 1:16–3:26 still seeks to bring Paul’s argument into focus by relying on one of two interpretative lenses, one defined by concern for soteriological topics and the other by concern for social ones.4 Naturally, the precise way

3 For consideration of how interpretative paradigms naturally focus only on certain topics

or categories of concern and how such a focus can limit the questions that are asked and answered when using a given paradigm to interpret Scripture, see Vern S. Poythress’s discus-sion of approaches to Rom 7:7–25 in Science and Hermeneutics: Implications of Scientific Method for Interpretation, Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation 6 (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1988), 81–89, esp. 85.

4 Even while recognizing other, important kinds of diversity, surveys of past scholarship still recognize this basic division into two groups. See, for example, the family resemblances that are identified among those who essentially agree with a Lutheran approach to Paul or Romans, on the one hand, and those who do not, on the other, in summaries provided by: Westerholm, Perspectives, 249–258, 445; Mark Reasoner, Romans in Full Circle: A History of Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), xxiv-xxvi, 7–9; Watson, Paul, Judaism, 27–56; Campbell, Deliverance, 412–413; Kathy Ehrensperger, “The New Perspective and Beyond” in Modern Interpretations of Romans: Tracking Their Hermeneuti-cal/Theological Trajectory, eds. D. Patte and C Grenholm, (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013), 193, 212. So then, while dividing scholarship on Rom 1–3 into two families does not bring certain differences between scholars immediately into view, it still serves the purpose of highlighting an important watershed that does exist in recent scholarship, which is especially important to be aware of when defining a new approach to the same material. In particular, drawing attention to the existence of two basic paradigms helps explain why certain aspects of Rom 1–3 are or are not readily noticed by scholars and thought to be significant. This then provides a point of comparison and contrast in relation to which a new approach, which is defined in part by its giving a new topic (revelation) more focused attention, can also be unfolded.

But, though it often notes the basic division of recent scholarship into two groups, the pre-sent project still also seeks to account for many aspects of the diversity that exists in recent scholarship, particularly when addressing individual passages and the various interpretative questions that arise within them. For example, scholarship on Romans as a whole is certainly much more complex than scholarship on Rom 1–3 alone, and some of that greater diversity comes into view in how scholars treat Rom 1:16–17, since those verses are usually thought to contain the theme statements for all of Romans. As a result, the analysis of scholarship on those verses, which is offered in chapter 2 below, reflects the greater diversity of approaches


these soteriological and social interests are defined and how they are ad-dressed vary from scholar to scholar. But those central interests, and expecta-tions related to how Paul will address them, still help define the interpretative paradigms being used on these chapters in important ways. Second, these approaches, defined around using these two lenses, have stood largely in opposition to one another, even until the present. In itself, the existence of such a protracted interpretative conflict already calls for further study of Rom 1–3. Third, despite their many strengths and the light they clearly shine on various aspects of Paul’s argument, which will also be built upon in a variety of ways throughout this study, both past approaches still display serious inad-equacies when considered as interpretative models or paradigms for explain-ing the data in Rom 1–3 as a whole. This suggests that what is needed going forward is not just a slight adjustment or a combining of existing approaches but a substantively new paradigm instead.

The story of recent scholarship on Rom 1–3 inevitably begins with the tra-ditional interpretative approach that dates back in many respects to Martin Luther and was assumed and used by commentators on Romans in largely undisturbed fashion even into the 1980s. W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam offer an elemental distillation of the crucial topics of concern to this approach: “Problem: How is Righteousness to be attained? Answer: Not by man’s work, but by God’s gift, through Faith, or loyal attachment to Christ (i. 16, 17).” Accordingly, they see the main parts of Rom 1–3 unfolding in orderly fashion. Romans 1:18–3:20 treat, “Righteousness hitherto unattained,” which pro-ceeds from “Failure of the Gentile” (1:18–32) to “Failure of the Jew” (2:17–29) to “Universal failure illustrated from Scripture” (3:9–20). After that, Rom 3:21–31 provide an “Exposition of the new system.”5 Central to this approach is a focus on soteriology, that is, a systemic concern for the applica-tion of salvation to individuals. The “new system” that Sanday and Headlam reference is a new system for how a person can attain righteousness. Within that frame of reference, Paul’s basic topic is how to be justified, and so his argument is largely explainable through three central categories: individual sin, condemnation, and righteousness received by faith. In other words, Paul seeks to prove the culpable sinfulness of each person, thereby demonstrating universal condemnation apart from Christ, which leads to the message of how to be justified by faith alone. Moreover, this method of being justified stands over against works-righteousness, which is generally defined in terms of attaining righteousness through personal obedience. As Cranfield says, these chapters “make it clear that there can be no question of any other righteous-

that pertains there. Other examples of describing the diversity within past scholarship will also be found throughout the exegetical chapters below.

5 William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 5th ed., ICC (Edin-burgh: T & T Clark, 1902), xlvii-l.


ness of men before God” other than by faith.6 Similarly, Stuhlmacher says that the argument in 1:18–3:20 addresses a “hotly contested” topic “between [Paul], the Jews, and his Jewish-Christian opponents” about personal right-eousness. On that topic, Paul “makes clear where the real problem lies: The Law of God convicts people of sin.” Paul first sets out to prove that no one is personally good enough, before 3:21–26 “expounds the definition of his gos-pel,” which is “the heart of the letter to the Romans.”7 Though traditional interpreters have naturally differed on various details in these chapters, such as whether Rom 2:1–16 speaks about the sin of Jews or of Gentiles and how 3:1–8 fits into the argument, the main lines of this interpretation have still remained remarkably consistent over time, thereby constituting the traditional interpretative paradigm.8

6 C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans,

vol. 1, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 103–104. 7 Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, trans. S. J. Hafemann

(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994), 56–57. Throughout this study, I will cite works in English translation and more recent editions of

classic works, when such are available. 8 In addition to those just cited, others taking this basic approach include: Martin Luther,

Lectures on Romans: Glosses and Scholia, ed. H. C. Oswald, vol. 25 of Luther’s Works (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), 32; John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, trans. and ed. John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998), xix-xxx, 79; Philip Melanchthon, Commentary on Romans, trans. F. Kramer (St. Louis: Concordia, 1992), 73–74; Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968); J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on the Epistles of Paul, Classic Commentary Library (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957); Adolf Schlatter, Romans: The Righteousness of God, trans. S. S. Schatzmann (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), 22; Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. E. C. Hoskyns, 6th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968); Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans, trans. C. C. Rasmussen (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1949); C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1957), 14; John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 28–29, 34–35; Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. and ed. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 32–33; Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, vol. 1 (Zürich: Benziger Verlag, 1978); Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1992); A. T. Lincoln, “From Wrath to Justification: Tradition, Gospel, and Audience in the Theology of Romans 1:18–4:25,” in Romans, vol. 3 of Pauline Theology; ed. D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson (Min-neapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 130–159; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996); Richard H. Bell, No one seeks for God: An Exeget-ical and Theological Study of Romans 1.18–3.20, WUNT 106 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998); Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, BECNT 6 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998); Charles H. Talbert, Romans, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2002); Eduard Lohse, Der Brief an die Römer, KEK 15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003); Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives, 388–389; Leander


Moreover, within this traditional line of interpretation, interpreters have typically emphasized the clear, logical way in which Paul’s argument for sin and justification unfolds. So Murray says of the argument in 1:18–3:20, “The convergent lines of the apostle’s argument all meet in a conclusive demon-

stration that all, both Jews and Gentiles, are guilty before God, are utterly destitute of the good which would make them well-pleasing to God, and are therefore the subjects of his wrath.”9 Similarly, Melanchthon says of 3:21–26, “In propositions, clarity is required most of all. Therefore Paul sets down the proposition accurately, properly, and clearly.”10 In this way, what is often said about Romans as a whole is also thought to be especially true of Rom 1–3, that it “gives a sense of being Paul’s most ‘systematic’ or inherently uni-fied presentation of the gospel.”11

However, despite the long-standing nature of this interpretative consensus, a growing body of dissenting literature has also emerged since the 1970s that more and more stridently called this traditional reading into question. This literature eventually came to form what D. A. Campbell has called a “chorus of disapproval,”12 which questions not just one aspect of traditional interpre-

Keck, Romans, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005); Jae Hyun Lee, Paul’s Gospel in Romans: A Discourse Analysis of Rom. 1:16–8:39, Linguistic Biblical Studies 3 (Boston: Brill, 2010); Arland J. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011); Richard N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans, NIGTC (Grand Rap-ids: Eerdmans, 2016), 358–360, 385–386. To be sure, some variation exists among such interpreters. For example, Barth’s approach focuses much of its attention on the freedom and otherness of God (as does Keck’s), and Käsemann gives particular attention to the apocalyp-tic, world-creating power of God (which has influenced others after him to varying extents). Glenn Davies also comes to quite different conclusions than most traditional interpreters, however his basic approach is still soteriological in its focus (see Faith and Obedience in Romans: A Study in Romans 1–4, JSNTSup 39 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990]). While there is certainly diversity among those noted above, such differences still exist within the scope of a shared focus on matters of individual sin and salvation, when interpreting these chapters.

9 Murray, Romans, 34–35 (emphasis added). For other statements about the logical clarity of Paul’s argument, see also Melanchthon, Romans, 86.

10 Melanchthon, Romans, 98. 11 Richard Earl Sturm, “An Exegetical Study of the Apostle Paul’s Use of the Words

APOKALUPTO/APOKALUPSIS: The Gospel as God’s Apocalypse,” (Ph.D. Diss., Union Theological Seminary, 1984), 194.

12 See D. A. Campbell, The Quest for Paul’s Gospel: A Suggested Strategy, JSNTSup 274 (New York: T & T Clark International, 2005), 233–245, esp. 234. For other important sum-maries of criticism, see also Campbell’s Deliverance, 338–466; J. C. O’Neill, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975), 40–43; E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 123–136; Heikki Räisänen, Paul and the Law (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), esp. pp. 97–119; Klyne Snodgrass, “Justification by Grace – to the Doers: An Analysis of the Place of Rom 2 in the Theology of Paul,” NTS 32 (1986): 72–93; Charles H. Cosgrove, “What if Some Have Not Believed? The Occasion and


tation or another but the viability of its interpretative approach as a whole. In addition, while this chorus of disapproval has voiced many different kinds of objections, including by making key theological and historical claims that have been heavily debated in themselves, still an important component of its objections has also been exegetical in nature. On this exegetical front, the questions raised have often had significant merit to them, probing searchingly into whether various details of the text really fit well when Rom 1–3 are viewed as a clear, logical proof of every person’s sin.

First, many have pointed out how important parts of Paul’s argument actu-ally describe apparently obedient, law-keeping people and in contexts where Paul makes no immediate effort to clarify that this obedience is imperfect or insufficient in its nature. Of particular note, though Rom 3:9 will eventually say that all have sinned and 3:19 will say that every mouth is shut by the Law, earlier Paul described evidently obedient people in 2:7, 10, 13–15, 26–27, and sometimes with considerable rhetorical emphasis. For example, these verses include a chiastically arranged description of eschatological repayment that gives equal attention to people experiencing positive and negative outcomes in direct relation to their obedience (vv. 7–10). They also include what some have taken to be a simple soteriological syllogism: the doers of the Law will be justified (v. 13); some Gentiles do the Law (v. 14); therefore some Gen-tiles will be justified on the basis of doing the Law (implied). Later, Paul also describes an obedient Gentile who, by virtue of doing the Law, will sur-pass and so judge a disobedient Jew in the final assize (vv. 26–27). In light of such verses, Francis Watson has concluded, “The argument in Romans 2 works only on the premise of the non-universality of sin.”13 Likewise, Klyne Snodgrass concluded that, “The words of 2.7, 10, and 13–15 would be a ‘pure sham’ if judgment were according to works, but damnation were the only possibility.”14 He therefore provocatively insists that Rom 2 “means exactly what it says,”15 that some Gentiles will be justified on the basis of their works. Along similar lines, Rom 3:3 also seems to fit uncomfortably in the tradition-

Thrust of Romans 3:1–8,” ZNW 78 (1987): 90–92; Stanley K. Stowers, A Rereading of Ro-mans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 100–59; N. T. Wright, “The Law in Romans 2,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law: The Third Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium on Earliest Christianity and Judaism (Durham, September, 1994), ed. J. D. G. Dunn (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996) 131–132; Watson, Paul, Juda-ism, 209–216; N. T. Wright, “Romans 2:17–3:9: A Hidden Clue to the Meaning of Romans?” JSPHL 2.1 (2012): 8–10; Alain Gignac, “Enunciative,” 482–486.

13 Watson, Paul, Judaism, 219. Cp., “Romans 2 repeatedly holds out the possibility of righteousness by the law as a real one” (Sanders, Paul, the Law, 35).

14 Snodgrass, “To the Doers,” 83. 15 Ibid., 74.


al paradigm, where Paul says only that “some” (τινες) Jews have been un-faithful, rather than more clearly detailing a truly universal problem.16

Of course, the exact significance of all of this evidence has been debated, as will be noted in more detail when treating each individual passage later in this study. Nevertheless, the very presence of such data in the text does seem problematic for the traditional approach.17 If Paul’s whole argument is de-signed as a proof of each person’s sinfulness, why give such prominent place to seemingly contradictory evidence along the way without clearer efforts at qualification? At best, such data seem to muddy the waters regarding Paul’s main concern, making what Paul actually says at various points seem like a liability to what he is traditionally thought to have meant.

Second, many have also found other portions of Paul’s argument unper-suasive as a proof of everyone’s sin. As one notable issue, the small number and scandalous nature of the sins mentioned in 2:21–22 (typically translated as adultery, stealing, and temple robbery) have elicited critics’ attention. Stowers, for example, notes a “striking asymmetry” between this section of Paul’s argument, which names only a few Jewish sins, and the much longer list of sins found in 1:21–32, which he takes to describe Gentiles.18 In order to secure conviction of every person, one might also have expected Paul to list more obviously universal sins, like lust or coveting, rather than seemingly less common ones like adultery and theft. 19 Instead, Räisänen observes, “There is absolutely no talk of motives and the like; gross sins are put under fire.”20 Yet if such heinous sins are in view, are all Jews really guilty of them? Räisänen concludes that they are not and that Paul’s accusations are therefore not empirically or factually true. Campbell also insists that traditional inter-pretation requires “descriptive inaccuracy” on Paul’s part, “at times to quite a gross degree”21 since most Jews have not done these things. And Wright says, “if 2:21–24 is supposed to be a kind of empirical demonstration of universal sin among the Jews, it seems almost laughably inadequate.”22 In addition, many have also found Paul’s appeal to Scripture texts in Rom 3:10–18 inade-

16 See Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 99; Stowers, Rereading, 182. 17 Räisänen says that references to righteous people “stand in flat contradiction to the main

thesis of the section” regarding the sin of all (Paul and the Law, 103). 18 Stowers, Rereading, 127–128. Cp. Philip F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans

(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 152. 19 Wright notes how every Israelite is not doing the things listed in 2:22–23 and concludes

that the passage is “not individualistic” but about Israel’s failure in its role as a nation (“Law in Rom 2,” 142).

20 Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 98. Cp. Sanders, Paul, the Law, 125. To similar effect, Cosgrove notes how Paul does not indict Jews for attempting to keep the Law, as some Lu-theran interpreters allege (“Occasion and Thrust,” 90).

21 Campbell, Quest, 240. 22 Wright, “Hidden Clue,” 10.


quate for convicting every person of sin. Of particular concern there is the way some of the Old Testament passages Paul cites seem only to describe the sins of some people in their original contexts as well as the way the people originally described in some of the passages may primarily be Gentiles, at a point in Paul’s argument when proof of Jewish sin seems to be what is espe-cially needed. Given such evidentiary problems, Räisänen concludes that Paul’s argument “badly twists the original meaning of the Biblical sayings. Paul makes use of a catena of citations which originally described the nature of the impious (as opposed to the pious). That this should demonstrate that all are ‘under sin’ is another petitio principii.”23 Besides all this, many have also criticized the traditional approach for viewing Rom 3:1–8 as a mere digression and have taken this as yet more evidence of how this approach is unable to provide an integrated explanation of Paul’s whole argument, with all its constitutive parts.24

Third, some have also found fault with traditional interpretation for what Paul does not attempt to prove in Rom 1–3. If Paul is seeking to vindicate his own soteriological position over against an alternative Jewish soteriology, some insist he would need to prove that existing Jewish methods for atone-ment, such as repentance and the sacrificial cult, were inadequate. So Stow-ers says, “For Paul to prove that Jews are no better with regard to sin than gentiles, he would have to argue either that the means of repentance-atonement that Jews believed was taught in the scriptures was nonfunctioning or inadequate or that Jews never repented and sought forgiveness.”25 In the absence of such an argument, Stowers therefore concludes: “If Paul meant to show that Judaism and the law were inadequate to deal with sin and that a new religion of Christ was thus needed, he completely failed.”26

Of course, all of the exegetical problems just mentioned have been heavily debated, and each must ultimately be dealt with on its own merits. Neverthe-less, the more gaps and tensions a given interpretative paradigm produces, the more the paradigm itself begins to seem insufficient.

In addition, critics have not just voiced exegetical objections. They have also offered both methodological and historical criticisms as well.27

Regarding methodology, critics often decry the anachronistic influence of Western individualism upon traditional interpretation or its use of what are

23 Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 99. For further discussion of this issue, see chapter 7 be-

low. 24 The evidence regarding “digression” is actually more complex than critics make it seem,

since many revisionists treat some or all of the passage as tantamount to a digression too. For detailed discussion and documentation regarding this topic, including how it is a substantial problem for both traditional and revisionist approaches, see chapter 6 below.

25 Stowers, Rereading, 149. 26 Ibid., 150. Cp. Cosgrove, “Occasion and Thrust,” 91–92. 27 On this score, see especially Campbell, Deliverance, 399–411.


alleged to be later theological abstractions produced by debates between Augustinianism and Pelagianism. Most notably, Krister Stendahl has cri-tiqued scholarly preoccupation with the Western individual’s “introspective conscience” and with abstract notions rather than concrete, historical situa-tions. Instead Stendahl believes it is “quite clear that in this letter Paul’s focus really is…not the notion of justification or predestination and certainly not other…abstract theological topics.” Again he says, the real issue in Ro-mans is “not ‘Christianity’ and ‘Judaism,’ not the attitudes of the gospel ver-sus the attitudes of the law.”28 Along similar lines, Stowers frequently asserts things like,

The reader should not be tempted by the perspectives of modern abstract individualism: Paul is not saying that every gentile (or every human person) first knows God and then turns away to idolatry and immortality [sic]. It has been one of the hermeneutical moves of post-Augustinian and especially post-Reformation interpretation to ‘de-literalize’ and universalize Rom 1–2.29

In Stowers’s view, all of this constitutes unwarranted “psychologizing” of the text.

By comparison, regarding historical matters most critics have objected to traditional interpretation regarding its assumptions about the nature of Second Temple Judaism. If Judaism of the time period was actually grace-filled and not legalistic, as E. P. Sanders famously argued,30 then either Rom 1–3 pre-

28 Krister Stendahl, “Paul Among Jews and Gentiles,” in Paul among Jews and Gentiles,

and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 4. For critique of traditional focus on “atti-tudes,” see also K. Stendahl, “Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” HTR 56 (1963): 199–215. Ironically, though, many revisionist interpreters depending on Stendahl focus just as much or even more on inward problems of thoughts or motivations. For exam-ple, Robert Jewett states, “the underlying issue is that actions motivated by the desire for superior honor, in Paul’s view, pervert obedience and frustrate the purpose of divine law. Only those who abandon claims of superiority can fulfill the law, which required both Jews and Gentiles to change their motivational systems” (Romans: A Commentary, Herm [Minne-apolis: Fortress, 2007], 212). Cp. also the emphasis on arrogance and pretension in Stowers, Rereading, 100–03, 147, 152–53, and on attitudes of superiority and overconfidence in James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC 38a (Dallas: Word Books, Publisher, 1988), 90, 92–93, 107, 117.

29 Stowers, Rereading, 108; cp. p. 34. For similar criticisms regarding traditional abstrac-tion, individualism, and reliance on anachronistic theological systems, see Jouette Bassler, Divine Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom, SBLDS 59 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 141; Watson, Paul, Judaism, 10–11, 234; Dunn, Romans, 156; Wright, “Law in Rom 2,” 141, 143; Jewett, Romans, 329.

30 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977), 427. Cp., Dunn, Romans, 137; Don B. Garlington, Obedience of Faith: a Pauline Phrase in Historical Context (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1991), 46–47; Neil Elliott, The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy


sent Judaism inaccurately or legalism and works-righteousness are not what Paul is actually combating in Rom 1–3. Either way, one of the crucial as-sumptions of traditional interpretation would be undermined, thereby requir-ing a new interpretation of Paul’s argument.

Clearly these methodological and historical objections rely upon analysis of matters going far beyond interpretation of Rom 1–3. They also depend upon highly synthetic and quite debatable assessments of both Western thought as a whole and Second Temple Judaism as a whole. As a result, such objections will be of less direct concern to the present study, with its narrow-er exegetical focus on the data of Rom 1–3 themselves. Nevertheless, the nature of these criticisms still helps show how deep and systemic the conflict between traditional and revisionist approaches has been.

On reflection, all of these objections, which Campbell says range from “the mildly puzzling to the profoundly embarrassing,”31 have often produced wholesale rejection of the traditional approach to Rom 1–3. For many, this approach is not just wrong but wrong-headed. Sanders therefore says, “The conclusion ‘all are under sin’ is not accounted for by [Paul’s] argument in favor of it…”32 Similarly, Cosgrove states, “If the apostle endeavors here to establish the liability of Jews universally to divine judgment, his argument falls short of conviction.”33 Räisänen insists Rom 1–3 merely prove that “many live in grave sins” but then conclude that “all are under sin,” thereby constituting “a blatant non sequitur.”34 Stowers says that Romans simply “does not seek to show that every individual human has been a sin-ner…Romans is not about salvation in any traditional Christian sense.”35

Given how heavily revisionists criticize traditional interpretation, the ques-tion naturally arises, then, what alternative understanding of these chapters they would advocate in its place. To be sure, quite a diverse array of opin-ions exists in answer to that question. Amidst the diversity, though, what has unified essentially all revisionist interpretation has been a programmatic interest in the social relations of Jews and Gentiles in Paul’s time.36 As a

and Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 167–223; Campbell, Deliv-erance, 409.

31 Campbell, Deliverance, 397. 32 Sanders, Paul, the Law, 151. 33 Cosgrove, “Occasion and Thrust,” 91. 34 Heikki Räisänen, “Paul’s Theological Difficulties with the Law,” in Papers on Paul and

Other New Testament Authors, vol. 3 of Studia Biblica 1978, ed. E. A. Livingstone, JSNTSup 3 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 309–310. Cp. Räisänen, Paul and the Law, 99; Snodgrass, “To the Doers,” 72–73.

35 Stowers, Rereading, 113. 36 The main revisionist interpreter of whom this is less true would be D. A. Campbell,

whose focus on “pneumatologically participatory martyrological eschatology” (Quest, 4)


result, revisionists have generally replaced traditional focus upon sin, con-demnation, and justification by faith with a programmatic concern for Jews, Gentiles, and social relations within God’s people. Rather than seeing Ro-mans as a treatise on the universal question “How can I be saved,” then, Stendahl insists that “in this letter Paul’s focus really is the relation between Jews and Gentiles.” “The question is the relation between two communities and their coexistence…’37 Similarly, Stowers says that Paul speaks of Jews and Gentiles “as peoples and not in abstract-individual-universal terms…Instead of an individual-universal perspective of the human essence, Paul’s perspective is collective and historical.” 38 Again, Watson states, “Paul’s concern…[is] not with ‘the individual’ as such, as has often been assumed. The anthropos…who is ‘justified by faith’ is no mere individual but represents the united community. The ‘anthropocentrism’ of this passage is ecclesial rather than individual in its orientation. It has to do with compet-ing communal orientations…”39 Likewise, James Dunn says that Paul’s cru-cial statement in Rom 3:9 about people being under sin speaks of “Jews and Greeks as a whole. Not that he is thinking of everyone as specific individuals, but of Jews and Gentiles in general, as an ethnic and social solidarity…”40

Unified by this social focus, revisionist scholars have offered many differ-ent proposals for understanding the rationale of Rom 1–3. For Sanders, Paul’s argument was simply not logically coherent, as traditional interpreters suppose, and was therefore not explainable on the basis of its theology, as such. Rather, Paul was simply deploying disparate, even contradictory, ar-guments to support his pre-existing commitment to Christianity over Juda-ism.41 Along similar lines, Watson concluded that Paul’s individual argu-ments in Romans contain various conceptual inconsistencies. As a result, their rationale cannot be explained at the level of theology but on the basis of Paul’s social goal to unify Jewish and Gentile Christians outside the syna-gogue in Rome.42 Other revisionists believe Paul is explicating the theologi-cal axiom of God’s impartiality toward Jewish and Gentile people groups,43

certainly includes a social emphasis within it but is also considerably broader in its scope. Problems particular to Campbell’s approach will be noted separately below, where relevant.

37 Stendahl, “Paul among Jews and Gentiles,” 4. 38 Stowers, Rereading, 107–108; cp. p. 113. 39 Watson, Paul, Judaism, 234. 40 Dunn, Romans, 156. Cp. similar statements in Sanders, Palestinian Judaism, 488;

Wright, “The Law in Rom 2,” 141, 143; Esler, Conflict, 144; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric, 99, 105. 41 See Sanders, Paul, the Law, 151; cp. his summary in Palestinian Judaism, 552. 42 Watson advocates a kind of “social realism” that requires replacing Paul the thinker

with Paul the agent (Paul, Judaism, 26). 43 Bassler, Impartiality, 121–158. A similar emphasis can be seen in Michael Wolter’s

statement that the lack of distinction between Jews and Gentiles runs like “der rote Faden” through Rom 1:18–3:20 (Der Brief an die Römer, vol. 1, EKK [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu-


showing that God will accept moral Gentiles without their having to become Jews,44 disproving an ethnic or national exceptionalism that would exempt Jews from equal judgment,45 showing that Gentile Christians should not reject or boast over non-Christian Jews,46 or unifying Roman Christian factions by undermining the assumptions of the honor-shame system of Roman society47 – all in order “to redefine the people of God by redrawing the boundaries which distinguish them.”48 In each case, then, the genius of Paul’s argument revolves not around disproving works-righteousness or other soteriological concerns in themselves but in defending or reconfiguring certain patterns of social relations within God’s people. Don Garlington therefore summarizes the opinion of many when he states, “the controversy between Paul and Juda-ism had respect not to ‘grace’ vs. ‘legalism’ in the commonly accepted sense of the terms but to Pauline ethnic inclusiveness as opposed to the Jewish restriction of God’s covenant favor to Israel…”49 Accordingly, “although Paul does indeed address himself to the reality of universal human sinfulness,

kirchener Theologie, 2014], 130). See also his view that in Rom 3:22a “Paulus gibt in diesen anderthalb Versen nicht weniger als eine kompakte Zusammenfassung von 1,16–3,20” (Ibid., 251).

44 Stowers, Rereading, 141. 45 Dunn, Romans, 78, 116; George P. Carras, “Romans 2, 1–29: A Dialogue on Jewish

Ideals,” Bib 73 (1992): 206–07; Don B. Garlington, Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance: Aspects of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, WUNT 79 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1994), 51–55; Brendan Byrne, Romans, SP 6 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996), 79–80; Klaus Haacker, The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Romans, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 33; N. T. Wright, “Romans and the Theolo-gy of Paul” in Romans, vol. 3 of Pauline Theology, ed. D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson (Minne-apolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 37, and “The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in The New Interpreters Bible, vol. 10 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 428–429; John M. G. Barclay, “Paul and Philo on Circumcision: Romans 2.25–9 in Social and Cultural Context,” NTS 44 (1998): 544; Kent L. Yinger, Paul, Judaism, and Judgment According to Deeds, SNTSMS 105 (Cambridge: University Press, 1999), 150–153; Tobin, Rhetoric, 105, 115, 118; Elliot, Rhetoric, 123, 126; Frank J. Matera, Romans, Paideia Com-mentaries on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 59. Sometimes the same basic view also includes a companion emphasis on undermining the moral hypocrisy of some Gentiles as well (esp. in vv. 1–16). E.g., see Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 79, 89; Esler, Conflict, 151–153. In either case, the point is that one or more forms of elitism are being attacked, as obstacles to social unity.

46 H. Boers, “The Problem of the Jews and Gentiles in the Macro-Structure of Romans,” Neot 15 (1981): 6–7; W. S. Campbell, “Romans III as the Key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter.” NovT 23.1 (1981): 38–39; Elliott, Rhetoric, 222.

47 See Jewett, Romans, xv, 1, 198, 212. 48 Garlington, Faith, Obedience, 45. 49 Garlington, Obedience of Faith, 46–47.

Documents

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen - ciando.com fileWissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate