A Unique Proposal on Rom 1:18-2:1

[mikesw]

I meant to say that when reading from Rom 1 to 2, then the focus is on figuring out which parts of Rom 1:18-32 are being done by the letter's recipients. It gets forgotten that Paul has made a strong rebuke against them. Also, it may be that Rom 2:1 is interpreted as sort of a rebuke of Jewish Christians who think of themselves better than the gentiles -- but not creating a drastic division. However, the text is decently demonstrated to be written to a gentile-only audience ( per Stanley Stowers, Paul Achtemeier, Andrew Das, Neil Elliott and some others). Apart from such recognition, it becomes tricky to assign parts of the letter between Jews and gentiles. Also, it is hard to see who Paul is contesting in Rom 2-3. It becomes easier to make such decisions in subsequent chapters --where these decisions still can be wrong. The letter should become more coherent to people when they can see it addressed to gentiles.

 

[TibiasDad]

Then Paul said in 2:1 -- "out of your angry hearts you were judging them, weren't you?"

Rom 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. (NIV)

I don’t know what translation you are using, but it is not even close to anything I’ve read, including the Greek.

Doug

 

[mikesw]

Rom 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. (NIV)

I don’t know what translation you are using, but it is not even close to anything I’ve read, including the Greek.

Doug

Whew! I'm glad you keep the actual text in mind when I shared that. Otherwise, interpretive paraphrases could have backfired. So you are careful enough to recognize the paraphrase from a quote out of a bible translation.

Anyhow. That paraphrase expresses the judgmental angry attitude of the gentiles that Paul was addressing. The gentiles certainly were not inviting the Jews to have coffee and biscuits. The ultimate problem that Paul addresses in Romans 9 to 11 is that the gentiles had figured that Jews lost their chance to be justified in Christ and thus could only face the wrath of God. That stance is certainly not friendly toward Jews. Paul's most clear rejection of their viewpoint was that he is accepted by God though being a Jew.

Rom 11:1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

It took ten chapters for Paul to be able to tell them that God did not reject his people. It took Paul showing himself as evidence that not all Jews were rejected. If you put the pieces together, you can see how badly the gentiles viewed the Jews after the Jewish Christians were expelled from Rome.

 

[mikesw]

I don't expect everyone to comprehend Paul's approach. Even after this becomes the common knowledge, most people will likely just have to recognize that the understanding of the text is recognized as the one to make most sense of the letter. People would really need to have a guide or commentary to understand the flow and context of the letter. This tends to go against my early expectation that people should just be able to read the text and understand what is happening.
If you have not seen my post on Galatians, we run into the same situation where people have settled on something that seems superficially explanatory of the text but it still was not a sufficient explanation. I'm hoping that reading of Gal 3:19-20 gets distributed so I can hear if anyone has a solid reason to reject it.

 

[Swordman]

I present a different concept of the audience and of Rom 1:18-2:1 than is commonly held. This for consideration by people who may be interested. I don't quite expect people will change to this concept immediately.

The benefits of my initial findings (like Rom 1:18-2:1 as a juridical parable that implicates the gentiles concerning their anti-Jewish sentiment) do not become apparent until maybe Rom 3:27 “Where then is there room for or basis for boasting? Now 3:27 does not come into clarity until Rom 4:1-3, at which time the boasting of Jews is rejected. [Thus Rom 4:1-3 tells the gentiles not to be persuaded by the boasting in the need for works of the law.]

I'm sharing on Rom 1:18-2:1 as the passage that opened up the meaning of the rest of the letter after I understood the role of this initial passage. Thus, if a new concept of Rom 1:18-2:1 does not seem to be justified immediately, I will not be surprised that you raise that issue here. My proposed outline arguably demonstrates continuity that is lacking in other explanations of Romans.1

The following is also in video form ( Youtube -- Romans 1_18 to 32 #biblesolved #bibleanswers ).

I find that Paul wrote to Roman Gentile Christians who had thought Jews lost their chance to be saved. so the beginning of the letter presents various techniques to gain their interest in hearing what Paul has written,with him also being a Jew. After the initial chapters Paul steps through different obstacles of their thoughts and behaviors in preparation for a message pushing for their change of attitude toward the Jews in Romans 9-11.

So, Romans 1: 18-21 contain the main content that identified to me the letter's direct recipients as being Gentiles. Paul's approach in 1:18 to 2:1 uses the technique Nathan used when confronting King David. If you're not familiar with the passage of Nathan confronting David in 2 Samuel12:1-9, it will help to listen to a video from me on that or look at the text itself. Here are some Snippets of Romans 1:18 to 32: “ for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness because that which is known of God is revealed in them for God revealed it to them for the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse, because knowing God they did not glorify him as God.

It goes on later to say “men doing what is inappropriate with men and receiving in themselves the penalty due their errors, even as they refuse to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to reprobate minds:backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil thing, disobedient to parents, without understanding,covenant breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving,unmerciful, who, knowing the ordinance of God that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same things but also approve of those who practice these things.”

This is followed by Romans 2:1: “Therefore you are without excuse O man, whoever you are who judge, for in that which you judge another you condemn yourself, for you who judge practice the same things.

The most evident feature of Romans 1 is the intensity of the message. God's Wrath is occurring on people of great depravity. People know God but reject God. Toward the end, an onslaught of rapid details is shared: God gave him up to reprobate minds to do the things which are not fitting being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness,covetousness, malice, full of evil, murderers, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret, and slanderers. Today we call this a hellfire and brimstone message. I call Romans 1:18-32 as simply “the sermon.”It stirs up our hearts and self-righteous judging of others. This is the same emotion as Nathan stirred up in King David's mind. Nathan used this approach to lead David into exposing his heart. Nathan says of David's judgment against the rich men, “You are the man.”After this grand sermon, Paul likewise writes “you are without excuse O man, whoever you who are who judge for in that which you judge another you condemn yourselves, for you practice the same things. Paul has just made a harsh accusation against the Romans.Imagine the sermon and now being exposed for your own judgmental attitude. Your reaction would be worse if you were wholly committed to this view Paul just shared, especially when you think Paul was confirming your view with all that he said in Romans 1. The reaction of the people hearing this would be surprised. That surprise also included recognition that Paul just exposed their judgmental hearts.These gentiles would also recognize their own behavior reflected in Romans 1, not just those of other people. So their own guilt would be exposed both in judgment, but also in failing in the same way as the people they just condemned. Such stirring of emotion was common in the hellfire preaching. The goal of such sermons is for people to recognize their sin and to repent. Paul had the same goal with the with the Roman gentiles. Looking back at 2 Sam 2:1-9, imagine having the rage of David. In such a judgment David's anger burned hot against a man, and now David was exposed as being that man. The effect is that Romans 1 evokes a strong judgmental attitude against whatever group we as readers have envisioned. What does Paul say next(“you are without excuse O man who judge”) shows Paul effectively saying, “You just got all angered and judgmental, didn't you? This rise of agitation and judgmental attitude predictably happened at least among most of his audience in Rome. The effect of Romans 2:1then is to expose the Gentiles' blatantly wrong judgmental attitude.Careful consideration of the situation shows that the Roman Church saw a judgment against the Jews here.

The people hearing this letter first would be nervous what Paul would say but upon hearing this they ironically might have a sense of relief in that they had anticipated a harsher message by Paul due to the various problems of the church (as will be revealed in analysis of subsequent chapters). Very few of their problems have been recognized before,but this passage begins to reveal major problems in Rome in the first century. Their problems are not addressed much yet in the text, but the gentiles might recognize their behavior in the sermon. Although the message was not spoken harshly, the problem of their judgmental attitude was exposed. Plus the cleverness of Paul's approach would have to be noted and in some ways appreciated by the audience. This appreciation would be that Paul did not attack them harshly and caught them in a little trap. This approach to some degree exposes misbehavior and promotes repentance. But the passage only has been the first step to repair problems with the Roman gentile Christians.And I help to show what those problems are in subsequent in the analysis of those chapters.

I think thematically, Romans 1:16-17 sets the stage for where Paul is leading his audience.

In terms of his audience, I would suggest a three-tiered audience, with the primary audience as gentile (in partial agreement with you), a secondary audience of Christ-following Jews (returning from exile), and a third audience of unbelieving Jews. I would also suggest that the interlocutor (rhetorical opponent) in Romans is framed as a gentile believer, representing the primary audience.

A good essay to read is Lloyd Bitzer's essay on the rhetorical situation. This is an old essay published in the late 1960s that has helped my understanding of various elements of Romans, and is a classic read. He is writing to a secular audience and the essay is not about anything biblical. However, it establishes some important principles for establishing why something is written. (Also see Richard Vatz's and Scot Consigny's responses to Bitzer. All were published within 10 years in the journal "Rhetoric.")

In terms of Romans 1:18ff, one has to wonder why Paul begins with the wrath of God against idolatry when speaking to people of faith (1:8). The fundamental point Paul is making here is a warning. If the gentiles had removed themselves from the synagogue community to establish their own communities of faith, they can no longer claim the exemption from sacrifice to the emperor/Rome that was required. Jews were exempt and as long as the gentiles were tied to the synagogue community, they could participate in the exemption. By separating from the synagogue (they were previously seen as proselytes), they put themselves at risk of being required to participate in a pagan practice. Even more, they cannot support the Christ-following Jews who were returning from the exile of Claudius.

The introduction in 1:1-17 is important to establishing the frame of the letter. I will not go into detail here, but I would suggest reading this carefully and slowly noting the following:

• Paul's gospel is explicitly Jewish in character and relies heavily on Jewish scripture to support it (1:1-4).
• He is speaking primarily to gentiles (1:13) when using the second person ("you"). However, these gentiles (at least the leadership) see themselves replacing Jews.
• The interlocutor (rhetorical opponent) of Romans is a gentile. This should be obvious since the primary audience is gentile. However, many still maintain that the interlocutor is Jewish. Understanding the interlocutor as a gentile changes the way we read the interaction and the intention of Paul
• Paul acknowledges their faith (1:8) but seeks to strengthen them. (This is an irony that should be factored into our interpretation of Romans 14-15).
• Paul acknowledges his debt to both Greeks and barbarians. We generally skip over this verse, but we should ask why he includes this. First, in Rome the scriptures used by the synagogue would have been in Greek and Paul uses this version of his scriptures throughout the text. Greeks (Hellenists) were those who primarily spoke Greek and most of his dealings among the gentiles (the nations) had been in the Greek speaking cultures. Barbarians seems odd in this context, unless we remember that for the Romans, barbarians technically means someone who speaks in a foreign tongue. For gentile Romans, that would include the Jews, those for whom Hebrew or Aramaic would have been primary.
• Paul gives primacy to the Jews in terms of salvation by faith. We can debate what this means, but it is clear that they are placed first. The Messiah was a Jew, they retain the covenants, and salvation comes from them. Paul never denies his own Jewishness.

That is enough for now.

 

[mikesw]

...
In terms of Romans 1:18ff, one has to wonder why Paul begins with the wrath of God against idolatry when speaking to people of faith (1:8). The fundamental point Paul is making here is a warning. If the gentiles had removed themselves from the synagogue community to establish their own communities of faith, they can no longer claim the exemption from sacrifice to the emperor/Rome that was required. Jews were exempt and as long as the gentiles were tied to the synagogue community, they could participate in the exemption. By separating from the synagogue (they were previously seen as proselytes), they put themselves at risk of being required to participate in a pagan practice. Even more, they cannot support the Christ-following Jews who were returning from the exile of Claudius.

The introduction in 1:1-17 is important to establishing the frame of the letter. I will not go into detail here, but I would suggest reading this carefully and slowly noting the following:

• Paul's gospel is explicitly Jewish in character and relies heavily on Jewish scripture to support it (1:1-4).
• He is speaking primarily to gentiles (1:13) when using the second person ("you"). However, these gentiles (at least the leadership) see themselves replacing Jews.
• The interlocutor (rhetorical opponent) of Romans is a gentile. This should be obvious since the primary audience is gentile. However, many still maintain that the interlocutor is Jewish. Understanding the interlocutor as a gentile changes the way we read the interaction and the intention of Paul
• Paul acknowledges their faith (1:8) but seeks to strengthen them. (This is an irony that should be factored into our interpretation of Romans 14-15).
• Paul acknowledges his debt to both Greeks and barbarians. We generally skip over this verse, but we should ask why he includes this. First, in Rome the scriptures used by the synagogue would have been in Greek and Paul uses this version of his scriptures throughout the text. Greeks (Hellenists) were those who primarily spoke Greek and most of his dealings among the gentiles (the nations) had been in the Greek speaking cultures. Barbarians seems odd in this context, unless we remember that for the Romans, barbarians technically means someone who speaks in a foreign tongue. For gentile Romans, that would include the Jews, those for whom Hebrew or Aramaic would have been primary.
• Paul gives primacy to the Jews in terms of salvation by faith. We can debate what this means, but it is clear that they are placed first. The Messiah was a Jew, they retain the covenants, and salvation comes from them. Paul never denies his own Jewishness.

That is enough for now.

You provide a common explanation here. Such is the backdrop against which my proposal challenges. There are certain things that stand out as issues. The first issue involves lack of recognition that Paul only has addressed gentiles in the letter. They did not volunteer to get out of the synagogues. They were forced out when the Jewish Christians were expelled from Rome under Claudius's edit. That really is the start of their problems that Paul tries to correct. Everything of the first 11 chapters stems from that situation. The rhetorical details are important, but the critical ones are missed in the stuff I have examined (e.g. Tobin, Paul's rhetoric in its contexts). As a latecomer to the letter, you really have to start with an awareness of the situation, of which my proposed reading argues is different from what commentators have proposed before.

Paul's sole purpose (or nearly so) in Rom 1:1-17 is to get the gentiles to read further into the letter. He has to address concerns such as their frustration that Paul has not visited them yet. That is part of the context for his writing. This derives from the recognition of the gentiles' original participation in the synagogue, the expulsion of Jews and the apparent disdain of Jews. These factors underlie Paul's use of Nathan-David in Rom 1:18-2:1. Paul also is a Jew would be under suspicion by the gentiles. Thus Paul has to overcome that in Rom 1:1-17. However all those details are not part of the discussion until the rhetorical setting is recognized. That is why I have started with Rom 1:18-2:1. My essential reason for starting with Rom 1:18-2:1 is to provide a new vantage point to understand the problems in Rome that drove Paul to write to the gentiles in Rome. Reading the first 17 verses without the vantage point I have presented can be like reading sarcasm as direct text or direct text as sarcasm. I'm not saying those verses are viewed by anyone as sarcasm; I just mean the difference of reading is quite stark.

 

[mikesw]

I do recognize that the interpretations of Romans of any chapters has been a matter of making the best guess in the face of complexities of the letter to the Romans. A general problem becomes apparent under the confusion around, for example, Paul's inclusion of Romans 9 to 11. I actually shared earlier the apparent issue in Romans 11:1. Basically my finding on Rom 1:18 to 2:1 created the path to understand the continuity and issues across Romans. Some things are not fully new. Tobin identifies the person of Rom 7:14-25 pretty well. He mainly notes that the "I" describes the experience of the gentiles (Tobin, Paul's Rhetoric, 237). But mostly the text is misunderstood largely as the failure to recognize the situation in Rome.

 

[mikesw]

I think thematically, Romans 1:16-17 sets the stage for where Paul is leading his audience.

In terms of his audience, I would suggest a three-tiered audience, with the primary audience as gentile (in partial agreement with you), a secondary audience of Christ-following Jews (returning from exile), and a third audience of unbelieving Jews. I would also suggest that the interlocutor (rhetorical opponent) in Romans is framed as a gentile believer, representing the primary audience.

A good essay to read is Lloyd Bitzer's essay on the rhetorical situation. This is an old essay published in the late 1960s that has helped my understanding of various elements of Romans, and is a classic read. He is writing to a secular audience and the essay is not about anything biblical. However, it establishes some important principles for establishing why something is written. (Also see Richard Vatz's and Scot Consigny's responses to Bitzer. All were published within 10 years in the journal "Rhetoric.")

In terms of Romans 1:18ff, one has to wonder why Paul begins with the wrath of God against idolatry when speaking to people of faith (1:8). The fundamental point Paul is making here is a warning. If the gentiles had removed themselves from the synagogue community to establish their own communities of faith, they can no longer claim the exemption from sacrifice to the emperor/Rome that was required. Jews were exempt and as long as the gentiles were tied to the synagogue community, they could participate in the exemption. By separating from the synagogue (they were previously seen as proselytes), they put themselves at risk of being required to participate in a pagan practice. Even more, they cannot support the Christ-following Jews who were returning from the exile of Claudius.

The introduction in 1:1-17 is important to establishing the frame of the letter. I will not go into detail here, but I would suggest reading this carefully and slowly noting the following:

• Paul's gospel is explicitly Jewish in character and relies heavily on Jewish scripture to support it (1:1-4).
• He is speaking primarily to gentiles (1:13) when using the second person ("you"). However, these gentiles (at least the leadership) see themselves replacing Jews.
• The interlocutor (rhetorical opponent) of Romans is a gentile. This should be obvious since the primary audience is gentile. However, many still maintain that the interlocutor is Jewish. Understanding the interlocutor as a gentile changes the way we read the interaction and the intention of Paul
• Paul acknowledges their faith (1:8) but seeks to strengthen them. (This is an irony that should be factored into our interpretation of Romans 14-15).
• Paul acknowledges his debt to both Greeks and barbarians. We generally skip over this verse, but we should ask why he includes this. First, in Rome the scriptures used by the synagogue would have been in Greek and Paul uses this version of his scriptures throughout the text. Greeks (Hellenists) were those who primarily spoke Greek and most of his dealings among the gentiles (the nations) had been in the Greek speaking cultures. Barbarians seems odd in this context, unless we remember that for the Romans, barbarians technically means someone who speaks in a foreign tongue. For gentile Romans, that would include the Jews, those for whom Hebrew or Aramaic would have been primary.
• Paul gives primacy to the Jews in terms of salvation by faith. We can debate what this means, but it is clear that they are placed first. The Messiah was a Jew, they retain the covenants, and salvation comes from them. Paul never denies his own Jewishness.

That is enough for now.

Although some of what you list here could be helpful. I tend to suggest that a person who seeks to have a deep understanding of a letter by Paul should first read through the letter carefully without the aid of commentaries. Writ out an outline of what Paul seems to be saying. This could be a three-day process. Kind of work out the way the topic changes but has continuity.
Hopefully you get a sense of the letter's message in its own light. This is roughly your first-impression that reflects your reading comprehension of the letter. Then consider referring to the commentaries to compare what you found with the commentary. If they are different, you can try to see which concepts are better expressing the letter.
I cannot remember the sequence I took to understand the letter. The initial step may have been the recognition of the Nathan-David approach. I also did a chart of themes and transitions which, for example, shows how long the law was central to the discussion. But most break-throughs happened incrementally over several years. These involved the recognition of rhetorical structures and some historical elements of the Roman church. The difficulty always was about discovering what needed fixing in the Roman church.