Survey Apr 2024: Why Read the Bible

[mikesw]

here is Bob Utley--


. . .

ROMANS 1

Do you love exegetical or hermeneutical studies?

J.

I am focused on the exegetical -- of the situation and interpretation of the letters. I figure other people can then determine doctrine and application in better light --if my explanations of the text prove valuable. I'm preparing a book proposal on this.
I modified the earlier post to add this:

My starting point on Romans is with the discovery of the use of the juridical parable in1:18-2:1 which is what we see with Nathan-David in 2 Sam 12. I realized that the gentiles would see 1:18-32 as speaking of Jews.That is because the emotions behind the juridical parable are what drive its effectiveness. Then the rest of the letter begins to make sense in light of this gentile-only audience.

One thing to remember is that only the Israel community had the knowledge of God sufficient to honor him (1:18) that could then could be rejected so as to dishonor God (1:21). The revelation through nature just would make Israel doubly wrong when turning away. I basically show that 1:18-32 reflects the history of Israel. But there also is an overlap of the problem among the gentile Christians in Rome. So Paul reveals their guilt as well -- but only after they are exposed for guilt in 2:1

A significant problem in the treatment of 1:18-32 has been the lack of consideration how the text could speak of Jews/Israel. People have assumed that Paul is writing this as a typical and acceptable Jewish view. They fail to consider that Paul would have an updated and perhaps more sympathetic view of gentiles. However, the key point I show is that the passage, by showing a broad history of Israel (in an idealist fashion that forgets the initial idols at Mt. Sinai), the people of the present cannot be judged for the behavior of the past generations.

 

[Dizerner]

It's describing the sin of ALL people, that's Paul's whole point and culmination: no one is better off.

 

[Johann]

Douglas Moo, Andrew Das, Richard Longenecker, Robert Jewett, Ernst Käsemann, Ben Witherington, Neil Elliott, Stanley Stowers and many others. They provide good material, but they do not defend Rom 1:18-32 sufficiently as speaking primarily of gentiles -- as one issue. My starting point on Romans is with the discovery of the use of the juridical parable in 1:18-2:1 which is what we see with Nathan-David in 2 Sam 12. I realized that the gentiles would see 1:18-32 as speaking of Jews. That is because the emotions behind the juridical parable are what drive its effectiveness. Then the rest of the letter begins to make sense in light of this gentile-only audience.

Your argument hinges on recognizing Romans 1:18–2:1 as a juridical parable—a rhetorical trap where Paul mirrors Nathan’s approach in 2 Samuel 12:1–7, leading his audience to condemn a guilty party before realizing they themselves stand accused. To respond effectively, one must first examine whether Paul’s rhetorical strategy aligns with this narrative technique and then assess whether the Gentile audience alone is the target. A structured response might include-

Definition and Function of a Juridical Parable

A juridical parable (also called a rhetorical snare) forces the audience into self-condemnation before they realize the parable applies to them.

Example: 2 Samuel 12:1–7—Nathan presents David with an apparent third-person case, evoking righteous indignation, only to pivot with “You are the man!”

If Paul follows this pattern in Romans 1:18–2:1, he must first incite the Gentile audience’s moral judgment before revealing their own guilt.

Evaluating the Gentile Perception of Romans 1:18–32

Your claim that Gentiles would initially read Romans 1:18–32 as a condemnation of Jews assumes that Paul’s audience views the described sins (idolatry, unnatural passions, moral corruption) as characteristic of Jewish behavior.
However, the specific accusations (idolatry leading to depravity) are traditionally associated with Gentile nations in Jewish literature (Wisdom of Solomon 13–15).

If Gentiles were to interpret this as referring to Jews, would Paul’s rhetorical effect be enhanced or undermined?

The Transition in Romans 2:1—Who Is the Guilty Party?

Paul shifts from “they” (3rd person, in 1:18–32) to “you” (2nd person, in 2:1), directly addressing the presumptuous judge.

The key phrase διὸ ἀναπολόγητος εἶ, ὦ ἄνθρωπε (“Therefore, you are without excuse, O man”) mirrors Nathan’s shift to direct accusation.

The identity of this addressed party is debated:

If Gentiles alone are the audience, Paul is indicting morally superior Gentiles who judge others.

If Jews are also present, Paul might be addressing a Jewish interlocutor who assumes Gentile condemnation but not his own.
Implications for the Audience of Romans

Your thesis—that Romans was written solely to a Gentile audience—rests on whether Paul’s juridical snare targets Gentiles exclusively.
Romans 2:17 explicitly addresses a Jewish figure: “But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the Law…”—suggesting at least a mixed audience.

The Roman church was composed of both Jewish and Gentile believers (Romans 14 suggests tensions between the groups).
If Gentiles are the sole audience, how do we interpret Paul's extensive discussion of Jewish law and history in Romans 2–4?
A compelling response would require demonstrating that (1) Gentiles would misinterpret Romans 1:18–32 as targeting Jews, (2) Romans 2:1 confirms their mistaken assumption, and (3) the rest of the letter makes better sense with an exclusively Gentile readership. If you can provide evidence that Gentiles of the time associated idolatry and depravity more with Jews than themselves, it would further strengthen your case.

Something to think about @mikesw.

J.

 

[mikesw]

It's describing the sin of ALL people, that's Paul's whole point and culmination: no one is better off.

Several commentators have been expecting 1:18-32 to be about all humanity. Anyhow, my proposal involves an analysis of 1:18-32 with identification why it fits a bit better to the history of Israel than to gentiles. There is overlap. Also, if people find my arguments insufficient, then they will stick with what has previously been proposed

 

[mikesw]

Your argument hinges on recognizing Romans 1:18–2:1 as a juridical parable—a rhetorical trap where Paul mirrors Nathan’s approach in 2 Samuel 12:1–7, leading his audience to condemn a guilty party before realizing they themselves stand accused. To respond effectively, one must first examine whether Paul’s rhetorical strategy aligns with this narrative technique and then assess whether the Gentile audience alone is the target. A structured response might include-

Definition and Function of a Juridical Parable

A juridical parable (also called a rhetorical snare) forces the audience into self-condemnation before they realize the parable applies to them.

Example: 2 Samuel 12:1–7—Nathan presents David with an apparent third-person case, evoking righteous indignation, only to pivot with “You are the man!”

If Paul follows this pattern in Romans 1:18–2:1, he must first incite the Gentile audience’s moral judgment before revealing their own guilt.

Evaluating the Gentile Perception of Romans 1:18–32

Your claim that Gentiles would initially read Romans 1:18–32 as a condemnation of Jews assumes that Paul’s audience views the described sins (idolatry, unnatural passions, moral corruption) as characteristic of Jewish behavior.
However, the specific accusations (idolatry leading to depravity) are traditionally associated with Gentile nations in Jewish literature (Wisdom of Solomon 13–15).

If Gentiles were to interpret this as referring to Jews, would Paul’s rhetorical effect be enhanced or undermined?

The Transition in Romans 2:1—Who Is the Guilty Party?

Paul shifts from “they” (3rd person, in 1:18–32) to “you” (2nd person, in 2:1), directly addressing the presumptuous judge.

The key phrase διὸ ἀναπολόγητος εἶ, ὦ ἄνθρωπε (“Therefore, you are without excuse, O man”) mirrors Nathan’s shift to direct accusation.

The identity of this addressed party is debated:

If Gentiles alone are the audience, Paul is indicting morally superior Gentiles who judge others.

If Jews are also present, Paul might be addressing a Jewish interlocutor who assumes Gentile condemnation but not his own.
Implications for the Audience of Romans

Your thesis—that Romans was written solely to a Gentile audience—rests on whether Paul’s juridical snare targets Gentiles exclusively.
Romans 2:17 explicitly addresses a Jewish figure: “But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the Law…”—suggesting at least a mixed audience.

The Roman church was composed of both Jewish and Gentile believers (Romans 14 suggests tensions between the groups).
If Gentiles are the sole audience, how do we interpret Paul's extensive discussion of Jewish law and history in Romans 2–4?
A compelling response would require demonstrating that (1) Gentiles would misinterpret Romans 1:18–32 as targeting Jews, (2) Romans 2:1 confirms their mistaken assumption, and (3) the rest of the letter makes better sense with an exclusively Gentile readership. If you can provide evidence that Gentiles of the time associated idolatry and depravity more with Jews than themselves, it would further strengthen your case.

Something to think about @mikesw.

J.

Right Johann. That is a good description of elements that have to be argued.
You have identified many key points that I am addressing. I did a Masters thesis on the juridical parable. The interesting find is that Paul appears to have modeled 2:1-5 thematically like the way Nathan lists the problems David would still face. Partly I show that 1:18-32 has the second "meaning" where Paul describes fleshly behavior that the gentiles fell into. I summarize the idea in Romans 6 as Paul's effort to guide the gentiles out of their entrapment to fleshly pursuits -- that the gentiles fell into immorality after the Jewish Christians were expelled in AD49.

I have an interesting proposal on Rom 2:17. My earlier concept was that Paul was speaking to the empty chair in the room -- since no Jews were among them. My newer concept is like saying "if you call yourself a valiant Roman soldier, who defends his ideals wonderfully and shows honor to the Empire and its people, as a fighter for the empire's ideals, do you take underserved privileges? as a citizen among citizens, do you take other peoples cherished property?
The approach by Paul becomes clearer in this analogical version applied to a soldier. No one in the audience has to be a soldier when they hear this. It can allow the audience to vent about the behavior of soldiers.

 

[Johann]

I have an interesting proposal on Rom 2:17. My earlier concept was that Paul was speaking to the empty chair in the room -- since no Jews were among them. My newer concept is like saying "if you call yourself a valiant Roman soldier, who defends his ideals wonderfully and shows honor to the Empire and its people, as a fighter for the empire's ideals, do you take underserved privileges? as a citizen among citizens, do you take other peoples cherished property?
The approach by Paul becomes clearer in this analogical version applied to a soldier. No one in the audience has to be a soldier when they hear this. It can allow the audience to vent about the behavior of soldiers.

Interesting-

Your proposal suggests that Romans 2:17 functions as a rhetorical device rather than addressing an actual Jewish audience in Rome. Instead of speaking to present Jews, Paul invokes a hypothetical "Jew" much like someone might invoke an idealized Roman soldier—not to address actual soldiers but to provoke discussion about the character of such a figure. To engage this proposal, a response could be structured as follows:

Examining the "Empty Chair" Hypothesis

Your earlier view held that Paul was addressing an "empty chair," meaning that no Jews were present, but the audience was invited to consider them.
This aligns with some rhetorical strategies used in moral exhortation, particularly in diatribe-style argumentation (cf. Epictetus and Seneca).

However, it must be demonstrated whether Paul’s Jewish interlocutor is purely hypothetical or if he expects real Jewish hearers to be among the recipients.

The Analogy of the Roman Soldier—How Does It Work?

Your newer concept suggests that just as one might say, "If you call yourself a valiant Roman soldier..." to critique soldiers without requiring them to be present, Paul says, "If you call yourself a Jew..." in a similar fashion.

This allows the Gentile audience to reflect on Jewish conduct without Jews necessarily being in the room.
The question is whether Paul is merely invoking a stereotype or if his words assume a real presence of Jews within the Roman church.
Does the Text Support a Purely Hypothetical Reading?

Romans 2:17: Εἰ δὲ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ἐπονομάζῃ καὶ ἐπαναπαύῃ νόμῳ καὶ καυχᾶσαι ἐν Θεῷ... (“But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the Law and boast in God…”)

The second-person singular (σὺ) suggests direct address rather than a generalized statement about a group.

Paul goes on to list specific claims: knowledge of the Law, being a guide to the blind, teaching others while failing to teach oneself.
If the soldier analogy holds, Paul’s critique functions as an indirect form of condemnation—allowing the Gentiles to vent about perceived Jewish hypocrisy without necessarily addressing actual Jews.

However, Romans 3:1 (“What advantage, then, has the Jew?”) suggests Paul anticipates Jewish pushback, which complicates the purely rhetorical reading.

Implications for Audience and Letter Structure

If Paul employs this analogy as a rhetorical device, then Romans 2:17–29 is less about direct confrontation with Jewish members of the Roman church and more about shaping Gentile perceptions of Jewish claims.

This strengthens the idea that Romans was written primarily to Gentiles, with Paul crafting a discourse that frames Jewish distinctives in a way that the Gentile audience can critically engage.

However, if Jews were present, the effect would be different—a form of protreptic rhetoric urging Jews toward self-examination while reinforcing Gentile perspectives.

A strong engagement with your thesis would require testing whether Paul’s second-person address in Romans 2:17–29 allows for a non-present interlocutor, whether such a method aligns with other known rhetorical strategies, and whether Paul's expected response in Romans 3:1 suggests an actual Jewish presence or merely an anticipated rebuttal.

Johann.

 

[mikesw]

Interesting-

Your proposal suggests that Romans 2:17 functions as a rhetorical device rather than addressing an actual Jewish audience in Rome. Instead of speaking to present Jews, Paul invokes a hypothetical "Jew" much like someone might invoke an idealized Roman soldier—not to address actual soldiers but to provoke discussion about the character of such a figure. To engage this proposal, a response could be structured as follows:

Examining the "Empty Chair" Hypothesis

Your earlier view held that Paul was addressing an "empty chair," meaning that no Jews were present, but the audience was invited to consider them.
This aligns with some rhetorical strategies used in moral exhortation, particularly in diatribe-style argumentation (cf. Epictetus and Seneca).

However, it must be demonstrated whether Paul’s Jewish interlocutor is purely hypothetical or if he expects real Jewish hearers to be among the recipients.

The Analogy of the Roman Soldier—How Does It Work?

Your newer concept suggests that just as one might say, "If you call yourself a valiant Roman soldier..." to critique soldiers without requiring them to be present, Paul says, "If you call yourself a Jew..." in a similar fashion.

This allows the Gentile audience to reflect on Jewish conduct without Jews necessarily being in the room.
The question is whether Paul is merely invoking a stereotype or if his words assume a real presence of Jews within the Roman church.
Does the Text Support a Purely Hypothetical Reading?

Romans 2:17: Εἰ δὲ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ἐπονομάζῃ καὶ ἐπαναπαύῃ νόμῳ καὶ καυχᾶσαι ἐν Θεῷ... (“But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the Law and boast in God…”)

The second-person singular (σὺ) suggests direct address rather than a generalized statement about a group.

Paul goes on to list specific claims: knowledge of the Law, being a guide to the blind, teaching others while failing to teach oneself.
If the soldier analogy holds, Paul’s critique functions as an indirect form of condemnation—allowing the Gentiles to vent about perceived Jewish hypocrisy without necessarily addressing actual Jews.

However, Romans 3:1 (“What advantage, then, has the Jew?”) suggests Paul anticipates Jewish pushback, which complicates the purely rhetorical reading.

Implications for Audience and Letter Structure

If Paul employs this analogy as a rhetorical device, then Romans 2:17–29 is less about direct confrontation with Jewish members of the Roman church and more about shaping Gentile perceptions of Jewish claims.

This strengthens the idea that Romans was written primarily to Gentiles, with Paul crafting a discourse that frames Jewish distinctives in a way that the Gentile audience can critically engage.

However, if Jews were present, the effect would be different—a form of protreptic rhetoric urging Jews toward self-examination while reinforcing Gentile perspectives.

A strong engagement with your thesis would require testing whether Paul’s second-person address in Romans 2:17–29 allows for a non-present interlocutor, whether such a method aligns with other known rhetorical strategies, and whether Paul's expected response in Romans 3:1 suggests an actual Jewish presence or merely an anticipated rebuttal.

Johann.

If Paul were addressing Jews directly, he could have said something more direct such "Have you who are Jewish proclaimed the following ideals?" Sometimes we need to ask why Paul presents certain controversial texts in a complicated fashion rather than a simple way.

The basic model of the situation is that the Claudius edict of AD49 led to the expulsion of Jewish Christians. The non-Christian Jews continued in verbal confrontations with the gentile Christians. So the gentiles only saw these antagonists rather that compassionate Jews. Also the gentiles were left in isolation and fell back into paganistic practices. This was a brief time of 5 to 9 years but probably involved lots of contributing factors to their bad practices and attitude toward Jews.

 

[Dizerner]

Several commentators have been expecting 1:18-32 to be about all humanity. Anyhow, my proposal involves an analysis of 1:18-32 with identification why it fits a bit better to the history of Israel than to gentiles. There is overlap. Also, if people find my arguments insufficient, then they will stick with what has previously been proposed

Might as well get into "two part" Romans silliness and the supposed "ambiguous antecedent."

People's great learning drives them mad sometimes.

 

[mikesw]

Might as well get into "two part" Romans silliness and the supposed "ambiguous antecedent."

People's great learning drives them mad sometimes.

I get it. I understand how people hold to the theories they think are right. We hardly could live sufficiently if we were always looking for alternative ideas. There are all sorts of theories shared on Romans due to troubles solving enigmatic areas of the letter. This partly means that people have not been satisfied with the explanations given earlier.

Anyhow, this is not an exercise for a scholastic drive but rather is sharing what I found works best across the whole letter. The discovery of the juridical parable was done on my on reading and I found others mentions a similarity to 2 Sam 12. This finding also made sense of the rest of the letter. I figure God did not give it to me just for me to die with that knowledge.

Take whatever option you are comfortable with.