No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Rethinking Romans 12–15
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Extract
The bulk of these chapters is invariably understood as a general, or as it were abstract, exposition of Christian virtues, without particular reference to a situation at Rome. We read in Luther, for example, that ‘the apostle is about to teach a Christian ethic’ when he begins chapter 12. Nygren states that none of Romans is aimed at circumstances peculiar to Rome, and that chapters 12–13 contain Paul's ‘central view of the ethical life of the Christian’. Käsemann regards 12–13 as general exhortation, only 14.1–15.3 being directed at problems in Rome. According to E. P. Sanders, nothing in Romans is called forth by the situation of the letter's recipients. ‘It seems best’, he writes, ‘to view Romans as being Paul's reflection on the problem of Jew and Gentile, in the light of the coming encounter in Jerusalem’. There are, however, several difficulties with this view. One is that the chapters do not include areas of Christian ethics with which we know Paul was concerned, such as marriage (1 Cor 7; Col 3.18 ff.), slavery (Col 3.22 ff.; Phlm), slander (1 Cor 6.10), suffering for Christ (2 Cor 1.7), generosity (2 Cor 8.6 ff.), avoiding witchcraft and gluttony (Gal 5.20; Phil 3.19), working hard (1 Thess 4.9–11). If Paul were writing a deliberately general ethic, we should have expected perhaps more system and certainly a greater range of items.6 More importantly, the view leads to fussy, artificial or disjointed divisions of the chapters into a multiplicity of exhortations which fail to grasp the broad sweep of Paul's thought. In particular the precise relevance of 13.1–7 is left obscure.
Information
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990
References
1 Luther, M, Lectures on Romans (Library of Christian Classics Vol. 15; London: SCM Press, 1961) 320. In the following notes, the twenty-five commentaries on Romans used are quoted with full particulars only at the first occurrence.Google Scholar Cf.as well as the commentaries Vouga, F, ‘L'é;pître aux Romains comme document ecclésiologique (Rm 12–15)’, ÉTR 61 (1986) 485–95.Google Scholar
2 Nygren, A, Commentary on Romans (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983, orig. Stockholm, 1944) 4 and 415.Google Scholar
3 Käsemann, E, An die Römer (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1973 4; ET London: SCM Press, 1980) 311 (ET p. 323).Google Scholar
4 Sanders, E. P, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (London: SCM Press, 1985) 31.Google Scholar
5 Commentaries which adopt this or a similar understanding include Althaus, P, Der Brief an die Römer (Das Neue Testament Deutsch 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1949 6);Google ScholarBarrett, C. K, The Epistle to the Romans (Black's NT Commentaries; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1957, 1984);Google ScholarBruce, F. F, Romans (Tyndale NT Commentaries; Leicester: Intervarsity Press,1963, 1983);Google ScholarGarvie, A. E, Romans (The Century Bible; Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1901);Google ScholarGodet, F, St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1881, Vol. 2);Google ScholarGore, C, The Epistle to the Romans (London: John Murray), 1900, 1920, Vol. 2Google Scholar; Jowett, B, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians and Romans (London: John Murray, 1855, 1894 3)Google Scholar; Kirk, K. E, The Epistle to the Romans (The Clarendon Bible; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937)Google Scholar; Liddon, H. P, Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1893);Google ScholarSanday, W-Headlam, A. C., The Epistle to the Romans (The International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1900 4);Google ScholarVaughan, C. J, St Paul's Epistle to the Romans (London: Macmillan & Co., 1874 4);Google ScholarViard, A, Saint Paul. Epître aux Romains (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1975);Google ScholarWilckens, U, Der Brief an die Römer (Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum NT; Einsiedeln-Cologne: Benziger, Vol. 3 1982);Google ScholarWrightman, P, Paul's Later Letters (New York: Alba House, 1984).Google Scholar
6 But cf. Dodd's, C. H remarks, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (Moffatt NT Commentary; n.p.: Collins, 1932,1965) 197 f.Google Scholar
7 E.g. Rolland, P, Epître aux Romains. Texte grec structuré (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1980): I Introduction (12. 1) II The Christian ‘Metamorphosis’ (12. 2–13.14) A - Renewal of thought (12. 3–16b) B - Renewal of action (12.16c–13. 10) Conclusion: the urgency of renewal (13.11–14) III Mutual acceptance in the community (14.1–15. 13) B' Action: alimentary observances (14. 1–23) A' - Thought: to have the mind of Christ (15. 1–13) Conclusion-Transition: Paul's Apology (15. 14–21) Conclusion of the paraenesis (15. 14–16) The power of the gospel (15.17–21) Epilogue (15. 22–33). See also Liddon, p. 307–96, whose analysis is too complex to reproduce hereGoogle Scholar. At the opposite extreme the reader is referred to Rutherford, W. G, St. Paul. Epistle to the Romans (London: Macmillan, 1900), who accepts only two sections in chap. 12, two in chap. 13, and two in chaps. 14–15.Google Scholar This analysis is equalled by Grey's, H. G, St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (The Reader's Commentary; London: Robert Scott, 1911), p. xii, who holds with six sections likewise, but not the same ones.Google Scholar
8 Picca, V, Romanos 13. 1–7. Un texto discutido (Biblioteca di Scienze Religiose 34; Rome: Libreria Ateneos Salesiano, 1981)Google Scholar. Maddalena, A, La Lettera ai Romani (Bologna: Patron Editore, 1975, Vol. 2), 258–65, considers in particular the apparent anomalies raised by the passage in the context of Paul's thought as a whole.Google ScholarCf. also Webster, A. F. C., ‘St Paul's Political Advice to the Haughty Gentile Christians in Rome. An Exegesis of Romans 13:1–7’, St.Vlad.Th.Q. 25 (1981) 259–83;Google ScholarBolognesi, P, ‘La situazione del cristiano davanti all'autorità secondo Romani 13’, Ric.Bibl.e Relig. 17 (1982) 9–23;Google ScholarHeiligenthal, R, ‘Strategien konformer Ethik im Neuen Testament am Beispiel von Röm 13.1–7’, NTS 29 (1983) 55–61;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPohle, L, Die Christen und der Staat nach Römer 13 (Mainz: Matthias Grünewald, 1984);Google ScholarBammel, E, ‘Römans 13’, in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. Bammel-Moule, (Cambridge: CUP, 1984) 365–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarI have not had access to Parrott's, R. L. dissertation Paul's Political Thought: Rom 13: 1–7 in the Light of Hellenistic Political Thought (Claremont Grad. School, 1980. See also note 23 below.Google Scholar
9 Recent literature includes, apart from the commentaries, Kettunen, M, Der Abfassungszweck des Römerbriefes (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979);Google Scholarand Theobald, M, ‘Warum schrieb Paulus den Römerbrief?‘, BL 56 (1983) 150–8.Google Scholar
10 Stuhlmacher, P, ‘Der Abfassungszweck des Römerbriefs’, ZNW 77 (1986) 180–93. Closest perhaps comes Käsemann, 376 (ET p. 390).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 The date of Romans is not easy to establish. Barrett (p. 5) suggests early in 55. Bornkamm, G, Paul (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1971, 1975) 91, confidently places it in the winter of 55/6.Google ScholarGrant, M, St. Paul (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1976) 237, places it with slightly less confidence in 57/8. Viard (p. 17)prefers 58/8 also Grey, pp. vii f.). Most commentators seem to opt for a date around 57.Google Scholar
12 Highlighted by Räisänen, H, The Torah and Christ (Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1986) 3–92.Google Scholar
13 Jervell, J, ‘Der Brief nach Jerusalem. Über Veranlassung und Adresse des Römerbriefes’, StTh 25 (1971) 61–73.Google Scholar
14 The Greek text used is that of the Deutsche Bibelstiftung. For our purposes, however, since we are doing little strict exegesis, the differences between this and Nestlé are negligible.Google Scholar
15 This I take to lie behind the phrase έν πληρώματι εύλογίας Χριστού έλεύσομα. Cf. Gifford, E. H., The Epistle of St. Paul to The Romans (London: John Murray, 1886) 229: ‘(Paul) knows that in (the Romans) there will be nothing to diminish the fulness of the blessing which he brings.’Google Scholar
16 I should prefer, against Standaert, B, ‘La rhétorique ancienne’, in L'Apôtre Paul, ed. Vanhoye, (Louvain: University Press, 1986), 78–92, at p. 80, to call chap. 14 an afterthought than chap. 13 a digression.Google Scholar, And cf. Grumm, M. H, ‘The gospel call: imperatives in Romans’, ExT 93 (1981/1982) 239–42, who draws attention to the similarity of Rom 12–13 and 1 Cor 12–13.Google Scholar
17 Most commentators see the verses not as a digression so much as a subordinate section providing a motive for the paraenesis of 12. 1–13. 10 (Althaus, Viard), of 12. 9–13. 10 (Pesch, R, Römerbrief, Die Neue Echter Bibel; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1983) 13. 8–10 (Gore), 13. 10 (Garvie).Google Scholarde Boor, W, however, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus Verlag, 1962, 1982 9) 308, talks about Paul ‘interpolating this eschatological paragraph’.Google Scholar
18 For this understanding of 12. 3–9, see Baumert, N, ‘Charisma und Amt’, in L'Apôtre Paul, ed.Vanhoye, (Louvain: University Press, 1986), 203–228, at 216–18.Google Scholar
19 Thus also Althaus, 110, and Pesch, 93.Google Scholar
20 Barrett, , Althaus, , Cranfield, C. E. B (Romans [International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark] Vol. 2, 1979),Google ScholarDodd, , Pesch, , Wilckens, , Zeller, D (Der Brief an die Roömer [Regensburger Neues Testament; Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1985]), etc.Google Scholar
21 Such superscripts mark the different topics in 1 Cor (6.12; 7. 1b - both quotations from the Corinthians' letter, 8.1) and elsewhere in Rom (14.1; 15.1).Google Scholar
22 This is not so outlandish as it might seem. The word διώκω is fairly broad in Paul. It has the bland sense of ‘follow’ or ‘pursue’ (e.g. Rom 9. 30 f.; 1 Cor 14. 1) as well as the stronger sense of persecute, either in general (1 Cor 4.12; 2 Cor 4. 9; Gal 5.11; 6.12), or to indicate persecution of early Christians by himself (1 Cor 15. 9; Gal 1.13, 23; Phil 3. 6), or of Ishmael by Isaac (Gal 4. 29). There is nothing in this usage which prevents us from seeing in the persecutors of Rom 12. 14 members of the Christian communities whose attitudes are excoriated in 12. 1–13. In any event, as a title for the following section, this version of a dominical logion (Neirynck, F, ‘Paul and the Sayings of Jesus’, in L'Apôtre Paul), ed. Vanhoye, (Louvain: University Press, 1986) 265–321;Google Scholar(Wenham, D, ‘Paul's Use of the Jesus Tradition: Three Samples’, in The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, ed. Wenham, (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985) 7–37, at 15 f.) is surely fair enough.Google Scholar
23 For the literature, see Wilckens, , 28 f., and note 8 above.Google Scholar
24 For this and the following paragraph I summarise some of the conclusions of Lampe, P, Die stadtrömischen Christen in der ersten beiden Jahrhunderten (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck] 1987).Google Scholar
25 See also Overman, J. A, ‘The God-Fearers: Some Neglected Features’, JSNT 32 (1988) 17–26.Google Scholar
26 This part of Lampe's thesis finds confirmation in, among others, Brox, N, ‘Das Papsttum in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten’, in Gestalten der Kirchengeschichte, ed. Greschat, (Stuttgart-Berlin-Cologne-Mainz: Kohlhammer), Vol. 11 (= Das Papsttum I), 1984, 25–42.Google Scholar
27 Cf. E. Sanders, P (note 4 above) 93–105.Google Scholar
28 See Wenham, D, The Rediscovery of Jesus' Eschatological Discourse (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984) 63, 116, 118, 325 f., 367. Wilckens, p. 75, surmises rather a baptismal hymn behind vv. 11 f. and a piece of baptismal catechesis behind vv. 13 f.Google Scholar
29 Lohse, E, Theologische Ethik des Neuen Testaments (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1988) 13;Google ScholarSanders, E. P, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1977,1981) 456 f.Google Scholar
30 Cf. Omanson, R. L, ‘The “Weak” and the “Strong” and Paul's Letter to the Roman Christians’, Bibl. Trans. 33 (1982) 106–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 For their position, see Bruce, F. F, Men and Movements in the Primitive Church (Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1979) 49–85.Google Scholar
32 Sandy, and Headlam, , however, ascribe antipathy to the Roman state rather to the Jews (369-–71).Google Scholar
33 Thus Lohse, E. (note 29 above) 112.Google Scholar
34 Maddalena, however (287), considers v. 4 a non-Pauline interpolation.Google Scholar
35 See Barrett, , 270 f, and Käsemann, , 384 f., for difficulties in this verse.Google Scholar
36 So Lübking, H.-M, Paulus und Israel im Römerbrief. Eine Untersuchung zu Römer 9–11 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1986), esp. 155 f.Google Scholar
37 Adopted also by Zeller, , 236 ff., in part by Wilckens, 116 ff., and Pesch, 104 ff., but not shared by Sanday-Headlam, 403 ff., Viard, 297 ff., and others. It is curious that Käisemann himself acknowledges a caesura at vv. 24/25 but fails to make anything of it.Google Scholar
38 Cf. Jewett, R, ‘The Law and the Coexistence of Jews and Gentiles in Romans’, Interpret. 39 1985 341–56.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by