Skip to main content

Towards a Re-Reading of Romans 1-3

Last week I spent a good amount of time working on a re-reading of Romans 1-3. I've been reading Douglas Campbell's critique of the standard interpretation of Romans 1-4 and with those criticisms in mind I decided to tackle the first three chapters of Romans afresh. I came out of the time with a significantly different approach to these opening chapters than I had in the past. I was debating whether or not I should post some of my insights here, but after continuing to read Campbell's book and noticing some key affinities between my new view and that of Stanley Stowers I decided I'd go ahead and post them. These are not final thoughts on the text, I will certainly revisit it further this summer after I read Campbell's analysis, but I do feel that I have made a definite shift in my understanding of Romans has happened so I thought I'd share it here. This is a start towards a re-reading of Romans 1-3.

The key, in my opinion, to Romans 1-3, comes from one observation and two methodological decisions. The key observation is that we have more voices than just Paul's present in these chapters. This is undisputed, but it's still the interpretive key. The question is, when are we hearing Paul and when are we hearing an opponent?

The key methodological decisions are, first, let Paul's definition of the gospel in 1:1-6 and further discussion in 1:16-17 control our analysis. Anything attributed to Paul in the rest of these chapters must not contradict or be in major tension with these key sections. Second, in all likelihood, there will be some coherence between Paul's thought in Romans and Galatians, as he's probably dealing with the same problem. Ultimately, when contrasting views are present, we should assign to Paul the one that sounds most like him elsewhere. I don't think that anything I've said is not obvious, but I'm not sure that many interpreters are intentional about applying these rules as they work through their interpretation of these chapters.

Probably the best place to start our discussion is in Romans 2:6-16. Before I give you the link to read the text (and please do read it), I want to ask a question. If someone were to ask you to summarize what you think the false teachers in Galatia taught, what would you say? Now read Romans 2:6-16. How close are the two? It certainly doesn't sound like Paul to me. Now let's skip ahead to Romans 3:1-8. Who's asking the questions and who's answering? The traditional view has had Paul as the one answering the questions, but if Romans 2:6-16 represents Paul's opponent, then I would argue that Paul is the one asking the questions. The one answering sounds like Romans 2:6-16, with a preoccupation with the judgment of God. All of Romans 1-3 actually falls out fairly neatly then (though there are a couple of places where it's difficult to determine who is who). You have one person focused on judgment and righteousness by works of the law, and also marginalizes Jesus role to that of eschatological judge only. The other (Paul) focuses on God's benevolence and has a gospel infused with an emphasis on Christ (see esp. Rom. 3:21-31 - the Christological focus has strong affinities to Rom. 1:1-6 in particular).

Why would Paul do this? Why would he intersperse his argument with that of the false teachers? Paul had never been to Rome. He wanted to get the Roman Christians behind him in his mission to Spain. They had probably heard mixed reviews, so he wanted to set the record straight. What better way than a debate between him and his opponents? That's what I believe we have in Romans 1-3 (and possibly Romans 4, I haven't gotten that far yet). There are, in my opinion, clear markers in the text that signal shifts (e.g., nuni de at the start of 3:21 and the very different style of Rom 1:19-31, which I also assign to the teachers) in addition to differences in content. Also, we must remember that Romans was delivered orally, so Phoebe could have made it clear who was speaking when very easily. Additionally, if, as I think, Galatians is better dated later rather than earlier, then the controversy was still fresh and very relevant.

Comments

  1. Fascinating. How about a blog post that has these passages set out with who you think the speaker is clearly marked? Would make your argument a bit easier to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I thought about that, but this post might have been too long if I included it here. I'll put up a separate post that separates it out with minimal commentary. Thanks for the nudge!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…