Rom
3:20:
Therefore, from observance of the
law no flesh will be rectified before God, since through the law comes
recognition of Sin. (Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Romans: A Commentary [The
New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2024], 91)
Although the phrase ergon nomou,
translated literally, is “works of law,” that rendering readily feeds the
perception that Paul is actually contrasting “works” or “working” faith “faith”
or “believing.” The more capacious word “observance” not only avoids that
difficulty but reflects the historic insistence on “keeping” or “observing” the
law, as in, e.g., Exod 18:20; Deut 31:12; 1QS 5.21-22 (Martyn 1997a, 260-63;
Bell 1994, 224-37). Despite energetic arguments that Paul’s use of the phrase
concerns only certain boundary-making practices of the law (esp. circumcision
and food laws) rather than observance of the law in toto, Paul’s comments do
not lend themselves readily to restriction (contra Dunn 1:153-55, 158-60;
Wright 460-61). That is particularly the case in Rom 3, because what the catena
in vv. 10-18 attacks includes corrupt attitudes towards God, toxic speech, and
deadly action. (Ibid., 92 n. k)
Rom
5:1:
Therefore, since we have been
rectified by faith, let us enjoy the peace we have with God through hour Lord
Jesus Christ (Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Romans: A Commentary [The New
Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2024], 139)
After
giving an overview of the textual difference (εχομεν vs.
εχωμεν):
Resolving this particular problem matters less than it may seem, because
the exhortation is based entirely on God’s work, as is clear in the rest of the
passage, and because the exhortation is to “have peace” rather than to “make
peace.” (Ibid., 139 n. a)
With the words “Let us enjoy the peace
we have with God,” we come to the exhortation that might have been expected
following 3:26 but never materialized. And yet it is a peculiar exhortation,
which may account for the conflicted manuscript tradition (see translation note
a on v. 1). What makes the exhortation peculiar is that nothing follows to
indicate what exactly the exhortation means. It is not that “we” can do
something to bring peace about; on the contrary, everything that follows
indicates that God has already acted to bring about peace. “Let us enjoy peace”
captures the sense of this exhortation as an invitation to celebrate God’s
intervention in Jesus Christ, and that invitation in turn coheres with the
numerous doxological elements throughout the letter.
The language of peace may seem
surprising, as it has scarcely entered the letter before this point. God is the
one who grants peace, whether it is in the greeting of the letter (“grace and
peace from God”; 1:7), in the eschatological gifts promised Jew and gentile
alike (2:10), or in prayer (15:33). Among Paul’s designations for God is “God
of peace” (15:33; 16:20; 1 Thess 5:23; Phil 4:9; see also Heb 13:20). Reference
to peace with God is especially apt here, whether Paul is about to demonstrate
how humanity has been at enmity with God due to its enslavement to Sin and
Death.
This particular phrase (“peace with
God”) is not found elsewhere in Paul’s letters, but the LXX does associate
peace with divine activity (as in 1 Chr 12:19; Ps 84:9; Isa 26:12; 54:1) as
Paul has already done in 2:10. The notion of peace with God is especially
urgent for Paul, giving his analysis of the human situation. This phrase
recalls 3:17, with its citation of Isa 59:8: “They do not know the way of
peace.” The way of peace that humanity does not know now becomes the
peace with God that humanity knows and enjoys because of God’s actions in Jesus
Christ. (Ibid., 140-41)
Rom
9:5:
Theirs are the fathers, and from them
is the Christ, physically speaking, the one who is over all—God be blessed
forever. Amen! (Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Romans: A Commentary [The New
Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2024], 267)
Paul does identify Christ closely with
God, but he nowhere else directly names him God. No other doxology in Paul’s
letters in ascribed to Christ. Even assuming Paul would call Christ “God,” the
question remains whether he would do that as this point in this letter. As he
takes up the fraught discourse about God’s dealings with Israel (and the
gentiles), it would be ill-advised for Paul badly to identify Christ as God.
The “Amen!” that follows invites Roman auditors to join in, to lend their
assent to the doxology, so that Paul can begin the long journey to 11:26. Does
he really want to set the teeth of his auditors on edge at the very beginning,
especially when he is about to narrate a rather peculiar version of Israel’s
history? Paul does challenge his auditors at a number of points, as with the
shift to accusation at 2:1, the insistence that “we” were weak, ungodly sinners
in 5:6-11, and especially the challenge to gentile arrogance in 11:18-19, but
it is hard to see why he would insert this direct challenge at this juncture in
the letter.
The translation above seeks middle
ground by inserting a dash between “the one who is over all” and “God,” leaving
interpretation to the ear of the audience. In fact, resolving this ambiguity
has every little consequence for understanding the argument Paul is undertaking
(Keck 229), despite the vigorous discussion it has generated and even its
potential significance for understanding Paul’s Christology. On either reading,
Paul has firmly identified the Christ as biologically connected to the
Israelites, and on either reading the Christ is one of the gifts God has
bestowed on the Israelites. In addition, on other reading, the doxology, one of
several in the letter (also 1:25; 11:36; 15:33), invites the auditors to join
in Paul’s praise for all God’s gifts. Paul presumably hopes that the auditors
in Rome will also listen generously to what comes next. (Ibid., 272-73)
Rom
11:17-21:
Paul’s depiction of grafting a wild
shoot into a cultivated tree prompts questions about actual practice. A near
contemporary of Paul, Columella, wrote extensively about the cultivation of
trees in De res rustica and De arboribus. In one passage, he
describes what appears to be a therapeutic treatment for unproductive olive
trees, by which the tree itself is rejuvenated through the insertion of a
“green slip taken from a wild-olive tree” (Rust. 5.9.16). Yet nothing in
Rom 11 suggests that Paul understands the tree itself as needing rescue (as
distinct from certain branches; contra Baxter and Ziesler 1985). In addition,
Columella elsewhere describes grafting at some length, which seems to be
distinct from this process of rejuvenating an unproductive tree (Rust.
5.11; Esler 2003a).
Other ancient texts reflect a practice
directly contrary to Paul’s language: cultivated shoots are grafted into wild
trees, not the other way around. Theophrastus recommends grafting cultivated
slips into wild trees and explicitly warns against the opposite strategy (De
causis plantarum 1.6.10). Theophrastus was writing in the third century
BCE, which might undermine his relevance. Yet several of Paul’s early
interpreters, including Ambrosiaster (209), Augustine (Enarrat. Ps.
72.2; Burns 275) and Pelagius (129), comment that Paul has reversed standard
practice. Augustine explains, “We never see a wild olive grafted onto a
cultivated olive tree. For whoever did such a thing would find nothing but wild
olives.”
This reversal of normal practice may
be deliberate (so Esler 2003a), in keeping with Paul’s strategy elsewhere (see
e.g., on 9:25; 10:5-8). The lack of verisimilitude should not be
overinterpreted, however; Paul will shortly opine that the branches that have
been cut off can be grated back into the tree, a prospect so wildly unrealistic
as to suggest that Paul is scarcely concerned with agricultural practice, not
even with the intentional undermining of agricultural practice. In both cases,
that of the initial engrafting and that of the return of the missing branches,
Paul’s picture is contrary to nature, consistent with his depiction of gentile
believers in v. 24 (as well as in 9:25-26, 30). God can accomplish this
unnatural act, which rules out any gentile boasting (as he will shortly
emphasize in v. 18). (Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Romans: A Commentary [The
New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2024], 314-15)
Rom
13:1-7 and Rulers belonging to God:
Quite apart from this complex history,
numerous challenges arising from the passage itself make it difficult to gain
interpretive leverage. Paul’s announcement that everyone should “submit” to the
governing authorities arrives with no fanfare. The transition from the end of
ch. 12 is abrupt, and no word of introduction hints at the reason for Paul’s
comments (by contrast, e.g., with 7:1; 1 Cor 8:1; 1 Thess 5:1). Here the focus
is on a single issue, for which Paul provides an extended argument, by contrast
with the numerous topics introduced in Rom 12. In addition, no parallels to
this passage elsewhere in his letters provide points of comparison or possibly
supplement understanding.
A further puzzle posed by this passage
is the extent to which it appears to contradict what Paul has said earlier in
the letter about the inability of the human to do the good. The first
half of the letter depicts the human being as subject to the power of Sin,
unable to do what is right, producing evil when desiring the good (see above on
3:10-18; 5:12-21; 7:7-25). Yet Rom 13 claims that rulers both know and serve
the good (although see below for qualifications of those claims), an optimistic
assessment hard to reconcile with Paul’s insistence in chs. 1-8 that all human
beings are subject to the power of Sin (see Gaventa 2017a for further
discussion of this point).
Some scholars have taken these
peculiarities as indications that the passage was not part of the letter
originally but was inserted by a later editor (e.g., Barnikol 1961; Walker
2001). Such arguments have not won wide acceptance because no manuscript evidence
supports a version of the letter without this passage. Another strategy of
accounting for the passage is to contend that Paul is speaking with irony
(Carter 2004) or, more popularly, that this is a “hidden transcript,” a public
document whose subversive meaning is accessible to believing insiders but
veiled from others (N. Elliott 2008, drawing on J. Scott 1990). Yet Paul did
not write Romans for a larger audience, but only for those in Rome who are
“called to be saints” (1:7), so there is little reason to imagine a need to
conceal meaning from outsiders (Barclay 2011, 382-83; Robinson 2021).
This reminder about the letter’s
audience can provide an important curb against some egregious interpretations.
Paul does not appear to be addressing the authorities themselves, who stand
outside the passage as a third party. His instructions aim to shape the
behavior of the addresses, who are believers, rather than their rulers. That
means this is not a treatise on rulership, as is Seneca’s De clementia,
which purports to advise the emperor Nero on the differences between a tyrant
and a good ruler. Treating Rom 13 as an address to rulers can promote the
presumption that God sanctions any and all action by rulers. Far from providing
rulers with unrestricted authority, however, Paul’s assertion that God puts
authorities in place means that a their authority is derivative and is subject
to withdrawal, recalling what he has already said about Pharaoh in 9:17.
Chapter 12 suggests an orientation for
approaching this passage. Paul’s goal throughout ch. 12 appears to be the
strengthening of the vulnerable Roman communities of faith. To some extent that
is the case for the whole letter, but it seems particularly clear in ch. 12
(and again in ch. 14), where he is preoccupied with the ways believers engage
with one another and encourage one another. If strengthening and protecting are
Paul’s major concerns in the preceding passage and again in the one that
follows, then 13:1-7 may also reflect his fear that Roman auditors will imperil
themselves and one another, in this instance by resisting rulers (whether local
or otherwise), particularly by their refusal to pay taxes (see below on vv.
6-7).
Attending to the structure of this
passage is of critical importance. It open with a call for submission, which is
repeated in v. 5:
Every person should submit
That is why it is necessary to submit.
Between these two imperative
formulations, vv. 1b-4 provide an extended defense of the imperative. Prominent
in the defense is an insistence on God’s role, but that insistence is coupled
with a emphasis on fear:
Rulers are a cause for fear not to
good work but to evil
You don’t want to fear?
If you do evil, then fear.
This extended admonition culminates in
the specific instructions of vv. 6-7, introduced by dia touto (“for this
reason”). For those who bring to their reading centuries of argumentation
focused on vv. 1-5, vv. 6-7 seem to be an afterthought, but the dia touto
makes it clear they are crucial. Verses 1-5 justify the admonition, but vv. 6-7
explain why the admonition is necessary, even if the particular
circumstances—the details regarding tribute and taxes—remain unstated, known to
Pual and presumably his Roman addresses and thus assumed rather than expressed.
(Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Romans: A Commentary [The New Testament
Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2024], 356-58)
Rom
16:25-27:
These verses appear in brackets, as
they do in NA28, to indicate serious doubt that they belong with the
letter. Although they do appear at this point in 𝔓61 א B C D et al., in some manuscripts they are
omitted altogether (F G 269), while in others they appear at the end of ch. 14
(L Ψ 0209vid 1175 et al.), or at the
end of ch. 15 (𝔓46),
or here and at the end of ch. 14 (A P 33 104), or at the end of ch. 14 and
again at the end of ch. 15 (1406). Such instability as to the placement of
these verses raises serious doubts about whether they belong with the letter at
all, and those doubts increase given the content. (Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Romans:
A Commentary [The New Testament Library; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2024], 438)
This doxology appears in most standard
translations of the NT, although it probably represents an early insertion into
the letter. (Ibid., 444)
The NA28 places lines in
brackets, indicating uncertainty as to their inclusion. Although numerous
scholars agree that these lines are post-Pauline (e.g., Fitzmyer 753; Byrne
461-62; Cranfield 2:808-9; Jewett 990-1002; Wolter 2:505); others contend that
the doxology does belong in the letter (e.g., Schreiner 784-5; L. Johnson 221,
223). Ibid., 444 n. 37)
