Sunday, June 30, 2024

Notes from Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Romans: A Commentary (2024)

  

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)