Paul's Letter to the Romans....Daniel Patte

PAUL�S LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Daniel Patte

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, U.S.A.

+ + + + + +

Introduction

The Life-Context of the Interpretation == written up Step # 1

I write this commentary as a French Huguenot and a white male who lives and teaches in the South of the USA after September 11, 2001. These contexts, separately and combined, frame my interpretation of Romans, even as my reading of Romans help me to see them in a new light. By looking at these life-contexts in light of Romans, I see that the gospel proclaimed by Paul (Rom 1:16-17) reveals that anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, colonialism, imperialism and similar victimizations of others are rampant manifestations of the evil that God condemns (1:18-32). The gospel also reveals the quandary in which we, Christians, are. To our shame, we often condone and participate in these evils, even as we self-righteously reject and condemn them (2:1-3). Conversely, reading Romans with these contextual issues in mind shows that the gospel as power of salvation opens a way out of this impasse.

a) French Huguenots and Anti-Semitism during World War II: Our Dilemma in Light of Romans

I have vivid memories of my childhood during World War II, when I was learning from my parents to read the Bible as a Word to live by. I remember my fears of the German soldiers who occupied our village at the foot of the Alps in the South of France and who, for a while, camped in our farm. I also remember that, despite their proximity, worn out visitors often came, stayed a few days in our home, and disappeared in the night. Later I learned that these were Jewish refugees desperately trying to escape the Holocaust, the Shoah, the systematic slaughter that engulfed six million European Jewish men, women, and children during World War II. The weary eyes of these refugees in our home remain with me both as signs of the mysterious presence of Gods chosen people among us and of the awful scandal that anti-Semitism is.

Heirs of Huguenots who endured centuries of persecution, my parents and our small congregations of the Reformed Church of France taught me that anti-Semitism is totally incompatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ. In our reading, the Bible, including the New Testament, teaches that Israel, the chosen people, is in an irrevocable relationship with God as the chosen peoplea mystery we should contemplate in awe (11:25-36).

Yet, as I pursued my studies, I soon discovered that many readings of the Christian Scriptures propose anti-Jewish teachings that throughout history readily became the basis of anti-Semitic attitudes and deeds. I shivered when I recognized that it was this kind of biblical teachings that fueled the fire of the Holocaust. This massive, monstrous evil could not have taken place if, throughout Europe, a mass of Christians had not felt justified by such anti-Jewish teachings either to directly participate in its perpetration or to give their tacit consent to it. Of course, for these Christians, murder of innocent victims was an evil that they condemned. But, for one or another well-intentioned reason (e.g. the security of their families), they ended up condoning and doing the evil that they did not want to do and that they hated (7:15-19).

Unfortunately, we French Huguenots cannot claim to be exempt from complicity with this evil (cf. 3:21-22). Even as we helped a few of its victims, we ignored most of them. Against our best intentions we participated in this evil. The war-time sense of emergency twisted all our relations to others. Its logic unfolded quite innocently. First it required vigilance. In a state of emergency, was not vigilance against all possible threats to us and our families appropriate? Then, our relation to those victimized by the worst of persecutions was warped. Their anxious eyes calling for compassion became the frightening reflection of a threat that we should urgently flee. Consequently, too often, instead of welcoming them as sisters and brothers in need, we turned away from them. By prudently and innocently making ours this war-time sense of emergency a natural attitude, isnt it? we became active participants in the warped universe where the murder of millions of people was institutionalized simply because they were differentJews, but also Gypsies, homosexuals, communists, and mentally handicapped people (another six million victims of the Holocaust).

b) Confronting Racism, Sexism, and Other Types of Oppressions by Teaching in the South of the USA: Our Dilemma in Light of Romans

Teaching at Vanderbilt University both in the Department of Religious Studies and in the Divinity School I find the same ambivalence. I readily identified myself with the history of the Divinity Schools prophetic role during the civil rights struggle, and its clear commitment to do all in its power to combat the idolatry of racism and ethnocentrism. This part of the mission statement of the Divinity School is carefully and realistically ambivalent. It is a definite commitment that faculty and students strive to implement. But it is also an acknowledgment of the limitations of this commitment.

The school does not claim to be free from racism, but to do all in its power to combat it. Why? Because the very claim to be free from racism would demonstrate that we fail to recognize that racism is a systemic evil in which one participates simply because it seems to be the normal or natural way of life, and that, as an individual, one cannot free oneself from racism. As the African American novelist, Alice Walker, says, the best that people can do is to be enemies of their own racism (The Temple of My Familiar, p. 287). We who ostracize and marginalize others or who simply condone such victimization of others must assume responsibility for racism and strive to overcome this evil. But, how? Committing oneself to do so is important, yet it is not enough because, as Martin Luther King, Jr. emphasized, the victimizers are themselves entrapped by racism. As Paul would say, racism is intertwined with all that is holy and just and good (7:12) in our way of life, including our good commitment to combat racism. Such is the predicament we face.

Paul helps us to clarify our confusing and confused situation. All of us are appropriately convinced that our usual way of interacting with others in family, in community, and in society is for the good of all those involved, provided that this order be respected. Our conscience confirms it (2:15). It gives us a pang whenever we stray from this way of life by hurting others rather than expressing love; by disrupting community life; by transgressing the economic, social, political, and cultural order. For us, this is a good and necessary way of life that promises life (7:10) including prosperity, security, justice for all. For us, it is holy, a manifestation of Gods will, or in secular terms, the most reasonable and humane way of life. And so it is.

The problem is that this holy, just, and good American way of life is impregnated with racism. It gives birth to elitist attitudes that denigrate other cultures; to authoritarian laws that subjugate entire sections of the population (in 2002, more than 2 million people were in US jails; there are more young male African-Americans in jail than in college); to discriminatory social practices that marginalize those who are different; to an out-of-kilter work place and global economy where the gap between the rich and the ever-growing mass of the poor becomes wider and wider.

The problematic character of our way of life usually remains invisible to us. Yet, we readily recognize the injustice in other peoples ways of life. How could it be normal and appropriate (holy, just and good) for Christians of the South of the USA to have an economic and social way of life that demanded the enslavement of people from African ancestry? Or more recently, the Jim Crow segregated way of life? Of course, because of their conscience, good Christians refused all abuses of this system, such as undue violence against slaves. Yet, racism and oppression remained embedded in their way of life.

For me, a European-American male living in the United States, the question is: Are we not in the same situation? Are we not blind to the oppressive power intertwined with all what we hold to be good in our own way of life? Are we not contributing to these oppressions? The voices of the victims of racism, but also of sexism, of homophobia, of religious exclusivism, of anti-Semitism, of colonialism, of neo-colonialism and imperialism (that the Vanderbilt Divinity School also denounces) should remove any doubts that these people are victimized by the very way of life that we take for granted.

Nevertheless, we give thanks to God for all the blessings that this way of life brings to us. Is it not appropriate to give thanks to God for food, secure family life, healthcare, education, a job, intellectual and cultural opportunities, travel and communication, freedom to worship? Yes, it is. Is this thanksgiving self-centered and hypocritical? Of course, it can be. But in many instances it is not. We also give thanks for a way of life that brings all these benefits to many people who were deprived from them. Thus, through the filter of our conviction that our way of life is good, just, and a gift of God, we hear the cries of the victims of oppressions as calling us to help them to share in this way of life and its benefits. Thus we commit ourselves to do all in [our] power to combat oppressions. But from the perspective of Romans, we have to ask: What is this power? What resources will we use to combat oppression? Where do they come from? Is not this well-intentioned attitude similar to that of slave masters who, in response to the cries of their slaves, generously treated them more humanely with the resources generated by the slavery system that, in the process, was further reinforced and justified?

Again and again we find ourselves in the same quandary. Even as we strive to do good, we end up doing the evil we denounce and want to avoid (7:15-19). To his own cry of despair, Who will rescue me from this body of death? Paul responds: Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! (7:24-25). How and in which way does the gospel rescue us from our own racism, anti-Semitism, exclusivism, sexism, homophobia, colonialism, imperialism? This is the question I bring with me as I read Romans for this commentary.

Contextual Comment = step 2

An Overview of Pauls Letter to the Romans and its Interpretations = step 2

Through the centuries Christian believers and preachers have read Romans in many different ways. Rather than resolving these divergences, biblical scholars seem to have exacerbated them. Scholars are sharply divided in three broad camps. Yet one can note that these groups use different critical methodologies in different life-contexts.

· Forensic interpretations (often supported by Lutheran scholars) use philological historical-critical approaches to elucidate the theological argument of the letter an argument that provides forensic evidence for the justification of the guilty (sinners) before God, the righteous judge.

· New Perspective interpretations, after World War II, depart from the preceding by using a combination of rhetorical and socio-historical analyses to read the letter as a discourse through which Paul seeks to convince his readers to change behavior, especially in Jewish-gentile relationships.

· Apocalyptic interpretations, with a more pessimistic post WWII outlook, use the methods of history of religions and structural studies to clarify the religious experience and symbolic world characterized by apocalyptic convictionsthat the letter presupposes and shares with its readers.

These three kinds of interpretations, despite their radically different conclusions, are not in conflict. Each is legitimately grounded in the text. Each focuses on one of the three main ways the text affects its readers/hearers. Indeed, through this letter:

· Paul conveyed to the Romans certain kinds of informationa theological knowledgeabout the gospel he proclaimed;

· He attempted to convince themtried to establish their willto do certain things, including to change their behavior toward each other in their community and to support his mission to Spain (Rom 1215); and

· He empowered his readers by sharing with them his deepest convictions concerning Gods power manifested in Christ, in the gospel, and in the believers lives.

Preachers should not be surprised that this letter conveys several messages. This is also the case with their sermons through which they simultaneously: convey knowledge (e.g., about a biblical text); exhort (establish their hearers will); and share their faith (or convictions). Even though each sermon gives priority to one of these three types of messages, all are necessarily present. Consequently preachers often find that their parishioners were most directly touched by an aspect of their sermon that they did not intend to emphasize, but that nevertheless challenged these persons or addressed their particular needs at that time. So it was for Paul. He could not communicate one of these messages without also communicating the two others.

· If Pauls primary intention was 1) to communicate to the Romans information (knowledge) about his gospel (since he did not found their church), he had to make sure that his readers will be interested in it 2) by striving to establish their good will toward him and his teaching, and 3) by giving them a sense that this gospel truly is at the center of his own religious experience and convictions.

· If Pauls primary concern was 1) to convince the Romans to change behavior, and thus their will, he could not do so without 2) giving them information (knowledge) about his gospel and 3) showing them how much he is personally invested in this way of life, because of his convictions.

· If his primary intention was 1) to share his convictions with the Romans (if he wanted to convert them so that they might share in the kind of religious experience he had), he would need 2) to establish their good will toward him and his religious experience and 3) to give them information (knowledge) about the gospel through which he makes theological sense of this experience.

One could ask: Which of these three was the primary intention of Paul? Scholars disagree and argue at length in favor of one or another. This debate is most helpful, because it clarifies the different messages of Romans. But, do we need to reach a firm conclusion? Not really. It is enough to recognize that Romans carries these three kinds of messages and that each of them challenges and/or addresses the needs of different people at different times. Therefore, the question is not: Which one of these three types of interpretation is true, that is, legitimately grounded in the text? All are. Rather, the question is: Which of these messages will be the most helpful in order to address the contextual issues raised above? To answer this question we need to examine these three kinds of interpretation.

1. The Theological Argument of RomansAre Anti-Semitism, Racism and Other Oppressive Attitudes Due to a Lack of Knowledge of the Gospel? = step 2

Pauls clarification of his particular understanding of the gospel was necessary, because he did not have a personal relationship with the Roman church (1:13; 15:22). In the churches in Galatia and Corinth, there has been many controversies due to misunderstandings regarding his teaching especially, on the part of Jewish Christians that were suspicious of his teaching as apostle to the gentiles. Thus, Paul needed to make sure that there be no misinformation about his preaching before asking support from the Romans for his forthcoming missionary activity in Spain (15:23-24). From this perspective, the primary message of the letter is a theological argument that shows the logic of the gospel, and that Paul develops for the sake of both gentile Christians and Jewish Christians in Rome. Since he did not know the Romans, he imagines them on the basis of his previous experience in other churches.

The Jews (Jewish Christians), whom Paul addresses directly in 2:17, 7:1, and, according to this interpretation, also in 2:1, are composite figures that Paul used in order to make theological points. He constructed them out of the actual Jewish Christians who earlier misunderstood his teaching in other churches and also out of the saints in Jerusalem whom he plans to visit (15:25-27). The same is true of his other addressees, gentiles Christians (that he addresses directly in 1:5-6, 1:14, and 11:13), who also misunderstood Pauls teaching in other churches. Pauls letter to the Galatians is therefore most helpful for understanding Romans, as the other letters also are.

There is a broad consensus regarding the overall interpretation of Romans from this perspective. I present below a reading of Pauls teaching about his gospel in Romans that already found in Bultmann, and still in Fitzmyer. I follow F. W. Beares outline of it (Beare, pp. 115, and 115-121; I carefully preserve his vocabulary, except for the few words between square brackets.)

I. Introduction, 1:1-15

II. The main theme: the gospel of salvation [the justification of sinners], 1:168:39. The universal need of salvation 1:183:31 (guilt of the gentiles, 1:18-32; equal guilt of the Jews despite their knowledge of the Law, 2:13:8; sin and guilt are universal, 3:9-20; the grace of God brings deliverance through Christ to all who believe, 3:21-26; no place is left for human pride in moral achievement, 3:27-31); the testimony of scriptures: Abrahams faith counted as righteousness, 4:1-25; the new relationship with God through faith, 5:1-21; life under grace: deliverance from sin and law, 6:17:25, and life in the Spirit, with the assurance of Gods love, 8:1-39.

III. Subsidiary theme: the faithfulness of God [Gods righteousness] and the failure of Israel, 9:111:36. Problem: Has God failed to fulfill his promises to Israel, since the blessings of the gospel are being received chiefly by gentiles? No. Gods promise was not made to all the Israel of natural descent (9:1-13); Gods will is not subject to human challenge and has always included gentiles (9:14-29); the cause of Israel failure is the effort to establish their own righteousness through the law (9:30-10:4); testimony of scriptures (10:5-21); the failure of Israel has brought salvation to the gentiles, but it is not final (11:1-36).

IV. Ethical instructions: the law of love, 12:115:13. Appeal for dedication to God (12:1-2); life in the body of Christ for the service of all (12:3-13); love of enemies (12:14-21); obedience due to civil authority (13:1-7); love, the sum of all commandments (13:8-10), acknowledges the right to differ and calls for self-denial following the example of Christ (14:115:13)

V. Conclusion and travel plans, 15:14-33.

This interpretation is forensic in the sense that it emphasizes the metaphor of a court of justice (tribunal) found in the passages about Gods judgment (2:2-16; 3:6-7; 5:16; 14:10) of sinners who deserve Gods wrath (1:18, 2:5, 2:8, 3:5, 9:22, 12:19, 13:4), and are nevertheless acquitted, justified, through faith in Gods grace manifested in Christ (3:215:21). The gospel is both the revelation of all peoples sinfulnessthat brings about guilt and repentance before Godand the good news that through Christ these sinners are justified, freed from guilt, if they believe; they are justified through faith. Justification is understood as the deliverance from the guilt that individual sinners have; it frees them for a life under grace and in the spirit (6:18:39) in which they can have a proper moral life governed by love, rather than a life determined either by sinful human nature or by their (cultural, social, and political) environment (12:115:13; Beare, 121). Thus understood the gospel also explains Gods righteousness (or justice). It reveals the sinfulness of allincluding of those who, like the Jews, deceive themselves by thinking that they can rely on works of the law to escape Gods condemnation. God would be just in condemning such people. But the gospel also reveals that Gods justice has been satisfied through Jesus death, and this good news is also for the Jews; by believing this good news, they would also be freed from their guilt and from their fear of the wrath of God.

Contextual Implications (= step # 3)

In many situations in life, especially when individuals are heavily burdened and paralyzed by guilt, the teaching based on this reading of Romans is most helpful. The gospel is the good news that all (Jews and gentiles, church-going and non-religious people) have been forgiven by God. This has been achieved through Christs death on the cross, for all sinnerswhile believers were still sinners and enemies of God (5:8-10, 19). Though all deserve Gods condemnation, God lovingly welcomes them despite their sins. Through our faith, we have the assurance of salvation and are freed from guilt and fear of divine judgment and of death. This is good news, indeed.

But this teaching of Romans does not show us how the gospel rescues us from our own racism, anti-Semitism, or other kinds of oppressive attitudes. When we feel guilty and ashamed by our racist, sexist, or oppressive deeds, this teaching addresses some of our needs. Yet, this teaching could mislead us into thinking that everything is resolved when we discover we are forgiven. In fact, nothing is resolved (see Tamez). People around us continue to be hurt and to die as a result of our racist, anti-Semitic and/or oppressive ways of life. The cycle of violence remains, and we are still contributing to it and are caught in an unending cycle of violenceas an abusive husband begs for forgiveness for hurting his wife, is forgiven by the battered wife, but, again and again, needs to beg for forgiveness. Hopefully, another of the dimensions of Romans offers a teaching that can better address our predicament.

2. The Rhetorical Discourse of RomansAre Anti-Semitism, Racism and Other Oppressive Attitudes Due to Arrogance and an Inappropriate Will to Help Others? = step 2

The letter to the Romans is also a rhetorical discourse through which Paul hopes to convince the Romans to change behavior in their relationship with each other in an integrated church that includes gentile and Jewish members and with outsiders, including Roman authorities. This is what Stowers, and Gager (among others, including Dunn) underscore each in his own way, as they prolong Stendahls insightful questioning of the forensic interpretation discussed above. I affirm the legitimacy of their interpretation, but against their suggestion I want to emphasize that this does not exclude the communication of a theological knowledge of his gospel and a sharing of his convictions. With this restriction, their interpretation of Romans is even more convincing. Here I primarily present Stowerss interpretation, although I allude to the others in this group.

The rhetorical goal of Romans is easier to grasp by identifying in its conclusions the change of behavior it seeks to bring about, then by presenting the process through which it seeks to persuade its readers to act in these ways.

Paul concludes his letter with four chapters of exhortations and ethical teachings (1215). In chapter 15, it is clear that Paul hoped to convince the Romans to support his mission to Spain (15:23-24) and to heed his exhortations, at times expressed in very strong terms (15:15). He has admonished them, as he expects them to admonish each other in a good and responsible way (15:14; instruct each other [NRSV] is too mild). His goal in 14:115:13 is clear: it is to transform the way the strong and the weak interact. It is appropriate for the Romans to admonish each other for mutual correction and for building up the character of the weak (15:2). The problem is that they have inappropriate ways of doing this. Instead of despising as superstitious the opinions and beliefs of those who are weaker and instead of condemning them (14:1-4, 10-12), they should welcome them as God welcomed them by adapting their behavior to meet the need of the weak (14:1315:2). In other words, as Christ did not please himself but has become a servant to the Jews in order to confirm the promises given to the Patriarchs about the gentiles (15:1-12), so the strong should adapt themselves to the varied needs of the weak. Pauls goal is to lead the Romans to abandon the Greco-Roman practice of mutual correction that includes shaming the weak for their weaknesses. They should replace it by a practice of mutual exhortation that follows the model of Christs adaptability to the needs of others (Stowers, 41, 320-23). This is the way to empower the weak (15:2).

By the end of his discourse, Paul is confident that his readers will change behavior, because they are now enabled to follow the model of Christ (15:14).

What is the root of the problem that Pauls rhetorical discourse helps his readers to overcome? Most generally, arrogance: the arrogance of the strong toward the weak, whoever these might be (14:115:13); the arrogance of the gentile Christians toward the Jews who do not believe in Jesus as the Christ (11:13-25); the arrogance of the imaginary Jewish teacher with his condescending pride in teaching gentiles to observe works of the law (3:7, cf. 2:17-20, 23) (Stowers, 38; see also 2:174:22); the arrogance of the imaginary person (a gentile, in this reading) who condemns others (2:1-4; cf. 2:1-16); and, we can add, the arrogance of the (gentile) sinners who claim to be wise (1:22) even as they commit idolatry and all kinds of sin (1:18-32). Arrogance is a belief that one has self-mastery and that others do not have it; and thus a belief that one needs to help others to gain the same self-mastery that one has. Pauls teaching is that those who are arrogant and judge others actually lack character, self-control and self-mastery, because like the others (2:1-2) they are dominated by passions (1:18-32) or sin as desire (7:7-25).

How does the gospel overcome arrogance and lack of self-mastery according to Pauls rhetorical discourse?

This letter in its entirety is addressed to the Romans as gentiles as is explicit in 1:5-6, 13-15 and as is clarified by the recognition that, following common practices of the diatribe, Paul enlivens his discourse by addressing imaginary peopleincluding gentiles in 2:1-16, and a Jewish teacher from 2:17 to 4:22. Thus Romans tries to clarify for gentile followers of Christ their relation to the law, Jews, and Judaism (Stowers, 36), a relation that has been vitiated by arrogance on all parts. If one wants to escape condemnation by God, self-mastery is the goal to be achieved, as Greco-roman gentiles think. Indeed, gentiles can be expected to condemn the sinners enslaved to passions and desire (1:18-32), as they do according to 2:1-2; but they should not condemn others, because they are in the same situation (2:1-16).

Then, gentile followers of Jesus might think that becoming a Jew by following the law, as taught by the imaginary teacher, will give them the possibility to overcome sin (passion and desire) and thus to be in the right relationship with God and to have self-mastery. But this is an inappropriate understanding of the relationship between Jews and gentiles all are sinners (2:173:9). Thus, still in the diatribe style, Paul conveys that: The [imaginary Jewish] teacher needs to understand that in the present moment God is effecting his just solution not through the Jewish law (3:19-21) but in the gentile mission based on Christs faithfulness (3:22-26) (Stowers, 37). Stowers (as well as Elliott, and other scholars) translate 3: 22: Gods righteousness has been manifested through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who are faithful. The faithfulness of Jesus Christ is comparable to that of Abraham, who is the ancestor of both Jews and gentiles (4:1-25). Regarding the way gentiles should relate to Jews, gentiles followers of Jesus must imitate Christs faithfulness; this is what having faith is all about. As Christ adapted himself to their need, dying for them as they were ungodly (5:1-11) (Stowers, 38), so gentile believers must reenact his death and resurrection in baptism (6:2-11). In the process of dying to self they are freed from the dominion of sin and of passions (6:12-14), they receive self-mastery. And this applies beyond baptism as well the enslavement to desire and passion described in 7:7-23 is overcome through Christ who adapted himself to their needs and through the Spirit that empowers them to be faithful as Christ was (chapter 8). As a consequence, gentiles share in Christs privilege and authoritative relationship with God as son (8:15-23, 29), a kinship with God that Israel always had (9:4).

Faithful gentiles who follow Christ are then in a position to understand the mysterious way God deals with Israel and gentiles (911). This is the mystery of Gods adaptation to the needs of gentiles, and this without denying the covenant and promises to Israel (11:13-36). Acknowledging this mystery of Gods faithfulness (11:25, 33-36) is the condition for gentiles to be free from their arrogance toward the Jews (11:17-18), and then to be free to imitate Christs faithfulness.

What is this faithfulness by which the Romans as gentile believers should live? It is to give ones body in living sacrifice as Christs did (12:1-2). Paul admonishes the Romans to make Christs faithful adaptability to the needs of others, love, the basic principle for their life in community that necessarily include very different members (12:3-13; 14:115:13), but also for their attitudes toward outsiders (12:1413:7). This is the love that fulfills the law and frees Christs followers from the flesh and its desires (13:8-14). Thus the Romans should admonish one another, building up the character of the weak (still enslaved by their weakness). But one should do so as Christ did by adapting oneself to the needs of the weak.

Contextual Implications (= step # 3)

When the rhetoric of the letter is viewed as the most significant dimension of the letter, the issue is no longer guilt that one has when one is confronted with ones sinfulness. It is arrogance, that consists in generously wanting to help others to become like oneself, because one views oneself as better than othersan attitude related to the honor-shame code of Greco-Roman culture (see Jewett). Through its forceful rhetorical presentation of the gospel, the letter to the Romans seeks to overcome the believers arrogance vis-à-vis less mature Christians and outsiders. In Pauls time, the letter strove to overcome the arrogance that believers in Christ from Jewish and gentile origins had toward each other and toward Jews. Admonishments and exhortations such as these are parts of character formation, i.e. of the process of sanctification. This teaching aims at changing the will of people who have an inappropriate, deficient, or weak will. Paul emphasizes, from beginning to end, that this character formation is mutual (1:12 and 15:14): members of the church need to exhort, encourage, comfort, instruct each other, as Paul himself expect to be exhorted and supported by the Romans (1:12 and 15:30). Arrogance is not a proper way to exhort others; rather one must imitate Christ and adapt themselves to the needs of the weak. This is what Paul did with the Romans, adapting himself and his discourse to their needsby entering their way of thinking regarding the importance of character formation (as Stowers argues). In this way, Paul hoped to change their will, and to overcome the arrogance that divided them.

This kind of teaching about mutual support is much needed today for individualistic Christians in the Western world who forget that they need the support of a community to progress in their faith journey, and also for those Christian communities in which exhortation and encouragement have lost their mutual character and have become arrogant.

At first, this teaching also seems to address the problem of racism, and the similar problems of sexism, colonialism, and imperialism. Is not arrogance (because of ones race, gender, or social, economic and cultural development) the root of each of these problems? Yet, for the victims of racism, sexism, or colonialism, the second part of this teaching the exhortation to help the weak in an appropriate way--is suspicious. They have too often offered their bodies in living sacrifice (12:1-2) and been abused in the process. Furthermore, the exhortation to the strong to adapt themselves to the needs of the weak is fine when true reciprocity is possibleamong members of a community of equals. But this attitude reinforces racism, sexism, colonialism, when it is practiced in a relationship where mutuality cannot be truly envisioned, because this relationship is primarily characterized by inequality. In such cases, the weakpeople from other races, religions, gender or culturesare like children who need to be kindly instructed and taken care of by condescending strong peoplefor instance, by well-intentioned, white male European Christians. When this teaching is applied outside of a community of equals, it is part of the problem, rather than the hoped-for solution.

Ultimately this teaching cannot truly address our predicament with racism and other oppressive attitudes, because it is not a matter of will. The weakness of the victims of racisms and other kinds of oppression is not due to a lack of will (e.g. to their so-called laziness or slothfulness!); it results from oppression. Conversely, the oppressors remain oppressors even when they are well-intentioned, with the right kind of will. The evil of racism and of oppression is neither a matter of knowledge (e.g. a lack of knowledge of Gods love) nor a matter of will (e.g. arrogance or a lack of will to love others as Christ loved them), but a matter of power that entraps both the perpetrators and the victims of racism and other oppressions. Hopefully, another dimension of Romans involves a teaching about the way the gospel can rescue us from our own racism, anti-Semitism, or other oppressive drives.

3. The Religious Discourse of Romans and Pauls ConvictionsAnti-Semitism, Racism, and Other Oppressive Attitudes as Signs of Bondage to Evil Powers and the Gospel as Power of Salvation = step 2

A condition for the effective communication of a religious messageconcerning the knowledge about the gospel of justification through faith (first reading) or the will to abandon their arrogance and to be faithful followers of Christ (second reading)is that this message also convey a clear sense of the convictions of the preacher or author. Thus, in his letter to the Romans, Paul also shares his deepest convictions regarding the role of the divine in the world and in the believers experience.

This most religious dimension of Romans as a religious discourse is often overlooked, because it is diffuse and difficult to apprehend. We miss Pauls convictions if we ask either What is the central theological point of this letter? or What rhetorical effect does it seek to achieve? Pauls convictions are neither found at the center of his argument nor in the trajectory of his discourse, because they provide the symbolic universe in which this argument and discourse take place and make sense. The appropriate questions are: How is Pauls symbolic universe constructed or structured? What religious symbolism is he using? How is it related to Hellenistic religions (see Schweitzer and other historians of religions)? To Pharisaic and early Rabbinic Judaism (see Davies and Sanders)? To Apocalyptic Judaism (see Käsemann and Beker)? To the symbolism of the Roman Empire (see Elliot)? What are the theological oppositions emphasized in the letter (see Patte)?

The latter question is helpful to locate Pauls convictions, because the believers convictions are self-evident truths that are like the air they breathe. As we desperately gasp for air when our air supply is threatened, so, when our convictions are threatened, we emotionally affirm them by denying that we believe something elsesetting up theological oppositions. When we consider these oppositions in Romans, it soon appears that Pauls symbolic universe should not be envisioned as a building with walls that separate an outside, the world, from an inside, the church. Pauls symbolic universe is better envisioned as a powerful movement that sweeps through the entire world and creation, transforming them as it conquers them. In this brief commentary, it is enough to examine three kinds of figures which, as implicit metaphors, express both what the gospel is like and unlike: political Roman figures, Jewish eschatological figures, and Jewish apocalyptic figures.

The Gospel as Imperial Conquest = step 2

A part of the letter to the Romans appropriately represents the gospel as an imperial conquest. The proclamation and spreading of the gospel of the Lordship or Dominion of Jesus Christ is like (and also, unlike) the proclamation and spreading of the good news of the lordship or dominion of the Roman emperor. Like the Roman Emperor, Jesus Christ is Lord (1:4). The task of the servants of this Lord, Paul (1:1) and the entire body of Christ (12:11), is to bring to the obedience of faith (1:5) the gentiles and the barbarians (1:14) and to overcome evil (12:21) by putting on the armor of light (13:12), that is, by putting on the Lord Jesus Christ (13:14). This is just as the Roman legionnaires put on their armors and overcome evil in the name of the Lord Cesar by bringing order, security, and peace (the Pax Romana) for the good of all people (13:3-4), by forcing people into subjection by the power of the sword (13:4-5), but also and primarily by bringing people to the obedience of voluntary submissionthe meaning of the phrase obedience of faith (1:5)to Roman authority. The gospel is the good news concerning the establishment of the empire of God through the voluntary submission (faith) of people to the Lord Jesus Christ and to God. In this sweeping imperial conquest of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Roman authorities are themselves subjected to the authority of Gods empire; indeed, they are servants of God (13:4).

The Urgency of the Gospels Imperial Conquest = step 2

The gospels imperial conquest encompasses the entire inhabited worldfrom Jerusalem to the Adriatic Sea (Illyricum, 15:19), and in between, Asia Minor and Greece (Macedonia and Achaia, 15:25-26), to Rome and to Spain (15:24), the end of the (known) world.

For Paul, this conquest of the entire world is all the more urgent that this is the time of the end (the eschaton): when God sends the Messiah, the Christ Jesus (1:1), and fulfills the prophecies of Scriptures (1:2); when the resurrection from the dead has already begun with the resurrection of Jesus (1:4); when the Spirit of God, through the resurrection, establishes Jesus as Son of God with power (1:4) and transforms believers into children of God (8:14; see 8:9-17), and will soon transform the rest of creation (8:18-23), since the time of salvation is near (13:11). In sum, for Paul it is self-evident (a basic conviction) that with the coming of Christ and his resurrection the end-time (the eschatological time) has begun. This is confirmed by the transformative work of the Holy Spirit and of the resurrected Christ in the believers experience, who repeatedly rescue them from their sin (or take away their sins).

Pauls symbolic universe is also apocalyptic, in the sense that the envisioned end-time is marked by the struggle between the power of God and Christ and the powers of evilincluding powers, rulers (on high, under the earth, or in life), and death (8:38-39). It is the time of Gods judgment when Gods wrath is manifested against all wickedness and ungodliness (1:18). The gospel is the power of God for salvation (1:16). Even though the final victory over evil is still to come, some of the powers of evil are already being defeated, including sin as a power that enslaves people (3:9, NRSV). Sinners are overwhelmed by desires to which they have been abandoned by God (1:24; see 1:26, 28); they are possessed by all kinds of evil (1:29); thus, even if they know what is good to do and want to do it, they end up doing evil because they are possessed by sin and under its power (7:18-20).

Contextual Implications (= step # 3)

This apocalyptic view, with its emphasis on sin and evil as powers that enslave us, makes sense when speaking about anti-Semitism, racism, sexism and other oppressive attitudes. Despite our best intentions (against our will) and despite our efforts to avoid these attitudes that we know to be wrong and evil, these oppressive attitudes dwell in us (7:18), possess us, enslave us (7:14). Sin brings about not only our own destruction (death, 1:32; 7:10-11) but also the destruction of others and of all aspects of life in relation with others (1:24-31). Thus, it is indeed good news to hear that the gospel is the power of God for salvation (1:16), that is, the power through which we can be freed from slavery to sin, or from all its destructive effects on individuals and communities.

While sin as guilt and condemnation (the focus of the first reading, above) has been overcome once and for all by Jesus death instead of sinners (e.g., 3:25; 8:1), sin and other evil powers are still at work in Pauls present and in our present. People, including Christian believers, are still in bondage to these powers. The dictum, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (3:23), still apply to them. Every day there are new victims of anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, imperialism, and other oppressive attitudes, and Christian believers are among the oppressors. Therefore, Pauls cry in 7:24 is also that of any Christian believer: Who will rescue me from this body of death? From the bondage to these evil powers?

The Gospel as Power of Salvation: 1) What Is the Power of Sin? = step 2

The power of sin remains a reality for Paul, the apostle. Day after day, like everyone else, Paul needs to be rescued from one or another of the many manifestations of the power of sin. But Paul also expresses his conviction that his cry for help (7:24) is answered: Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord (7:25). God, through the resurrected Christ and his power (1:4) and the Spirit (8:1-39) saves people from these powers of evil. This is the power of God for salvation (1:16) manifested by the gospel as an on-going process that will end when all the enemies of God, including death, are defeated (1 Cor 15:24-26).

How are believers actually rescued from these powers of evil by the gospel? Pauls convictions on this central point become apparent in the numerous theological oppositions of chapters 1, 7-8, and 12.

In 1:18-32, the powers of evil to which people are abandoned by God are those of coveting desires (1:24, NRSV lusts; same word in 7:8, NRSV covetousness), passions (1:26) and warped mind (1:28). Pauls reference to idolatry is most helpful, provided we note the unexpected way in which he presents it. Three points are essential.

1) For Paul, idolaters are people who have received a true revelation from God in creation: a revelation of Gods eternal power and divine nature recognizable in the creation (1:19-20). This true revelation (1:21) is partial, and not complete (e.g., it does not include the revelations to Israel and in Jesus Christ).

2) Far from ignoring or denying this revelation, idolaters are obsessed by it and absolutize it. They view this partial revelation as the complete and final revelation; they worship the creatures instead of the creator (1:23), the manifestations of this revelation rather than the mysterious God toward whom they point. This delusive absolutization comes from a warped, darkened mind (1:21-22, 28) made foolish by deeply rooted desires to own, possess, and control this divine revelationcoveting desires (1:24, 7:7-8) to possess what does not belong to them.

3) Idolaters are then trapped into their idolatry, as a manifestation of Gods wrath (1:18, 24, 26, 28). The more they strive to worship God, revealed to them in creation, the more, in their obsession for this revelation, they end up worshiping the creation, and thus an idol (1:23). The more they welcome Gods good gifts of human relationssexuality (1:24-27), community relations (1:28-32)the more their obsession and passion transform these good gifts into self-destructive and oppressive behavior.

Paul underscores in Romans (and also in Galatians) that his own experience as a Jew is similar to that of gentile idolaters.

1) The true revelation and gifts the Jews have received from God include the covenant and the circumcision, the irrevocable election as children of God, Torah (the law which is holy, just and good, 7:12), the promises and oracles of God, worship (3:1-2; 9:4-5; 11:28-29).

2) Far from hypocritically ignoring and denying this revelation, Jewish believers have a great zeal and fervor for God (10:2); they follow the law/Torah with the conviction that, as promised, it will bring life to them (7:10). But because their zeal is obsessive (not enlightened), they have absolutized the Law/Torah, viewing it as the way to righteousness (instead of being open to the righteousness that comes from God, 10:2-5).

3) Like any idolater, they are then trapped, destroyed, and killed by their obsession for this revelation. Sin deceived Paul the Jew through the law (7:12). The more he wants to do Gods will, the more he does the evil he hates, including idolatry, i.e., viewing as an absolute what is not (7:15-23).

Such is the story of all the religious persons who view the revelation or gift they have received from God, as the complete and final revelation. This applies to arrogant Christians (Rom 11 and 13-15; see the second reading), for whom the root of the problem is that they obsessively view their particular understanding and practice of the gospel, as the complete and final revelation that every one should adopt.

The Gospel as Power of Salvation: 2) Being Freed from the Power of Sin = step 2

The way out of all these obsessions passes through the recognition that the revelation or gifts one has received from God is not the complete and final revelationthat one merely sees in a mirror, dimly and knows only in part (1 Cor 13:9-12). For this, everyone needs to be freed from the obsessive convictions that the revelation or gift from God one has received is the complete and final revelation. How?

Paul answers: through the gospel as power of God for salvation (Rom 1:16). Is this a divine bolt of lightening through which idolaters and arrogant believers are shocked out their obsessions? Paul surprises us: this powerful salvation is through a revelation of Gods righteousness from faith to faith (1:17 au., with the more literal translations), that is, a revelation transmitted from believers to believers. This seems strange (so the NRSV translates through faith and for faith) until one recognizes two things: receiving a revelation from someone else involves acknowledging that the revelation one has is not complete or sufficient; and encountering in other persons (or in other groups, such as the Jews or the gentiles) unexpected manifestations of God transform us (12:2).

The liberating power of the gospel is at work for someone when that person acknowledges the truth of the different revelations and divine gifts that others have received and manifest; that is, when one encounters the Presence of God as manifested in the different experience of these othersin their otherness.

For Paul this power of the gospel is at work in the body of Christ. Each Christian believer has received a measure of faith (not the whole of faith, 12:3). Consequently, each should acknowledge the different gifts (charismata) that others have received from God (12:6) and be open to benefit from them. Being part of the body of Christ involves acknowledging that the gift one has received is never self-sufficient; it needs to be complemented by the gifts others have (12:4-10). Then, the only possible attitude is to honor others (putting others before yourselves in honor, 12:10 au. with several translations). Christians cannot but regard others as better than [themselves] (Phil 2:3) when they contemplate others and view them as bearers of divine gifts or revelations that they lack. Encountering Gods manifestation in others frees believers from the destructive obsession that kept them in bondage.

The same applies to Paul himself. Paul with his superb credentials (see Rom 1:1-6) is tempted, as everyone else, to obsessively believe that the exceptional revelations and gifts that he has received puts him above others and that he is to share these revelations and gifts with others without needing to receive anything from them. He actually falls in this trap when he writes: I am longing to see you so that I may share with you some spiritual gift to strengthen you (1:11). But as soon as he said so he realizes what he has done and corrects himself: or rather so that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine (1:12). Of course, he has to receive something from the Romans. Indeed, he should regard them as better than himself, because they have gifts (charismata) that he lacks; he needs to honor them, that is, to discern the gifts they are bringing to him.

Paul (barely) escapes an obsessive idolatrous attitude by acknowledging that he has much to receive from other Christians. What about his attitude toward gentile idolaters? We have noted that Paul acknowledges that they have a true revelation (1:18-19). Is this a revelation that he believes he need to receive from them? In 1:14, Paul signals that he does: I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. This statement refers to a debt that he has incurred by receiving something from these other people (and not to a general sense of obligation toward them). For Paul, bringing the gospel to the Greeks and to the barbarians involves acknowledging that they have revelations and gifts that one needs to receive from them, even though they might have transformed them in destructive idolatrous obsessions. Actually this is what Paul does in 13:4 by recognizing Gods servant in the Roman Emperor cloaked in his destructive imperialistic idolatry. Far from viewing the gospel as the complete and final revelation, for Paul the gospel calls Christians to discern the many revelations and divine gifts that other people have so that Christians need to receive from them.

Thus, Paul exhorts the Romans to adopt the same attitude: Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God-- what is good and acceptable and perfect (12:2). Far from stepping out of the evil world and of rejecting it, Christians should contemplate it, discern in it what is from God, affirm what in it is good and acceptable and perfect (or holy and just and good as Paul says about the Law/Torah, 7:12), and be ready to receive it as a gift from God who is actively Present in this world.

This does not mean that they should conform themselves to this world: they should not participate in the idolatrous, destructive obsessions of this world. In so doing, they follow the example of Christ, who did not conform to the world in which he was sent, and thus appeared to be sinful from the warped (sinful) perspective of that world (he was in the likeness of sinful flesh according to sin [peri hamartias], 8:3, au.). By not conforming to and sinning against this world (transgressing the rules of this world), Christian believers present [their] bodies as a living sacrifice (12:1) as Christ did (3:25). They will indeed be rejected and persecuted for threatening what this world obsessively views as most sacred. But, when through some manifestations of God they are shown to be truly sent by God (as Christ was shown to be Son of God through the resurrection, 1:4), then (some people from) this world are freed from their bondage to their destructive obsessions.

Concluding Contextual Implications (= step # 3)

For present-day Christian believers who struggle with their exclusivist attitudes, the implications of Pauls view of religious obsession are striking. Our knee-jerk reaction is to reject or despise those who have religious views and practices that we perceive as nonsensical, childish, and dangerous because they contradict our convictions. Thus, we despise believers of other religions, followers of anti-religious ideologies (atheists or communists), and also Christians of other traditions than ours. As Paul warns us, this knee-jerk reaction is doubly problematic: we condemn ourselves (2:1), because it is a sign that we ourselves have absolutized a partial revelation or gift from God; we deprive ourselves of the good gifts and revelations that, surprisingly, God offers us through them.

How can we escape this vicious circle? It is neither a matter of theological knowledge (see the first reading) nor a matter of will (see the second reading). It is a matter of convictions. As self-evident truths, convictions have power upon believers either driving them into an obsessive behavior (idolatrous convictions) or empowering them and freeing them from such behavior (iconoclastic convictions).

For Paul, the gospel has this iconoclastic power that transforms people through a renewing of [their] minds which gives them to discern what is and what is not from God in the world around them (12:2). So to speak, the gospel is a pair of corrective glasses. Contemplating all those around us through these glasses, it becomes self-evident to us that, behind the grime and destructiveness of their obsessive behavior, all these persons have received from God good, acceptable and perfect gifts (charismata) that they offer to us. We can see that God is truly at work in their experience, that they are sent by God. Then, we can honor others (12:10), considering them as better than ourselves (Phil 2:3), that is, as people to whom we are indebted (Rom 1:14) because of the gifts they share with us. Since these other people we honor include Jews, people from other races, from the other sex and of other sexual tendencies, from other cultures, from other economic statusindeed, any person who is somehow different from us, by the very fact of honoring them for a moment we are freed from anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, elitism, colonialism, imperialism, etc. But it is only for a moment, because the root of sin (coveting desires) remains within us. As soon as we stop contemplating others around us through the corrective glasses of the gospel, we are back in bondage to our sins. Constant empowerment by on-going contemplation of the world through the corrective glasses of the gospel is a condition for being rescued from our multi-fold obsessive and destructive bondage by those others who, in their mysterious difference, bring divine gifts to us.

The gospel is also the power of God for salvation because, when we look at this world through it as corrective glasses, it also reveals to us what God condemns (1:18), what in this world is not from God, and thus that part of the world to which we should not conform ourselves (12:2). Contemplating the world around us through the gospel, we are empowered to discern not only obsessive, idolatrous, destructive, abusive, hurtful, deadly types of behavior, but also their systemic, cultural, economic, social and political causes. This recognition is a call not to conform to this world and thus to offer ourselves in living sacrifice (12:1), as Christ did. Refusing complicity with the powers of this worldfor instance, refusing to live in the warped world of a constant state of emergencyinvolves putting oneself and those we love at risk. But this sacrifice is not in vain, because it is never the end of story, as the gospel promises. By his resurrection the crucified was shown to be the Son of God through whom the power of God for salvation was manifested among the Jews (1:4, 16). In the same way, when Christian believers offer themselves in sacrifice by not conforming to the evil of this world, they can count on resurrection-like interventions of God that will transform their apparently futile gesture into a manifestation of the power of God through which at least some of the victims of evil will be freed from their bondage.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beare, Francis W. Romans, The Letter to the pp. 112-122, vol. 4 in Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville; Abingdon, 1962)

Beker, Christiaan J. Triumph of God: The Essence of Paul's Thought trans. Loren T. Stuckenbruck (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990)

Bultmann, Rudolf, Theology of the New Testament; trans. Kendrick Grobel. (New York, Scribner, 1951-1955)

Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1965)

Dunn, James D.G. Romans. Word Biblical commentary ; 38A-B (Dallas, Tex. : Word Books, 1988)

Elliott, Neil. Liberating Paul: the Justice of God and the Politics of the Apostle (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1994)

Fitzmyer Joseph A. Romans : a New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible ; 33 (New York : Doubleday, 1993).

Gager, John G. Reinventing Paul (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000)

Grenholm, Cristina and Daniel Patte. Reading Israel in Romans: Legitimacy and Plausibility of Divergent Interpretations (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 2000)

Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1980)

Patte, Daniel. Paul's Faith and the Power of the Gospel: a Structural Introduction to the Pauline Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983)

Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: a Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1977)

Schweitzer, Albert. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle trans. William Montgomery (New York: Macmillan, 1931)

Stendahl, Krister, Paul among Jews and Gentiles, and Other Essays (Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 1976)

Stowers, Stanley Kent. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994)

Tamez, Elsa. The Amnesty of Grace: Justification by Faith from a Latin American Perspective (Nashville : Abingdon Press, 1993)