The Beginning of Paul’s Gospel: Theological Explorations in Romans 1–4

By Nijay K. Gupta and John K. Goodrich

The Epistle to the Romans remains the centerpiece of all serious Pauline theological research. Each of the major sections of Romans has received significant attention in recent scholarship, yet no consensus has emerged about how to read the opening chapters of Paul's most important letter, Romans 1-4. This collection of essays returns to the beginning of Paul's theological masterpiece to probe longstanding puzzles and to offer new readings and fresh insights on some of the most cherished chapters in the entire Pauline corpus.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Cascade Books
• Release date: Jul 7, 2023
• ISBN: 9781666723236

Book preview

1

Reading Romans as a Letter

Introducing Romans 1–4

Timothy G. Gombis

Paul’s Letter to the Romans is inarguably the most important of his epistles in the history of Christian thought and one of the most critical documents in Christian Scripture. It is nearly impossible to master all that has been said and written about it, and it is difficult to contribute anything new to the vast literature. At the same time, countless interpretive and theological issues remain hotly contested. All of this remains true for crucial portions of chs. 1–4, though the pieces contained in this volume contribute significantly to the ongoing discussions. In this essay, I will provide an overview of the flow of Paul’s argument in the letter and describe how the early chapters set foundations for theological trajectories the apostle draws out throughout his presentation.

Overview of Paul’s Argument

Commentators routinely note that Paul’s letter to the Christians at Rome is just that—a letter. At the same time, it is quite typical that as they go about their work, scholars end up treating Paul’s letter as something of a systematic theology, as if Paul were laying out his theological vision for his audiences in the abstract. That is, what he has to say to the network of house churches in Rome is not meant to address the conflict between two competing factions, but is more general in nature. He is depicted as laying out his vision of salvation and how that is applied to the Christian. Only in chs. 14–15 does Paul address the existing conflict, and this is not closely tied to the theological argument he develops to that point. Scot McKnight’s recent volume offers a strong corrective to this situation, arguing that the letter is helpfully interpreted backwards, beginning with the problem of the conflict between the strong and the weak, and assuming that Paul aims to heal that breach from beginning to end.¹ Rather than envisioning a series of treatments of theological subjects (condemnation, justification, sanctification, etc.), Romans is most faithfully read as a pastoral letter that theologically interprets the conflict in the network of house churches and calls the Roman Christians to participate in God’s unifying work in Christ and by the Spirit.²

In the extended letter opening (1:1–17), Paul rhetorically situates himself alongside the Roman Christians, a relationship of mutuality that he hopes will provide a model for how the competing factions will come to view one another. He longs to enjoy fellowship among them and to impart to them some spiritual gift, while also being mutually encouraged by each other’s faith (vv. 11–12). In 1:18–32, he abruptly moves to an extended and dark depiction of human sinfulness, picking up what appears to be a typical Jewish critique of gentile descent into idolatry and degradation.³ This very well may resonate with the sort of critique the weak are leveling against the strong in the Roman churches in order to buttress their claim to spiritual and moral superiority. Paul arouses the sentiments of the weak and appears to be taking their side over against the strong, only then to spring the trap in 2:1 by accusing them of having done the very same things.⁴ This is the first move in a section that stretches from 1:18 to 5:11 and lumps all the Roman Christians into a single group. No one stands in any position of moral superiority. They all share a history of condemnation, and, Paul will argue, they share a current situation together in God’s redemptive work of liberation and justification.

Throughout ch. 2, Paul obliterates any claim that a Jewish identity gives any of the Roman Christians a claim for boasting in superiority.⁵ By the time he reaches 3:9, he has concluded that both Jews and non-Jews are gathered together in a shared history of enslavement to the cosmic power of Sin, an argument he supports with a string of citations from Israel’s Scriptures.⁶

This shared history is matched by a shared present situation of enjoying the liberative work of God in Christ. In 3:21–26, Paul explains that God has included all the Roman Christians in Christ without reference to an identity shaped by Torah. And this eliminates any of the claims to superiority on the part of the weak. Their boasting is eliminated by a faithful relationship to Torah rather than one configured by works (3:27–31).⁷ Paul then raises the figure of Abraham to further his argument that boasting is ruled out (4:2). No group can cite Abraham to further their claim for superior status, since he is the father of us all (v. 16), a figure who further unites the competing factions into one group. Paul concludes this opening section in 5:1–11 by arguing that the singular group has a unified boast: in the hope of the glory of God (v. 2), in their common suffering (v. 3), and in God through our Lord Jesus Christ (v. 11).

The second major movement of the letter begins in 5:12 and runs through 8:39. Paul introduces an apocalyptic frame in order to theologically interpret how the intergroup conflict among the Roman Christians can be mapped cosmically.⁸ He had already noted that whereas they had all formerly been enslaved to the cosmic power of Sin (3:9), they had been delivered together into the liberated cosmic space of Christ himself so that they now stand in this grace (5:2). In 5:12–21, Paul portrays the cosmic dynamics as alternative modes of human existence. Death and Sin entered, spread, and reigned through Adam and affected all humanity. In Christ, however, a new mode of existence has been opened up, one in which grace and righteousness reign in life through Jesus Christ (v. 17).

Paul works with this conception of two competing cosmic realms through the end of ch. 8. In ch. 6, he notes that the Roman Christians are united with Christ both in his death to the realm in which Sin rules, and in his resurrection to new life so that they should no longer serve Sin as a master by participating in divisive practices. Throughout ch. 7, Paul argues that while the manner in which the weak are basing their claims on Torah may have been well motivated—they were appealing to God’s word!—the effects of their use of Torah are not at all what they had intended. They had not accounted for the shrewdness of the cosmic power of Sin, which seized an opportunity with their citations of Torah in order to effect division, discouragement, and death (7:11).

What can be done to remedy the destructive effects of the efforts of the weak in the Roman house churches? God has already provided the solution by what he has done in Christ (7:25). The task now for the united church is to have minds and community practices oriented by the Spirit and not by the Flesh (8:4–17). In 8:18–39, Paul elaborates on his reference to their shared boast in 5:11. Their faithful participation in a common Christian identity does not look like a certain relationship to Torah, but rather takes shape in their co-participation in suffering in the hope of future glory.⁹

Romans 9–11 represents the third major movement of the letter’s argument.¹⁰ Here, Paul must address the place of Israel in God’s right-making program and provide a defense of sorts concerning God’s righteousness and faithfulness. Earlier statements Paul made have raised questions about what God is up to. He had noted earlier that God’s right-making program is being worked out in the gospel (1:17), that some among Israel had been unfaithful to their commission to be a light to the nations (3:3), and that righteousness now had no reference to a Torah-based identity (3:20). These statements raised questions, as Paul indicates throughout chs. 1–4, about the relative place of Jewish identity, about God’s faithfulness to Israel, and about God’s appointment of Israel and Torah as the means through which he originally intended to redeem the nations. In this section, then, Paul must explain that God has the sovereign prerogative to do with his chosen human agents as he sees fit. If a chosen agent—individual or national—becomes an obstacle to God’s saving purposes, God reserves the right to harden that agent in unfaithfulness in order to pursue his saving purposes.

God’s call and designation of Israel is not based on any merit or birthright but comes about only by grace (9:6–13). And God may choose to be merciful to his chosen agent, such as he was to Moses when the latter requested to see God’s glory (9:15). And if one chooses to be an obstacle to God’s redemptive aims, as Pharaoh was, God may harden him, an action that anticipates the condition in which Israel finds itself (11:25).

Paul calls the Roman Christians to take sober note of God’s mercy and severity in order that they might not be complacent in their participation in Israel’s heritage (11:22). The Romans had been shut up in disobedience and have now received the mercy of God’s salvation. And God will be likewise merciful to Israel by extending salvation to them, as well. God has not rejected his people (11:1), nor has the word of God in any sense failed (9:6).

In the final movement, chs. 12–16, Paul makes practical exhortations with regard to the communal life of hospitality the Roman Christians are to enjoy. On one hand, these chapters may be read as more ethical, whereas the previous sections were more theological. In reality, he has been exhorting all along, which again indicates the pastoral character of his letter. Admittedly, the practices to which he now calls his audiences are more specific, and, as indicated above, chs. 14–15 directly address the two competing factions and their concrete concerns. He calls them to regard one another without judgment or condemnation, anticipated by the statement in 8:1 that in the new cosmic space of Christ there is no place for such postures toward one another. The argument comes to ultimate expression in 15:7, where Paul commands them to engage joyfully in the life-giving practices of hospitality in order that they might bring glory to God. The letter closes with extended greetings (16:1–27), which illuminates not only the composition of the Roman house churches, but also the significant roles of leadership that women played in early Christianity.

Righteousness and Faith

Paul introduces his central theological concerns in some tightly wound expressions in what may or may not function as a thesis statement of Romans. He speaks of the gospel, salvation, and the two terms that appear throughout the letter and at its key turning points—righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) and faith (πίστις).

Paul first mentions righteousness in connection with God. In the gospel, the righteousness of God is revealed. This expression has been the subject of intense debate, whether it refers to righteousness that comes from God, righteousness as an attribute of God, or righteousness as God’s saving activity.¹¹ Michael Gorman, among others, makes the case that the expression refers to God’s character and saving action. God is both righteous/just, and in Israel’s Scriptures the expression has in view "God’s covenant fidelity to Israel demonstrated in saving power to make things right.¹² Psalm 98:1–3 celebrates that the Lord has made his salvation known and revealed his righteousness to the nations. He has remembered his love and his faithfulness to Israel; all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God. Isaiah 55:5 likewise declares, My righteousness draws near speedily, my salvation is on the way, and my arm will bring justice to the nations" (NIV).

Paul describes how God’s righteousness is revealed in 3:21–26. Before exploring that, however, we must note how righteousness language is used to portray the human condition that God must restore. In 1:18–32, as mentioned above, Paul describes the former condition in which all the Roman Christians were mired. At the head of a long list of degraded conditions and behaviors, he notes that they had become filled with all unrighteousness/injustice (ἀδικία, 1:29). God had created humanity to be his image within creation, reflecting his righteous or just character (δικαιοσύνη can be translated as righteousness or justice). In their rebellion, however, they had become unjust or unrighteous. In this condition, they do not properly image the creator God—they do not glorify him within creation (1:21).

The gospel reveals the righteousness/justice of God in that God transforms all the Roman Christians from ἀδικία (unrighteousness/injustice) to δίκαιος (righteous/just). That is, God makes right or justifies (δικαιόω, 3:24) all those who are of the faithfulness of Jesus (3:22) by liberating them from enslavement to the cosmic power of Sin and enfolding them within the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. The Roman Christians had sinned and lacked the glory of God, and God transforms them in redemption so that they now have the hope of the glory of God (5:2). God is now righteous—as he always was—and the one who makes righteous those who are included in Christ (3:26).¹³

The theme of God’s righteousness continues, as we mentioned above, in Paul’s discussion of Israel in chs. 9–11. God is not unrighteous in his determination of whom he chooses to be the agent of his saving work in the world (9:14). God is free and remains just/righteous in his dealings with his people.

Paul also refers to faith or faithfulness (πίστις) three times in Rom 1:16–17, and uses the participle once (πιστεύοντι).¹⁴ Whether or not the cryptic and debated expression from faith to faith in v. 17 has God’s faithfulness in view, this is an important theme in Romans. Just as God’s righteous character was to be embodied within creation by humanity, God had intended that his faithful character would be displayed within creation by Israel. That is, God’s commitment to his creation was demonstrated in his call of Israel as the agent of the reclamation of the nations. Israel had proved unfaithful to this commission, but that did not reflect any unfaithfulness in God (3:3). Rather, God’s faithful commitment to his saving purposes was displayed in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (3:22).¹⁵

Paul uses πίστις language to refer not only to the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, but to human faith throughout Romans. God’s justification, or right-making work, comes through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all who believe (πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας) in the Roman churches. That justification is by faith and not from works of the law is critical for Paul’s argument, because he is at pains to unite the competing factions into a singular group, both in condemnation and justification. If justification came on the basis of a Torah-shaped identity, then the weak would have some validity to their claims of superior status. Paul states plainly, however, in 3:20 that no one will be justified by works of the law. And in 3:22–23, he claims that there is no distinction between Jew and gentile when it comes to moral stature before God. Both groups have sinned and equally lack the glory of God. And both have been justified only by their faith and their inclusion in the faithfulness of Jesus (v. 26). He states this again repeatedly in vv. 27–31, to hammer the point home.

Paul continues to work with this cluster of ideas when he sets forth Abraham as a unifying figure in ch. 4. Abraham was not justified by a Torah-based identity, since he believed God’s promise while in an uncircumcised condition, receiving circumcision as a sign only after he had believed. He therefore cannot be claimed by the group that is boasting in their Torah-works (4:2). And Abraham becomes an example of the sort of faith/faithful response to God that Paul wants to see the Roman Christians embody. He had received the promise that he would have an heir while all physical evidence said that the birth of a son would be impossible. He was one hundred years old and his wife ninety, and their reproductive capacities were as good as dead (4:19). Yet, when Abraham received the promise, he grew strong in faith and did not waver—expressions that Paul picks up in chs. 14–15—and when Abraham did this, he gave glory to God (4:20). Just as God had transformed the Roman Christians from a condition of lacking the glory of God so that they are now restored image-bearers, Abraham epitomizes the glorifying-to-God behavior to which Paul is calling the Romans. In the same way that Abraham received a promise and fully trusted that God could fulfill it, they, too, have received the promise that they will be raised from the dead and fully transformed into the glory of God in the future (4:23–25).

Abraham’s response of πίστις (trust/faith) to God’s promise may also shade into meaning something like full commitment when it is set in opposition to οὐ διεκρίθη τῆ ἀπιστία in 4:20. The latter expression indicates a split judgment or wavering opinion in unfaithfulness. Paul returns to these contrasting terms in 14:23 when he portrays holding differing opinions about the convictions of the strong and the weak about food. Translations often render the participle form of the verb διακρίνω as the one who doubts, but it may refer to a person who has a divided judgment between their desire for their group’s superiority over the other, and their loyalty to God’s purposes for unity without division. Such a person is not eating from faith (ἐκ πίστεως).

Faith in Romans, then, is trust in God and in his provision of salvation in Christ that is embodied by growing up into transformed humanity. And that involves a participation in God’s restorative justice/righteousness that heals and unifies a divided community.

Image, Temple, and Worship

I had briefly hinted above at another one of the theological frames Paul uses to speak of the salvation of God in Christ. His speaking of humanity as the image of God within creation in ch. 1 points to a larger canvas on which he portrays the cosmic work of God in reclaiming his creation. The problem is not merely an anthropological one—all humans are sinful and all stand in need of the salvation God provides in Christ. Nor is it merely theological—God’s sovereign kingship over creation has been thrown into question by the invasion of hostile cosmic forces, and God acts to reestablish his universal sovereignty. A temple theology provides the narrative substructure of Paul’s argument throughout the letter, which presents the problem as both theological and anthropological. The problem has to do with God’s cosmic temple and humanity as God’s image within the temple space that is creation. Human rebellion has polluted temple space, which has implications for God as creator and king, for humanity as image, and for creation as temple space in need of cleansing.¹⁶

Paul signals God’s original intention for humanity in 1:23 when he speaks of humanity having exchanged/altered the glory of the incorruptible God. He indicates that God’s created design for humanity was for humans to function as the glory of God, embodying in their conduct and their corporate relations with each other the image of God on earth. Just as God’s glory fills the heavens, it would be embodied within the creation that is God’s temple through human conduct that reflected the reality of the creator God. It was the glory of humanity to be the glory of God, which looked like humans fostering the flourishing of fellow humans and of the nonhuman creation.¹⁷

Paul chronicles the abandonment of this function in the two exchange or change statements in 1:23, 25. In v. 23 Paul states that humanity has exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible humanity and of a variety of other things within creation. This exchange is restated in v. 25, where Paul notes that humanity exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator. While commentators have noted that Paul’s critique is more or less the indictment of humanity for idolatry, Paul’s discussion amounts to a thicker description of idolatry than is often recognized.

This is not a narrow reference to a perversion of cultic practice—worshiping idols instead of the one true God—but rather has to do with the broader conduct of humanity in relation to its setting within temple space. In the full range of human behavior, humanity was to function as the image and glory of God, the representation of the one true God within God’s temple—and the broad range of human activity was to be its worship. In v. 23a, therefore, Paul is making reference to this function according to original created intention.

Humanity has abandoned its intended function of pointing beyond itself to the one true God and instead has taken on the role of pointing to or representing something within creation. No longer does humanity image God, conducting itself as the glory of God in all of its activity, but now images something in the created order—whether something human or animal. This, as Paul goes on to show, is a tragic move with devastating consequences. This exchange entails viewing the human body not as the representation of God designed to relate to others and care for creation after the character of God, but as pointing beyond itself to something within creation, or perhaps pointing to itself as the ultimate end of creation, which is a surrender of the true glory of humanity for shame.

This exchange is stated again in v. 25, where Paul notes that humanity has exchanged the truth of God for a lie. The dative phrase ἐν τῶ ψεύδει (by a lie) is usually translated so that it points to the exchange of the truth of God for a lie, though it is more likely the exchange or abandonment of the truth of God by the lie, alluding perhaps to the lie in v. 23 that humanity is the image of something within creation rather than the creator God. Either way, what has been given up here is the truth of God, which is paralleled in v. 23 by the glory of the incorruptible God, so that the truth of God also appears to be a functional term, pointing to the true function of the human as the representative of God’s truth within creation. The truth of God, then, is not a reference to some abstract truths that can be grasped cognitively, but to God’s commitment to his creation, embodied in the presence and activity of humans within creation.

Paul depicts what is involved in the abandonment of the truth of God with the two verbs in v. 25—ἐσεβάσθησαν and ἐλάτρευσαν—humanity worships and serves the creature rather than the creator. These terms can refer to human conduct as priestly service within temple space. They recall Gen 2:15, in which God places the man in the garden to cultivate and to keep it. The two Hebrew infinitives are often translated as to cultivate and to keep. But a number of scholars make a good case that the infinitives ought to be translated as to worship and to obey. Either way, as Gordon Wenham indicates, they portray the human task of subduing creation and bringing forth its flourishing in terms of worship, and even priestly service.¹⁸ Their proper care for and fructifying of creation and their honorably relating to one another were modes of human conduct that constituted worship and service to God within God’s temple.

In this light, the verbs in 1:25, in perhaps an allusion to Gen 2:15, again point to the profundity of the exchange or alteration by humanity. No longer does human behavior image the one true God so that the creator God is glorified; humanity now envisions itself as representing something else within creation—a great or ideal human, perhaps, or some creature, some set of social practices that points to membership in a social class or ethnic group, or some set of ideals invented by humankind. The broad scope of human conduct is depicted by Paul, following Scripture, as worship, pointing to something beyond itself, the embodiment of a transcendent reality. This worshiping function has been utterly perverted in that humanity now envisions itself as the representative of, and its conduct as giving glory to, that which has no glory in itself. Humanity now embodies the reality that the creature is the ultimate.

The result of this distortion of the human is the pollution of temple space. Just after the first exchange in v. 23, Paul states that God has given up humans to the uncleanness of the dishonoring of their bodies in v. 24. Uncleanness has to do with defilement that makes someone unfit for cultic worship. The human has become unclean and no longer functions as image of God within the intended temple scenario, and their uncleanness consists in the dishonoring of their bodies. Psalm 8 draws upon the language and imagery of Gen 1–2 in describing how God has crowned the human with glory and honor (Ps 8:5).¹⁹ By engaging in dishonorable practices, the human cannot be the glory and image of God.

Paul restates this polluted condition in another way in v. 29. Standing at the head of the long list of evils into which humanity has fallen is the note that they are now filled with all ἀδικία (unrighteousness/injustice). As mentioned above, God intended humanity to embody and perform within creation God’s δικαιοσύνη—God’s righteousness—but they cannot do so because they are filled with all ἀδικία. This scenario, as I indicated, ought to inform how we understand the language for justification throughout Romans.

This is just to say that the beginning of the narrative substructure of Romans is a scenario in which human rebellion has caused God’s cosmic temple to be corrupted. The image is now the image of something other; God’s glory has become the glory of something else; God’s truth—his commitment to creation—and his righteousness are not being displayed within creation; temple space has become polluted; and humanity is enslaved to the cosmic power of Sin.

Having set up the problem as a matter of temple theology, Paul portrays God’s saving action in terms of rectified temple service. Paul notes in 3:23 that all sinned and lack the glory of God. Translations that give us fall short of the glory of God point in the wrong direction because they give us a scenario in which human efforts at God’s glory—seen as some standard of moral perfection—are inevitably inadequate. The problem isn’t that humans are imperfect but that they have failed to perform properly the role image or glory of God.

But, continues Paul in v. 24, they have been rectified/set right as a gift by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God’s action transforms the problematic situation in which humans are not glory of God. And justification/rectification is depicted here as liberation from cosmic enslavement to Sin. Just as God redeemed Israel from slavery to Egypt, God’s redemption here delivers his people from slavery to Sin into the liberated cosmic space called variously in Romans in Christ, this grace in which we stand, or the new humanity. There are a few subsequent plotline points in the rest of the letter that complete the temple narrative, in addition to Paul setting forth Abraham as an example of a restored image-bearer who gave glory to God (4:20).

In Rom 5:1–2, Paul states that because of the salvation that God has provided in Christ, the Roman Christians now participate in the shalom of God, which is to say that by faith they enjoy in time the inaugurated restoration of creation. But Paul goes further in 5:2b to state that we exult in hope of the glory of God. A key aspect of Christian identity is hoping in that future full restoration of their humanity by which they function as the glory of God within the temple of God’s creation.

Of course, current Christian experience is much like the posture of Abraham. Christians participate, by faith, in the eschatological order of restoration—God’s shalom—but they also inhabit this broken world ruled by Sin and Death. Just as Abraham rightly imaged God by believing the promise while being conscious of his as good as dead body, so Christians, too, rightly image God by holding fast to the promise of God to fully restore them to their proper condition while living out their days in bodies that will eventually die.

Paul’s exhortations in Rom 12 begin with temple language and imagery in v. 1. He calls the Roman Christians to present their bodies as a singular living sacrifice, which is the kind of temple service that makes sense of the whole saving reality Paul has described. While he has often used δουλόω (service as a slave) to refer to obedience, Paul here uses λατρεία to refer to the renewed temple service offered by restored image-bearers.

And the ultimate command in Romans comes in the letter’s rhetorical high point in 15:5–9. In order that they might glorify together the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (v. 6), Paul calls the Roman Christians in v. 7 to welcome one another, just as also Christ welcomed you unto the glory of God. The strong and weak in the Roman house churches will behave as renewed image-bearers within God’s temple when they participate in warm hospitable fellowship with one another. That is how they will glorify God—how they will embody the glory of the creator God.

Conclusion

While Pauline scholars will continue to mine Paul’s letter to the Roman house churches to inform constructions of Paul’s theology, it is critical to keep in mind that Paul did not merely provide his audiences with an abstract theology. He wrote to confront divisions in the Christian communities, to theologically portray for them the causes of their corporate dysfunctions, and to point the way toward unity. Further, coming to grips with the narrative substructure oriented around temple imagery is perhaps a fruitful line of research in future scholarship. There is surely much more to be said about the theological trajectories launched in Rom 1–4, along with exegetical debates that must be engaged. I must leave, however, more detailed treatment of all of that to the essays contained in this volume.

1

. Scot McKnight, Reading Romans Backwards: A Gospel of Peace in the Midst of Empire (Waco: Baylor University Press,

2021

).

2

. At almost no point in this letter does he offer detached reflections on isolated ‘topics’ (N. T. Wright, The Letter to the Romans, in NIB

10

:

397

).

3

. Stanley K. Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,

1997

),

85–100

.

4

. A. Katherine Grieb, The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God’s Righteousness (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002

),

31

.

5

. It remains an open question as to whether Paul presumes a mixed audience of Jewish and non-Jewish Christians, or if the audience is entirely non-Jewish, with some Christians assuming that their Torah-observance grants them a Jewish identity. See Runar M. Thosteinsson, Paul’s Interlocutor in Romans

2

: Function and Identity in the Context of Ancient Epistolography, ConBNT

40

(Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell,

2003

); Rafael Rodríguez, If You Call Yourself a Jew: Reappraising Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Eugene, OR: Cascade,

2014

); A. Andrew Das, Solving the Romans Debate (Minneapolis: Fortress,

2007

); Rafael Rodriguez and Matthew Thiessen, eds., The So-Called Jew in Paul’s Letter to Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress,

2016

); Francis Watson, The Law in Romans, in Reading Paul’s Letter to the Romans, ed. J. L. Sumney (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,

2012

).

6

. I capitalize Sin here to indicate that Paul refers to it in Romans, along with Death and, likely, Flesh, as a cosmic power. See the essays in Beverly Roberts Gaventa, ed., Apocalyptic Paul: Cosmos and Anthropos in Romans 5–8

(Waco: Baylor University Press,

2013

). See also Matthew Croasmun, The Emergence of Sin: The Cosmic Tyrant in Romans (New York: Oxford University Press,

2017

).

7

. On the meaning of works and works of law in Paul, see the recent treatment, with references to the history of the discussion, in John M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

2015

),

373–75

.

8

. On the cosmic horizon of Paul’s theological vision, see Beverly Roberts Gaventa, When in Romans: An Invitation to Linger with the Gospel according to Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,

2016

),

31–46

.

9

. On the dynamic of suffering and glory in Rom

5–8

, see Siu Fung Wu, Suffering in Romans (Eugene, OR: Pickwick,

2015

).

10

. For perceptive and provocative essays on this portion of Romans, see the essays in Todd D. Still, ed., God and Israel: Providence and Purpose in Romans 9–11

(Waco: Baylor University Press,

2017

).

11

. Sam K. Williams, The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans, JBL

99

(

1980

)

241–90

.

12

. Michael J. Gorman, Romans: A Theological and Pastoral Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

2022

),

68

(emphasis in original).

13

. On the transformative and resurrection-oriented dynamics of justification, see Michael J. Gorman, Participating in Christ: Explorations in Paul’s Theology and Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,

2019

).

14

. On the uses of πίστις in Paul and throughout Romans, see Nijay K. Gupta, Paul and the Language of Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

2020

).

15

. For the various ways this expression can be rendered, and its theological implications, see the essays in Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle, eds., The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,

2010

).

16

. For a broader biblical-theological treatment of temple, see G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, NSBT (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic,

2004

).

17

. For Paul’s anthropological narrative of glory in Romans, see Haley Goranson Jacob, Conformed to the Image of His Son: Reconsidering Paul’s Theology of Glory in Romans (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic,

2018

),

98–121

.

18

. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15

, WBC

1

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic,

2014

),

67

.

19

. See Jacob’s treatment of the connection between Ps

8

and Rom

1

(Conformed to the Image,

75

­

–84

).

2

Whom Are You Going to Obey?

The Foreshadowing Effect of Paul, Slave of Jesus Christ in Romans 1:1

Nijay K. Gupta

This book, The Beginning of Paul’s Gospel, gives focused attention to Rom 1–4, arguing that in these early chapters of Paul’s most famous letter we find substantial theological engagement from the apostle. I will argue that this happens right away, even in the first few words of the prescript: Παῦλος δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (Paul, slave of Jesus Christ). The temptation is always there to gloss over prescript information in Paul’s letters as mere literary formalities, but the keen reader will notice that not only are Paul’s first epistolary words much longer than average ancient letters, but also he tends to preview or foreshadow key themes.²⁰ A good example of this is the prescript of Paul’s First Letter to Corinthians.

Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, to the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours. (

1

Cor

1

:

1–2

)

Obviously, Paul could have written: Paul and Sosthenes, to the church in Corinth. That kind of brief style would be more indicative of standard ancient letters, but these Pauline expansions signal themes that lie ahead in the text. Here in 1 Corinthians, there is a clear interest in the theme of holiness (ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις). The ἁγι* stem appears over a dozen times throughout 1 Corinthians, often in key statements, including these:²¹

If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. For God’s temple is holy [ἅγιός], and you are that temple. (

1

Cor

3

:

17

)

But you were washed, you were sanctified [ἡγιάσθητε], you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (

1

Cor

6

:

11

b)

I don’t want to belabor a point that is well known to ancient and modern readers of Paul, but what I find interesting is that this phenomenon is seldom applied to Paul’s δοῦλος self-reference in Romans. To be clear, Paul as slave of Jesus Christ has generated significant discussion, especially about the cultural and literary influences on his language. But what has rarely been examined is a sense in which this image previews or foreshadows themes distinctive to Romans that will emerge later in the letter (especially in chs. 6–8).

In this essay I will argue that on a first hearing of Romans, the auditor might take Παῦλος δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (1:1) simply to identify Paul as a committed follower of Jesus Christ. But once the letter reaches about midpoint it becomes clear that Paul puts heavy theological weight on this slave language. On later reflection, or on a second hearing of Romans, the listener would be more equipped to pick up on Paul’s positioning himself as an ideal believer, committed as a slave of Christ unto righteousness and holiness, and not a slave to Sin, impurity, and lawlessness.²² It is clear enough that part of the reason Paul wrote Romans is to address a social situation where Jewish believers and gentile believers were warring over which group laid claim to divine favor. One of Paul’s main concerns in Romans is to identify the much bigger problem of slavery to Sin, whether Jew or gentile, and the need to become fully committed and obedient slaves of God and of Christ, whether one is a Jew or gentile.

Before moving directly into the meaning of Paul’s slave language in Rom 1:1, I want to discuss the English translation of δοῦλος. Traditionally, English translations have favored servant (KJV, RSV; cf. ESV, NRSV). The ESV translation committee made this statement about their general preference for bondservant or servant in the New Testament:

In New Testament times, a doulos is often best described as a bondservant—that is, as someone bound to serve his master for a specific (usually lengthy) period of time, but also as someone who might nevertheless own property, achieve social advancement, and even be released or purchase freedom. The ESV usage thus seeks to express the nuance of meaning in each context. Where absolute ownership by a master is in view (as in Romans

6

), slave is used; where a more limited form of servitude is in view, bondservant is used (as in

1

Corinthians

7

:

21–24

); where the context indicates a wide range of freedom (as in John

4

:

51

), servant is preferred.²³

There are a number of historical and linguistic problems in this statement. First, the ESV makes it seem as if Roman slavery might have certain privileges and therefore using the English word slave might be misleading. But their comments about these privileges are inaccurate. Slaves in the Roman world, by definition, had no claim to freeperson human privileges so they could not actually own property.²⁴ They could possess property, but they had no legal right to something that was given to them. Yes, they could be released or purchase freedom, but that was entirely at the master’s will. Before their freedom was granted, a doulos was a slave, plain and simple. As for social advancement, it is true that some slaves gained social capital and could step into managerial-like roles, but at the end of the day, from a Roman standpoint, a slave was property of their master. Whether they were given more opportunities and privileges by their master or less, what made them a doulos was the fact they were owned.²⁵ So, Ceslas Spicq explains:

The word slave [δοῦλος] refers above all to a legal status, that of an object of property. To be a slave is to be attached to a master by a link of subjection—you are the slave of that which dominates you. A slave is an article of personal property that one buys, sells, leases, gives, or bequeaths. . . . Given that Christians are bought and paid for by the Lord, St. Paul . . . transposes this notion of servitude into the supernatural order, accentuating above all the nuance of the Lord’s radical seizure of the believer; the latter, being in submission to the discretionary will of his Master, becomes essentially a dependent individual.²⁶

Had Paul wanted to use the language of voluntary service or nonobligatory assistance, he had a number of Greek words at his disposal—which he sometimes used—including διάκονος. But at least in places like Rom 1:1, Paul chose the word δοῦλος. A Romanized perspective divided the world into two categories, rulers and the ruled. The word δοῦλος could be clearly placed on one side, that of the ruled. I will always translate δοῦλος as slave to maintain consistency in Paul’s usage in Romans.²⁷

Approaches to Slave Language in Romans 1:1

Some conversations have taken place about the distinctive opening of Romans, where Paul identifies himself as δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (cf. Phil 1:1). The majority of these discussions look at Paul’s metaphorical slave language here in a general or abstract sense (unrelated to other δοῦλ* language that appears later in Romans). Two main lines of thought have dominated perspectives on the origins (source domain) and context of this imagery. One option is the notion of δοῦλος as servant of the Lord (‘ebed Yhwh). Charles Cranfield explains this view succinctly:

In the OT the language of slavery is frequently used both with reference to the relation of the subject, and especially of the courtier, to a human ruler and of men to God. In the LXX douleuein is in fact the commonest expression for the service of God in the sense of total allegiance and not just isolated acts of worship. The expression ‘ebed Yhwh, doulos kuriou, or an equivalent, is a title of honour accorded to Moses, Joshua, David, and the prophets. . . . But when doulos Christou Jesou is used, as here, as a self-designation, it probably carries, in addition to the personal confession of commitment, a reference to the writer’s special office, in the fulfillment of which he is in a special sense Christ’s slave.²⁸

From this perspective, Paul was echoing the role of leaders from Israel’s past who were dedicated to serving the Lord faithfully. Dunn points to the LXX’s use of δοῦλος to describe the agency of Moses (2 Kgs 18:12; Neh 9:14; Dan 9:11).²⁹ Paul may have been especially drawing from LXX Isa 49:3 (Δοῦλός μου εἶ σύ, Ἰσραήλ, καὶ ἐν σοὶ ἐνδοξασθήσομαι).³⁰ From this perspective, Paul’s prescript would be framing his apostleship in terms of dedicated service to the Lord, in the mold of the great prophets and national leaders from Israel’s past.³¹

But other scholars find it more convincing that Paul’s self-reference as δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is better understood from the standpoint of the life of a slave in the Greco-Roman world that Paul (and the Roman Christians) inhabited. Jewett, for example, proposes that Paul may have been drawing a parallel to the Roman slave of Caesar, imperial slaves (numbering in the thousands) who, though legally δοῦλοι, enjoyed some measure of social honor for their connection to imperial gravitas.³² Scholars who support this type of interpretation tend to draw from the work of Michael Joseph Brown.³³ But Brown makes his case about Paul’s use of δοῦλος in Romans largely on the speculation that the Roman Christian communities during the first century contained a significant population connected to the Familia Caesaris.³⁴ Brown reasons that Paul was drawing a comparison between their service to the emperor and their new service to Jesus Christ.³⁵ The problem, though, is that we cannot really know whether imperial slaves had, in fact, a substantial representation in Paul’s original letter audience. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that numerous household slaves were included within these Roman communities, but we have few concrete indicators of any connections to the imperial slave labor community.³⁶

Because δοῦλος was a common legal term in Paul’s world, readers of his letter could not have helped but to imagine the