Now Shown Mercy: A Commentary on Romans 9–11

By Mark Reasoner

Reasoner's Now Shown Mercy is the first commentary in 500 years that returns to the quadriga (literal sense plus threefold spiritual sense) in its exegetical approach. The commentary shows how Paul understands Israel to be valued by God for its own sake, not simply as a type of the church or a preparation for the Christ. Paul views Israel as under God's mercy even as he writes Romans chapters 9-11, grieving as he is over both Israel's political subjugation in the first century and its spiritual condition. Since these chapters show that God values Israel for its own sake, the commentary's exegesis calls gentile believers to heed anew Paul's warning against boasting over Israel.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Cascade Books
• Release date: May 14, 2024
• ISBN: 9781725295513

Mark Reasoner

Mark Reasoner is professor of biblical theology at Marian University (Indianapolis). He is the author of The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14:1-15:13 in Context; Romans in Full Circle; and Five Models of Scripture and co-author of The Abingdon Introduction to the Bible and The Letters of Paul: An Introduction.

Book preview

1. Introduction

Near the end of book 4 of The City of God , Augustine describes how God aided the nation of Israel in their exodus, wilderness experience, occupation of the land of Canaan and flourishing there, all without the aid of the Roman Empire’s deities. He then describes—in a rather church-centered way—where and why the people of Israel were living throughout the world in his day:

That they are now dispersed through virtually all lands and peoples is due to the providence of the one true God. This is to the end that, wherever the images, altars, sacred groves, and temples of the false gods are overthrown and their sacrifices banned, it may be shown from the Jewish Scriptures how all this was prophesied very long ago. And so there will be no reason to suppose, when these prophecies are read in our Scriptures, that we made them up ourselves.¹

Augustine seems to be saying that God has preserved the nation of Israel with its Scriptures throughout the world in order to confirm the Christian gospel. Many Christians would find Augustine’s statement disconcerting, since it values Israel only for the sake of Christianity. Yet most New Testament exegetes, though now acknowledging that Romans chapters 9–11 are integral to Paul’s letter, still read these chapters in the tradition of Augustine, for they view them as treating Israel as a secondary locus within Paul’s theological program in Romans, and not as an ultimate question in the letter.

Romans 9–11 on Israel: Test Case or Ultimate Question?

Admittedly we can think of test cases that also represent an ultimate question in some inquiries. It is a matter of priority, then—does our exegesis view Paul’s reflections on Israel as focused on Israel for its own sake, or does it view these reflections as only serving to point toward an idea beyond Israel? In any consideration of the theme of Romans, it is best not to enter into a zero-sum game of seeking to identify a single theme for the letter. Paul did not receive our memo that letters must have only one theme. But the challenge I ask readers to consider here at the beginning of this commentary consists in the following description and question. In his letter to the Roman house churches, Paul writes the most paragraphs within a sustained consideration of a single topic, with the most exegetical forays into his Scriptures, on Israel. Paul concludes this three chapter discourse unit by affirming Israel’s value only because of God’s commitment to Israel’s ancestors and bestowed gifts and calling. Doesn’t this treatment and closing consideration of Israel as valuable in its own right prompt one to consider Israel’s elect identity as a matter of ultimate significance for Paul and in this letter as a whole?

Christian readers of Romans often tend to read these chapters as concerning Israel, but as really addressing a deeper truth. Thus Schreiner, while conceding that the chapters’ primary theme is God’s faithfulness to Israel asserts that:

[t]he fundamental issue in Rom.

9

–

11

, then, is not the place of Israel, though that is crucial. The primary question relates to the faithfulness and righteousness of God . . . Is the God who made saving promises to Israel faithful to his word? Paul focuses on Israel, since it has fallen short of realizing God’s promises, but the text is not limited to Israel. Romans

9

–

11

also emphasizes God’s faithfulness to the gentiles, demonstrating that God’s plan in history fulfills his promises.²

It is certainly correct that Paul’s view of God’s faithfulness and righteousness is in play here. And one might argue that the climax of Romans chapters 9–11 is not all Israel will be saved but the benediction on God’s providence and wisdom in 11:33–36. But the passage begins with Paul’s grief over Israel in light of its inheritance (9:1–5). And the sentences that drive the argumentation throughout the three chapters all focus on Israel (9:6; 10:1; 11:1, 11). Yes, the nations come into view at various points along the way (9:24–26, 30; 10:12, 20). And they figure in Paul’s closing summary (11:30–32), in a way analogous to how the prophets mention the nations when portraying divine blessing on God’s elect people, Israel, in the future. But the point of all these places where the nations are mentioned alongside Israel is to sharpen the audience’s understanding of Israel’s place in the world, valued for its own sake, in a world in which God will finally bring blessing to all peoples.³ We should be cautious about asserting that Paul’s portrait of God is the fundamental issue in Romans 9–11, lest that becomes a way of boasting over Israel, against which Paul warns in 11:18–24.

Another approach, also motivated by the laudable strategy of reading Romans 9–11 as integral to Paul’s argument, views these chapters as necessary for a convincing demonstration of Paul’s gospel. Thus Porter, who labels 9:1—11:32 as an Important Retrogression regarding Israel writes:

These three chapters are crucial to Paul’s entire argument in Romans, even if they are not the center of the argument . . . The main purpose, however, is to return to the question of the Jewish people. This is Paul’s retrograde discussion of the place of the people of Israel.⁴

In other words, for Porter these chapters are a mopping-up exercise, an important test case to consider, before Paul concludes the letter’s presentation of his gospel.

These explanations, whether finding the real issue to be one’s portrait of God or an answer to a possible objection to Paul’s gospel, have the potential to blur or partially eclipse the pathos-filled and sustained focus on Israel that Paul presents in these chapters. Paul writes his longest discourse unit in the letter, with most densely concentrated Scripture citations, on Israel. This commentary contends that these chapters not only conclude with an affirmation of the inherent value God places on Israel itself, confirming Israel’s ongoing election and inheritance, but that Paul implicitly assumes that Israel is the recipient of God’s mercy even while he grieves over Israel’s subjugated political situation and its spiritual apathy. Israel’s inherent and ultimate value in the divine economy thus emerges as a truth that should affect how we read the whole letter. For Paul, writing when Israel was under Roman dominance and largely unresponsive to the message of Christ, Israel was still under God’s mercy.

In Romans chapters 9–11, Paul invokes the God of Israel’s past dealings with his ancestors as a way of understanding his people’s place in the divine economy and concludes by asserting that Israel is beloved for the sake of its fathers, which means that God’s gifts and election of Israel are irrevocable. Paul’s assertions within the longest discourse unit in the letter primarily arise not to support a portrait of God’s constant and faithful love toward Christians, nor to fend off a possible objection to Paul’s gospel, nor even to show deference to Israel because it is the people from whom Christ came. Instead, these chapters focus on Israel because Israel itself matters within Paul’s worldview. This commentary therefore offers an exegesis of chapters 9–11 that prioritizes the God of Israel’s commitment to Israel for its own sake. This commitment is supported by Paul’s references to Israel’s ancestors at key points in his reflection (9:5; 11:28). And Paul’s exegesis of his Scriptures in Romans chapters 9–11 leads to three corollaries.

First, the election of Israel that Paul discusses includes Israel’s political integrity and social flourishing in this world. As a Second Temple Jew, Paul no doubt expected that God would raise many or all Jews into the world to come at the resurrection. However, like the prophets whom Paul reads in his Scriptures, Paul considers God’s election of Israel to include its flourishing on earth. I argue this point in the discussion of the epistolary transition between Romans chapters 8 and 9, found at the beginning of the exegesis of 9:1–5; and within the exegesis on 10:1; 11:15, 25–27.

Second, Paul’s criticisms of Israel’s understanding and pursuit of Torah observance are primarily experiential, not hermeneutical. Paul does not consider his people to have missed the singular meaning of the Torah. It is rather that Paul understands that most of Israel in his day has not encountered the risen Christ, and Paul considers this missed encounter as the reason why he can assert that Israel’s Christ-less Torah observance does not result in God’s righteousness. I argue this in the exegesis of 9:30—10:4.

Third, Paul is viewing God’s work in the world on the grand stage of Israel and the nations, not on the private stage of the divine and individual human’s relationship. We must reach behind Augustine’s response to Simplician’s second question and read the language of election in these chapters within the contexts of the Scriptures Paul cites and the rest of his letter.⁵ When we do so, it becomes apparent that Paul is not aiming at accounting for how some individuals seem to receive God’s grace in greater measure than others. I argue for this corollary in the exegesis of 9:7–13 and 10:5–13.

What Is in Romans and in Romans 9–11?

At both the beginning and end of the letter, Paul makes clear that he hopes to bring an apostolic message or counsel to his audiences in Rome, resulting in some fruit among them. Because of these clear signals, we should not prioritize Paul’s request for support for his mission trip to Spain as the main purpose of the letter.⁶ This general purpose of the letter, to teach and prompt growth in church members’ relationships with God and each other, must inform our understanding of these three chapters.

In this letter, written urgently before Paul’s anticipated return to Jerusalem, Paul sets out the message that he has been bringing to the nations, which he calls his gospel (2:16). In the first two chapters of Romans, Paul claims that God works first with Israel and then with the nations. Paul presents his gospel in reliance on Israel’s Scriptures. Though he has argued passionately in another of his letters to keep his gentile church members from taking on Torah observance as part of their spiritual identity, he claims here in Romans to respect the Torah. These claims expose a gaping vulnerability in Paul’s message: the God who both covenanted with Israel and works first with Israel when dealing with humanity has somehow allowed the nations to worship him and Jesus, while Israel seems largely unresponsive to the message that is bringing the gentiles to the God of Israel.

As apostle to the nations, Paul has spent considerable time in the Diaspora dealing with opposition from the Jews, probably both Torah-observant Jews who called on Jesus and Jews who had no interest in Jesus. As Paul writes this letter, he is at the threshold of an existential crisis, writing what he thinks could be his last letter. He is on his way to Jerusalem and concerned for his life (15:30–32). Paul therefore opens his heart—expressing his unceasing grief for Israel, his prayer for their salvation, and his certainty that God will restore the nation of Israel, or in his words, all Israel will be saved (9:1–3; 10:1; 11:26).

Paul’s gospel and his decades of interaction with Jews and the nations contribute to the stereoscopic focus on Jews and gentiles in this letter, especially seen in its chapters 9–11. In his letter to the Galatians and in his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul contrasts Jews and gentiles, all in the service of immediate, rhetorical goals of those letters. But Romans is unique among Paul’s letters in the way it addresses both Jews and gentiles, taking seriously their respective places within God’s plan for the world.

Romans is the only letter in the Pauline corpus that addresses more than one church in a single city, and the only letter that explicitly identifies Jews among its addressees. Based on the differences Paul describes in 14:1—15:6 and his greetings to different house churches, it is likely that one or more of the house churches was comprised mostly of Jews, while others were comprised mostly of gentiles. This letter therefore contains at its core the challenge of accounting for how God is dealing with Israel and the nations.

Paul has considered himself specifically appointed by the God of Israel to extend the worship of this God among the nations, without requiring them to observe Torah. His letters give ample evidence that his Torah-free message prompted considerable opposition. In this letter in which he offers an account of himself and his gospel, therefore, he is especially focused on providing a theoretical framework behind his Torah-free, though Torah-respecting, work among the nations.

Despite the idiosyncratic exegesis and unexpected turns of argument, this three-chapter reflection represents one Jew’s fascinating attempt to make sense of where Israel, a subjugated people in the Roman Principate, was in God’s plan for the world. These chapters certainly attest to a split that had already occurred between those who called on the name of Jesus, apparently mostly gentiles, and Jews—both those in their land and in the Diaspora—who for the most part did not call on the name of Jesus. But if we read these chapters carefully, we may see that the separation between Paul the Christian author and the Jews of whom he writes does not exactly mirror how we experience the Christians and Jews distinction today. As we Christians read our Scriptures, therefore, Romans chapters 9–11 are worth pondering and valuing with Israel and its people in mind, not simply because our picture of Israel affects our self-understanding as Christians, but because Israel matters for its own sake.

Relationship of Romans 9–11 to Rest of the Letter

From the sixteenth century through to the first half of the twentieth century, Romans chapters 9–11 were often orphaned in the exegesis of the letter. A New Testament scholar once told me that during his student years, in the two times he had taken classes on Romans, the instruction had only covered the first eight chapters, since only those chapters were considered the significant ones.

Yet it was not always so. Long before modern exegetes ripped the heart—chapters 9–11—out of Romans, Origen listed the following themes for the letter:

[M]any things are woven into this epistle concerning the law of Moses, about the calling of the Gentiles, about Israel according to the flesh and about Israel which is not according to the flesh, about the circumcision of the flesh and of the heart, about the spiritual law and the law of the letter, about the law of the flesh and the law of the members, about the law of the mind and the law of sin, about the inner and the outer man. It is enough to have mentioned these individual themes since in these it seems the contents of the letter are contained.⁷

Paul touches on a significant number of these themes in Romans chapters 9–11, so there is no reason to treat these chapters as a parenthesis or tangent, as they came to be known in the twentieth century. Chapters 1–8 were thought to contain all that was needed to understand the letter’s main point, that believers are justified by faith, and chapters 9–11 were considered irrelevant to the way that Paul applied justification by faith in chapters 12–15. But after the inescapable questions raised by the Shoah, Christians began to consider the place of Israel—the people who recognize patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and lawgiver Moses as their ethnic ancestors—in the world and in God’s plan for humanity. In 1965, the council fathers of Vatican II issued the declaration known as Nostra Aetate, which affirmed that Israel remains God’s people, and that the church is related to Israel as one relates to an older sibling. This theological development provided an impetus for reading Romans 9–11 in a way that did not simply emphasize Israel’s past instances of disobedience toward God, an approach that some earlier exegetes had too easily adopted. Romans readers began to see that Paul’s discussion of Romans actually ends with a positive statement about the salvation of Israel and God’s eternal commitment to what he has promised them (11:26–29). Paragraph 4 of Nostra Aetate relies heavily on Romans 9–11 for its affirmation of the continued place of Israel in the divine economy. It declares that the church cannot forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that good olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild olive branches of the Gentiles, referring to Rom 11:17–24. The next paragraph quotes from Rom 9:4–5 to emphasize the profound patrimony that Israel has inherited. In the same paragraph it notes that Christ’s apostles and most of his early followers were Jews. Some tension appears in the next paragraph, in which the council fathers juxtapose Israel’s response to Jesus’s message with its continued, definite place as heir of God’s promises, relying on what Paul, the Apostle, says in Romans 11:

As holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation (cf. Lk.

19

:

44

), nor did the Jews in large number accept the gospel; indeed, not a few opposed the spreading of it (cf. Rom.

11

:

28

). Nevertheless, according to the Apostle, the Jews still remain most dear to God because of their fathers, for He does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues (cf. Rom.

11

:

28

–

29

). In company with the prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and serve him with one accord" (Soph.

3

:

9

; cf. Is.

66

:

23

; Ps.

65

:

4

; Rom.

11

:

11

–

32

).⁸

The implications of how one reads Romans 9–11 are evident in the penultimate paragraph within Nostra Aetate §4:

The Church repudiates all persecutions against any man. Moreover, mindful of her common patrimony with the Jews, and motivated by the gospel’s spiritual love and by no political considerations, she deplores the hatred, persecutions, and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews at any time and from any source.⁹

Romans 9–11 also figures significantly in the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s statement called The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible. In one of the early paragraphs dealing with Romans within the section on Paul’s undisputed letters, the commission writes:

In the final analysis, God’s plan for Israel is entirely positive: their stumbling means riches for the world, how much more will their full inclusion mean? (

11

:

12

). They are assured of a covenant of mercy by God (

11

:

27

,

31

).¹⁰

A next step in readers’ understanding of Romans was the realization that there are plenty of markers in chapters 1–8 of Romans to indicate that the question of Israel’s place in God’s plan was on Paul’s mind from the beginning of the letter. It has become very difficult and rare for scholars now to regard these three middle chapters as a parentheses or tangent in the letter.¹¹ Pauline scholar Donald Sneen once remarked that with these post-Shoah developments in mind, he routinely began his Romans class by first reading and studying chapters 9–11 with his students. Despite current acknowledgment that these chapters are integral to the letter, more attention needs to be given to the ways that Paul expresses God’s continuing commitment to Israel for its own sake.

In Rom 1:16–17, a text that many since Bengel have considered to be the thesis statement of Romans, Paul says that the gospel is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and then for the Greek. The same Jew first, then the Greek phrase appears again at 2:9–10, in the context of God’s judgment on sin and reward for virtuous living. It is part of Paul’s project in chapters 9–11 to explain how it is that in his travels through the Mediterranean world he has seen more gentiles than Jews turning to the God of Israel by faith in Christ. His conclusion in 11:25–26 that a full number of gentiles will enter in before all Israel will be saved seems to switch the order of what he has expressed as a general principle in 1:16; 2:9–10. Thus, in chapters 9–11 Paul is wrestling with the disjunction between the theological priority of Israel in the divine plan and what seems to be the temporal priority of the gentiles in humanity’s actual response to the message he brings. After attempting different approaches to the question of Israel in God’s plan and engaging with many Scriptures, he finds a way to affirm both priorities he has observed.

In chapter 2, Paul in diatribe mode offers a criticism of some fellow-Jews, mostly on the basis of alleged hypocrisy (2:17–24). Then after the statement that the Jews have an advantage, Paul questions whether Israel’s unfaithfulness will nullify God’s faithfulness, a suggestion he immediately rejects (3:1–4). This question and response seem to presage various stages of Paul’s reflection in chapters 9–11, especially at 9:6–13; 11:1–5, 11–12, 25–32.

It is true that chapters 5 and 6 seem to treat humanity as an undifferentiated whole. Yet Paul’s whole point in chapter 6 is that the one in Christ is called to live a righteous life, an assumption that is driven by his acceptance of the Torah’s portrait for Israel. Chapter 7 is an apology for the Torah, describing it as holy, righteous, good, and spiritual (7:12, 14). This chapter defends the Torah, in order that some in Paul’s audience might realize that Paul does not teach his law-free gospel for gentiles because he scorns the Torah, and so that they do not caricature Paul as blaming the Torah for the sin he observes among his people. In language that would remind Jewish readers of the restoration of Israel, Paul then describes the renewal of creation that will manifest the glory of the children of God (8:21) and goes on to quote from a community lament psalm before insisting that nothing will separate the elect from the love of God (8:36–39). While Christians habitually read these paragraphs in Romans 8 as all about themselves, Jews in the congregations hearing this letter would surely understand Paul to be looking toward a glorious day for Israel, in which this people’s identity as God’s elect would be fully realized on earth. Indeed the connection between 8:14–39 and Romans chapters 9–11 is more fully evident when one considers the eighteen terms or phrases that appear in both these sections.¹² The sonship or adoption that Paul describes in chapter 8 for those in Christ would no doubt have prompted him to give an account for those with the first claim on this filial relationship with God, the people of Israel.¹³

Chapters 9–11 are therefore not a retrogression or return to a nagging question; they constitute instead the beating heart of the letter, around which Paul’s discourse has been oriented since chapter 1 of the letter.¹⁴ Of course there are formal differences in the discourse, for beginning in 9:1 we hear of Paul’s sorrow and anguished prayer for his people.¹⁵ But these three chapters are essential for the development of themes that follow in this letter.

Wilk identifies eight terms or concepts found in chapters 9–11 that reappear in 12:1–8, in which Paul offers his model of responding to God’s mercies as a living sacrifice by living out one’s faith in the church.¹⁶ In 14:1—15:6 Paul deals with differences in eating, drinking, and observance of days. It is probable that the weak who abstained from meat and wine and observed a day as special above other days were Jewish or influenced by Jewish concerns. Also the conclusion and final Scripture proof in 15:7–12 explicitly flows out of Paul’s affirmation that Christ has demonstrated God’s faithfulness to Israel and its patriarchs (15:8).

In addition to the integral place that chapters 9–11 held for Paul and that they should hold for us readers of the letter today, it will also be useful to compare how the topography of Romans 9–11 compares with that of the rest of the letter. We shall approach this under the headings of these chapters’ rhetorical character, engagement with Scripture, and portraits of God.

Rhetorical Character of Romans 9–11

Students of these chapters divide them up in different ways. The apostle to the nations, grieving for his fellow Israelites, surely had thought through the question of Israel in the divine economy, during the years of his traveling among Diaspora Jews. Indeed, if Romans 9–11 are any indication, he must have thought through different explanations, one or two of which he found more compelling than others. His thoughts on the question of Israel are not spontaneous, but are the result of years of movement among Diaspora Jews and the gentiles around them. Paul’s exegesis is opportunistically brilliant in the way he capitalizes on openings within the narrative, prophetic, and Psalms texts of his Scriptures to find what he has been experiencing in his mission efforts. But there is no compelling evidence that Paul carefully planned out how he was going to write the letter to the Romans or these chapters in particular, or even that he had outlined the argument before he began dictating this section to Tertius the amanuensis.¹⁷ Early readers of these letters with Greek as their first language, sympathetic though they were to Paul’s theology, remarked on the haste and missing links in Paul’s composition of the letter. Thus Origen remarks on Paul’s careless diction within Romans 9–11 as follows:

We have often mentioned the Apostle’s unpolished constructions and their lapses that are found no less in the present passage. For the words at the beginning of the section, But if God, wanting, do not correspond to anything. For example, as elsewhere he has also said, But if the firstfruits are holy, and the lump, he responds with nothing similar, but he abandoned the copula as if it were a stray.¹⁸

Irenaeus, who wrote his books in Greek, though they are extant now only in Latin, says that it is on account of [Paul’s] haste in his words that heretics can capitalize on his discourse and misinterpret him¹⁹ in context of how Paul’s transposed word order allows heretics to misinterpret him.

For those of us who read Romans as Scripture, the literary evaluation of the letter that Origen and Irenaeus offer might be difficult to hear, but it is worth identifying some of these rough spots in order better to understand the flow of the text. Paul’s asyndetic beginning is literarily abrupt (9:1). Supporting arguments within these chapters, like not all Israel are Israel are presented, and then dropped, never more to appear. Most of Paul’s cryptic conditionals in this section are intelligible, but the one in 9:22–23 lacks an apodosis, leaving most exegetes to translate it as a question.²⁰ But still, the question’s answer is not clear. The theme of the remnant that Paul draws from his Scriptures appears first as possibly an indication of the straits in which Israel is in, and then reappears in a positive way as a guarantee for the whole nation’s future, as though Paul is thinking on his feet regarding the significance of the remnant for his perception of his people (9:27–29; 11:1–5). Paul moves from one metaphor to another as he tries to process what is happening with Israel. The conclusion is logically abrupt, with no advance argument for why a full number of gentiles must come in before all Israel is saved. When these infelicities in chapters 9–11 are considered in light of the ones that occur elsewhere in the letter, it is clear that Paul is composing as he writes.²¹ The rhetorical flourishes in the letter do not prove that it is carefully written.²² Unlike Jewett’s picture of Paul employing Tertius for weeks as they carefully worked out this letter, then, it is more likely that Paul and Tertius composed the letter in a single or at most two sessions, probably amounting to no more than a total of four hours.

Some people read these chapters as though Paul knew exactly where he was going when he began dictating Romans 9, such that the DNA of any verse in Romans 9 matches the DNA of Paul’s conclusions in Romans 11. Others have noted that Paul does not seem to be moving in a consistently linear way through these three chapters of his reflection on the place of Israel in the divine economy. Still others see differences within Paul’s reflection on Israel in these chapters, and prioritize the conclusions in chapter 11 as Paul’s word on Israel while regarding some of the earlier explanations as potential steps in the argument that Paul subsequently either revised or discarded by the time he reaches chapter 11. Because of the observations of Origen and Irenaeus noted above, it is best to view these chapters as Paul’s attempts to understand what is happening with his people, presented not in a systematic way in which everything at the beginning supports the conclusion, but rather as a series of approaches that finally ends with the Scripture-informed mystery in the conclusion.

Of all of Paul’s letters, Romans is the most prodigal in employing the conventions of oral communication from the first-century classroom, conventions that are usually marked by tone of voice and gesture and not signified on the written page. Since this commentary is unique in its acknowledgment of speech-in-character and the specific form of this discourse known as diatribe, it will be helpful to introduce these rhetorical traits within Romans here. This is especially so because in the exegesis of chapter 9, I take seriously the implications of earlier Greek-speaking exegetes’ identification of diatribes there.

Speech-in-Character

As a first step in considering speech-in-character and one particular form of it known as diatribe, consider the remarkable phenomenon highlighted in the table below, the way that Paul switches between second plural and second singular when indicating the implied audience in this letter.²³

This chart is based simply on the differences between second plural and second singular pronouns and verb inflections. The second singular column includes some texts in which Paul seems to be in dialogue with an imaginary interlocutor, and thus in the discourse of diatribe, which we will consider below. This chart helps us see that Paul seems to be addressing all of the Roman house churches at some points of the letter, and then elsewhere—at least on a literary level—he is addressing an imagined person. Besides this difference in implied audiences, there are also places in the letter where the voice speaking in the text seems different from Paul’s voice that we hear in most of the letter, and this can be called speech-in-character.

Most prominent for speech-in-character is the monologue in chapter 7, where the voice claims to have been alive without Torah, before dying when the commandment came to life. This character describes himself also as being fleshly, sold under sin, descriptions that are difficult to imagine the implied author of either Romans chapters 6 or 8 saying of himself.²⁴ Many students of this letter do consider the voice in 7:7b–25 to be speaking in the character of someone else, whether that be Adam, the nation of Israel, or Paul the apostle’s description of his former self, Saul of Tarsus. But Romans 7 is not the only place where Paul employs speech-in-character. For in writing on Rom 2:17–24, Origen writes:

As we have observed in the writings of the prophets, not only has the person speaking been suddenly changed without notice, but also the person of those to whom or about whom the discourse is addressed. For instance, sometimes something is said under the persona of the Father, sometimes of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, and sometimes even something under the persona of the prophet or anyone else you like. And indeed, sometimes the message is directed to the nation of Israel, sometimes to foreign nations or to kings or to thousands of others. It seems to me that the Epistle to the Romans has been written in this way too. At various times the role of the one who is speaking is changed, so that sometimes the spiritual Paul is speaking, as is the case in a great number of passages in the letter. But at other times the fleshly Paul is speaking, as, for instance, when he says I am fleshly, having been sold under sin. . . . So then, as in the prophetic writings, the person who wants to understand what is written must direct his attention carefully in order to ascertain the personae, i.e., who is speaking, to whom the words are addressed, or about whom the discourse is being made. So also, it seems to me, one must now do here in the Epistle to the Romans.²⁵

A literary genre within Romans, arising within the discourse pattern of speech-in-character, is the diatribe. This is significant to consider, since Paul signals the diatribe mode within chapters 9 and 11 of his letter.

Diatribe

Romans is unique among the Pauline letters for its use of dialogues in its discourse. The dialogical elements participate in the genre of diatribe, which is an imagined dialogue in which an author adapts a pedagogical strategy from the classroom and engages in conversation with one other persona of the author’s creation, called the interlocutor.²⁶ The dialogue of these differing voices in the text leads readers to examine issues on a new or deeper level, working through objections or misunderstandings in order to bring the interlocutor—and thus the text’s hearers and readers—to the author’s perspective. Authors can present dialogues in different ways. There might be different voices used, so that one person asks a question and another person responds. Or the dialogue may be presented all by one voice, with the diatribe speaker saying You will say to me then, ‘. . .’ as a means of introducing another perspective, and the diatribe proceeding more like a rant in one voice. The exchanges in diatribe, whether delivered in one or two voices, are designed to grip and hold the hearers’ attention. To that end, they often contain questions, accusations, denials, and hyperbole. While diatribe is usually recognized in Romans chapter 2, not every commentator recognizes the diatribes within Romans chapters 9 and 11. But there are signals within chapters 9–11 that Paul, at least in some places, is fully in diatribe mode. The questions of 9:14, 30, 32; 11:1–2 and the second person singular address in 9:19–20 all mark Paul’s discourse as diatribe.

I introduce diatribe here in order to call readers to consider what early Greek exegetes Origen and Chrysostom saw in chapter 9 of Romans—that Paul is in diatribe mode, raising objections to a line of argument. Modern scholars such as Lambrecht and Fitzmyer have also noted the features of diatribe in chapter 9, without following through on the implications for exegesis.²⁷

Why would Paul write in diatribe mode if he could not be present in Rome to make clear with voice and gesture when he himself and then his interlocutor are speaking the words he had written? The answer is associated with this letter’s reference to the letter carrier, Phoebe, and to Paul’s secretary Tertius.

It is probable that Paul dictated and sent this letter when he did because he had learned of Phoebe’s plans to go to Rome. This does not mean that he got the idea of writing a letter to Rome from Phoebe, but it does mean that it is probable that he set himself to write and send the letter because he knew of a reliable representative going to Rome.²⁸ Second, Jewett’s text-based reconstruction of the significance of these two people who are named in reference to the composition and delivery of the letter helps us see the probable reason why Paul could employ speech in character and diatribe without reading the letter himself to the house churches in Rome.

This is the only time in Paul’s letters that he acknowledges having received funding from a patron, and it is likely that