In my Romans exegesis course on Thursday we made it through a chapter. That’s fairly significant. Only 3 hours, and we got all the way through ch. 1!
But getting through ch. 1 can be a problem.
It’s a problem to only get through ch. 1 if we don’t go on to ch. 2.
The point of ch. 1 is to lay out how bad the gentiles are, using a typical Jewish polemic. Echoing the Wisdom of Solomon, Paul depicts an anti-creation narrative: not acknowledging God leads to idolatry; idolatry, of course, leads to sexual immorality; sexual immorality, of course, leads to every other evil from usury to disobeying your parents.
In Wisdom of Solomon, this bleak picture stands in contrast to the Jews: because God has made himself known to the Jewish people, they do not go after the false gods of idolatry–and therefore don’t have sex with their moms, dads, friends, neighbors, neighbors’ wives, etc.
But the point for Paul is to get to ch. 2 and say, not, Therefore we Jews are better; but, And, we Jews are equally in the dock.
The quintessential sins of the gentiles, the things that made them “other,” are not laid out to show how much better the assumed “insiders” are, but to show that the insiders are equally guilty. That is the surprise of Romans 2.
So why is it a problem if we only read Romans 1?
Because there we, too are apt to find indications of what makes the other most explicitly “the other.” In modern Christianity, those of us in evangelical circles have been differentiating ourselves from “the other” as those around us accepting and practicing homosexuality. We read Rom 1 and discover proof positive that such practice makes these the outsiders from the community of salvation and grace.
And in so reading Romans 1 we align ourselves well with Paul’s intended auditor: the people who would listen, saying, “Yes, yes! Give it to ‘em!”–only to have Paul turn on them and say, “By giving it to ‘them,’ I give it to all who would accuse ‘them.’”
The point of Rom 2 is to insist that all who see sin clearly depicted in Rom 1:18-32 recognize that they are guilty of those sins themselves, not to insist that “the other” is actually the outside other just like we’ve been saying all along.
And so, I’d say it’s dangerous to read Rom 1 and agree with Paul. Yes, we are supposed to. Yes, those things really are depicted as sins and as anti-creation. But they are so depicted not so that we can develop a taxonomy of sin in the world in the abstract, and not so that we can preach condemnation on those who practice such things, but so that we can see that our own lives are replete with the same shortcomings.
Hello Daniel,
You make an important observation. I suspect you are not suggesting that we have a problem with people putting too much emphasis on insolence. I assume perhaps incorrectly that Romans 1 is a concern only for those embracing as normative for Christian discipleship same-sex relationships. While arguing from experience is of course often fraught with…lack of accurate perspective….it strikes me that the problem you point to is not an overwhelming tendency among those who maintain a sexual ethic that is delimited to monogomous heterosexual union. It has been my experience that there is the ready recognition that same-sex relationships is merely one even minor example of the greater problem affecting a creation that has perverted the will of its creator. It is flumoxing how so many scholars spend most of their time chiding the non-existent or marginally present extreme. Is there not a greater prevelence of people in the present church who nonchalantly throw out any consideration of an ethic that might constrain pleasurable impulses?…even though thess impulses might be damaging to others created in the image of God?
So you don’t agree with Douglas Campbell’s analysis of Romans?
No
I was re-reading Romans not too long ago, and I couldn’t help but notice how in chapter 1 Paul writes about all the sins of the Gentiles, but then in chapter 2 says, “Don’t act like you’re any better! You’re just as guilty as they are!”
It’s worth noting that stopping at the halfway point of Rom 2 is as exegetically problematic as stopping at the end of Rom 1.
When you say, “not so that we can preach condemnation on those who practice such things, but so that we can see that our own lives are replete with the same shortcomings,” the present tense “are replete” seems to run counter to what Paul says about those who have the Spirit. Sure, those who have the Law (or have said the Sinner’s Prayer—a modern example) are not by this better than those of Rom 1. But those who have the Spirit and walk by the Spirit do not live “lives … replete with the same shortcomings,” no?
I knew someone would go there! You raise a great rejoinder, Jason.
In general, I find that we who are now the “insiders” do better in our reading of the Bible to place ourselves in the role of the outsiders, in terms of coming up with a better dynamic equivalent of how our lives fit the story we’re reading. If I actually experienced the eschatological realization of ” better life in the Spirit” as the reality of the Christian community I would probably be less comfortable with placing ourselves in the role of the condemning condemned in Rom 2. If we find ourselves cheering in Rom 1, does that inherently entail being caught in the trap sprung in ch. 2? It’s at least worth pondering…
It certainly is worth pondering. In general, I agree that most of us have found ways to dodge Paul’s critique in Romans by reading it as insiders—hence my tendency to take modern parallels like the “sinner’s prayer,” “believing in Jesus,” “believing the Bible,” or even “having been baptized” in place of “having the Law” or being circumcised when I teach the passage. Those things hit a lot closer to home within the Christian community, which is now in the “established” position as the Jews Paul is addressing in Rom 2.
That said, I don’t think (against Douglas Campbell here) that Paul himself disagrees with the conclusions of Rom 1 or the first part of Rom 2, nor does he put himself or other Spirit-filled Christians in that plight. So no, I don’t think agreement with Rom 1 necessarily entails being caught in Rom 2. Paul sets these up to establish a third position—”justified,” “made (truly) righteous.” That is, the critique is designed to push towards a transformed ethic—”works”—as the mark of the truly justified. Inasmuch as “Christians” do not demonstrate the marks of this “better life in the Spirit,” I suspect Paul would conclude that they too are condemned.
So I think Paul’s counsel on this point would be, Ἑαυτοὺς πειράζετε εἰ ἐστὲ ἐν τῇ πίστει, ἑαυτοὺς δοκιμάζετε: “Test yourselves, if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!”
I think you are right to say that we need to read Rom 1 in context of the larger argument of man’s need for God’s justifying grace in Christ. It certainly shows that we all (Romans 3:9-10,23) are no better than they and have all sinned and missed the mark of giving glory to God.
Thanks for the thoughts.
Daniel,
You point out one of the great ironies about Rom. 1. It is funny how we use this chapter as a list so we can determine who else “out there” is evil and sinful without realizing what Paul does when he spins it around on the “righteous” immediately following. Great thoughts.
Y’know, in my youth i attended a pretty rightwingy theocratic OPC church.
And the pastor preached “We, we! are the homosexual. We are no better”.
Also 1 Cor: “such were some of you”.
Some of the ‘listing’ is due to pro-gay theologians and non-theologians saying “where does the bible list being gay as a sin anyway”. And so, we turn to Paul’s list.
But its right to point out the use of the list: and offer Jesus and the Spirit as the solution to all of our sins.
Struck by Philippians yesterday. Yes, some preach Christ from rivalry and envy, but it is apparently *possible* to preach Christ from pure motives too.