Audience of Romans 1 and 2

[darinhouston]

If the intended audience in chapters 1 and 2 is the Jews, why the reference to "other" gentiles in 1:13?

[steve]

Paul addresses the Roman church as a "Gentile" church—that is, its geography and primary constituency would mark it as belonging to the Gentile, rather than Jewish, world as opposed to the (geographically and racially) "Judean" churches. Of course, Paul was aware of both Jews and Gentiles in the church, and it was, in fact, the tension between these two sectors that seems to dictate the direction of his appeal for unity (see 11:18; 15:1-7). Sometimes Paul addresses a Gentile reader (e.g., 11:17-21; 15:15-16), and sometimes a Jewish reader (2:1, 17). The "we," in 3:9, means "we Jews."

In Romans 1:13, Paul is addressing all "the saints in Rome." He does not assume them all to be Gentiles, but the church would have probably been predominantly so, and they were in a Gentile venue. To include them as being among the Gentiles, to whom he was primarily sent, would be natural enough.

His theological argument commences in 1:18, where he speaks, generically, of those who suppress the truth. It is not clear which race he may have in mind, until we get to chapter 2, where he says that the things stated in chapter one are an indictment of the Jews. This does not mean that much of what is in chapter one could not be equally applied to Gentiles, but it is Paul's purpose to show that, whatever may be true of Gentile depravity, the Jews are no "better" (3:9).

[darinhouston]

That helps thanks

[mikew]

The idea has been presented in recent scholarship by a handful of authors that the letter indeed was written to a gentile audience. Andrew Das has been the strongest advocate of this. (I'm not saying there were no Jewish believers in Rome. The problem is more, in my findings, about the gentiles having majority control and used that to exclude Jews from common fellowship.)

Here is a note in Neil Elliott's book Arrogance of Nations (pg 177) where Elliott is presenting a few views on the issue:

In The Rhetoric of Romans I followed Johannes Munck, Lloyd Gaston , and Jon G. Gager in arguing that Romans must be interpreted as an argument directed to the explicit addressees, non-Judeans (I wrote “Gentile”). Both Stanley K. Stowers and Ben Witherington III subsequently made the same argument. Of course, this does not mean that there are no Judeans (Jews) in Paul's audience: the contrary is obviously the case, as the greetings in Romans 16 show. But Stowers insists that “because Paul begins by explicitly describing his readers as gentiles, the interpreter can go step by step asking at what point the text introduces a new audience or subverts the explicit one”; as he shows, there is in fact no such point in the letter. Stowers characterizes the contrary tendency among most interpreters, to insist that a Jewish-Christian minority is the direct target of much of the letter's argument, as an “obsession” that leads interpreters to “erase the gentile audience and replace it with 'Christians, both Jews and gentiles.'”

Das (Sep JSNT 2011) mainly addresses the evidence of a gentile audience in Rom 15 also notes on pg 104:

Likewise in Rom. 1.13 Paul writes: ‘I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers and sisters, that I often planned to come to you (but was prevented until now), in order that I may reap some fruit among you just as I have also among the rest of the gentiles’. Paul refers to ‘the rest’ of the gentiles in relation to his Roman audience.

The appeals for unity within the text prove out to be Paul's effort to convince gentiles to be benevolent toward Jews.

In this reading of Romans, 1:18-32 was actually revealing the gentiles' judgmental attitude toward Jews. Paul rebuked this judgmental attitude in 2:1-2 where Paul showed the hypocrisy of such judgment. (This rebuke uses some techniques found in Roman culture that involve use of singular 'you' which weakens the severity of such accusation.)

[steve]

Notwithstanding my respect for the credentials of the scholars who think this way, I have not heard enough from them to find their case convincing.

It seems to me that, when Paul says, "You call yourself a Jew..." (2:17), he is not likely to have Gentiles in mind.

Also, his argument downplaying the special status of Jews, vis-a-vis Gentiles, in chapters 2-3 do not sound like arguments that would be necessary to present to Gentiles (unless they were Gentile dispensationalists!).

The exhortations in chapter 14:1ff seem to be equally directed toward both sides of the controversy—Jews, who restrict their diets and observe a holy day, and Gentiles, who mostly do not. Paul tells the one (Jew) not to "judge" the others, and tells the other (Gentile) not to "despise" the Jews. At least, that is how I take it.

[mikew]

Oops. I got trapped into a response on this issue cause Darin brought up the topic of audience. Its always beeen near impossible to solve issues in short responses.

The key to understanding my perspective is to realize that the main issue Paul was addressing was that of the division between Jew and gentile. More specifically Paul was writing to the division caused by gentiles.

The quick idea here is that Paul has written to an audience he antipated to be reluctant to read his letter. So he included some sections that appear to judge Jews. This appearance is influenced by the audience's bias against Jews. So the "them" of 1:18-32 was seen to be Jews. The rebuke of 2:1 then was against gentiles along the type of trap Nathan used with David (2Sam12:1-9)

Then with 2:17-24, Paul used the "odd" language of first person by speaking of the individual that was hypocritical. (Note that I am alone in this following proposal.) Paul was leading the gentiles to again reveal their own anger toward Jews by revealing the hypocrisy. Only, Paul didn't truly make any accusation against Jews here. He only asked probing questions. Now, in response to the judgmental attitude raised again, Paul speaks against the biased attitude that Jews had no advantage. Paul did so in 3:1-2 and quickly mentions a benefit that Jews had. (The letter eventually gives truly positive discussion about Jews.) We see that Paul had laid another rhetorical trap through the judgmental passage.

Then in 3:9-20, Paul again provides a judmental passage against justification by the law. Paul then provides the Christian doctrine about the gift of justification in 3:21-26. But, lest we see Paul pitting Messianic teaching against Jews and "their" ideas, Paul also provides equalizing doctrines that shows Jews and gentiles as having the same benefit through Christ (3:23).

The real quick answer to the arguments that speak against "the special status of Jews" is that we have looked at it backwards. Students of Romans have seen the "inclusion of gentiles" as a message to tell Jews to include gentiles. My suggestion is that we look at it from the gentile's interest: Paul was telling gentiles why they are equally, with Jews, to be included into Judaism. (Of course, Paul is advocating the continued equal participation through the Messianic Judaism teachings.) Paul, in Rom 3-4, was simply removing the grounds upon which the gentiles might have trusted pre-Messianic Jews who still spoke of the need for doing works.

This is the sort of proposal I am currently developing. However, the full explanation can't be addressed in short responses.

[Tychicus]

Well, I lean a bit more toward Steve's view. I have a hard time believing this is directed against Gentiles.

Here's what it looks like to me. The audience is the whole church, Jews and Gentiles. But the argument thoughout (until chapter 11) is against Judaizers or nationalistic Jews, those who think Jews are somehow "better" (3:9-23). I will use the term "Jew-better" here since "Judaizer" may have other connotations to some.

1:18-32 is directed against "Gentile sins" (Jews considered things like idolatry and homosexuality as characterizing Gentiles, obviously a point where Jews were "better"). So up to that point the Jew-betters were with Paul, cheering along with him against the "sins of the Gentiles". But in 2:1 the argument turns. I take the "O man" here to be the same person as the "Jew" in 2:17 as well as the implied adversaries up though chapter 10.

So the Jew-better was saying "Yes, preach it brother Saul, and let's hurry up and get to the part where God condemns those Gentile sinners." But Paul doesn't say that in chapter 2. No, he tells the Jew-betters that they are doing "the same things", all the while "passing judgment" (2:1,3). Besides, they were "showing contempt" for God's kindness to the Gentiles (2:4) (as was obvious from looking at the makeup of the church). The result is that they (the judgers) are storing up wrath against themselves for the day of judgment (2:5, per Matt 7:2). What they should have done (per 2:4) was to realize that God's kindness to the Gentiles is supposed to lead them (the Jews) to repentance. This is revisited in 11:11-15, 30-32.

2:6-16 (with 2:25-29) then explains that God cares what people do, not what they are externally. 2:17 picks up against the Jew-betters, showing their hypocrisy with its results (2:24), and to the ultimate "there is no difference" (3:22). Interestingly the same phrase "there is no difference" (identical in the Greek as well) occurs in 10:12-13, "there is no difference between Jew and Gentile . . . for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved". The plight and the solution in beautiful parallel, almost certainly done on purpose.

Just my thoughts on the matter. If there is any interest or comments or disagreements I'll delve further.

[mikew]

Notwithstanding my respect for the credentials of the scholars who think this way, I have not heard enough from them to find their case convincing.

It seems to me that, when Paul says, "You call yourself a Jew..." (2:17), he is not likely to have Gentiles in mind.

I'm not going to ask anyone to consider the credentials but only to evaluate the arguments.

I would recommend the article by Das most of all. It seems that he has laid out more of an argument. However, Stowers' point was an important observation about the letter never introducing an alternative audience. The reason to point out the evidence of the audience is that our bearings may be proper. The setting of proper bearings is the big reason I am even interested in posting right now.

Of course when I note Stowers' point, it has not escaped my notice that the wording of 2:17 appears to address a hypocritical Jew. However such wording can also be understood as a rhetorical. The singular 'you' in the Greek roughly means that Paul is pinpointing only the person who is guilty as charged. When no one in the audience is guilty, for example when there are no Jews in the audience, then only the accusation remains. We miss this today since Paul had targeted a very specific audience in the first century. Only by recognizing the original circumstances and temperament of the audience will we be able to see Paul's approach.

Also, his argument downplaying the special status of Jews, vis-a-vis Gentiles, in chapters 2-3 do not sound like arguments that would be necessary to present to Gentiles (unless they were Gentile dispensationalists!).

Well. Consider a few points of Rom 2 from a different angle. The rebuke of 2:1-2 was against gentiles for judging Jews. In vv 3-16 Paul was showing the gentiles that it was bad to assume God would judge Jews on different grounds than gentiles. In 2:17-29, Paul again was exposing the judgmental nature of the gentiles against the hypocrisy of Jews (with vv 25-29 adding the idea that circumcision could be undertaken as superficial adherence to their religion). The mood at the end of Rom 2 is that the Jews had nothing real going for them.
When Paul reaches 3:1-2, he answers back and says they do have an advantage. After debunking some slanderous remarks (vv 3-8) made against the Christians, he presents the question "do the Jews have an advantage over us?" Is the slander correct? And should 'we' (us gentiles) actually take on the law and become like Jews? The arguments in 3:9-27 then are to show that the law did not justify; Justification was freely given through Christ. The whole portion of 3:9-20 was simply to show that the law only spoke of people's unrighteousness ... and should not be viewed as somehow declaring they could be righteous through it.
Paul had to basically remove the grounds which might otherwise have allowed the gentiles to be persuaded into taking onto themselves the Jewish law. The necessary arguments were addressed within a Jewish doctrinal context because the gentiles were apparently becoming concerned that there might be basis to follow the Jewish laws.

What I have explained so far isn't expected to be enough to persuade anyone, but the glimpse of my proposal might yield further investigation into Romans.

The exhortations in chapter 14:off seem to be equally directed toward both sides of the controversy—Jews, who restrict their diets and observe a holy day, and Gentiles, who mostly do not. Paul tells the one (Jew) not to "judge" the others, and tells the other (Gentile) not to "despise" the Jews. At least, that is how I take it.

On the other hand, we pretty strongly suspect that the first gentile believers had followed the Messiah first through involvement in the synagogue. As such we can expect that there were gentiles who still sought to follow a mix of pre-Messanic experience along with Christ's teachings.

All of the texts can be explained in light of a gentile audience (and likely with better explanations overall). This is what I am developing in more detail. We know though that most interpretations have been developed on the assumption of an audience composed of at least a minority number of Jews. So, studies under assumption of a gentile audience is less explored -- less considered.

In case this has sounded anti-Jewish, I should note that the purpose of Romans was to create a benevolent attitude toward Jews by the gentile believers.

[mikew]

Well, I lean a bit more toward Steve's view. I have a hard time believing this is directed against Gentiles.

No problems there. My proposal will need to go undergo scrutiny before I could solidly recommend it.

Here's what it looks like to me. The audience is the whole church, Jews and Gentiles. But the argument thoughout (until chapter 11) is against Judaizers or nationalistic Jews, those who think Jews are somehow "better" (3:9-23). I will use the term "Jew-better" here since "Judaizer" may have other connotations to some.

Certainly there are some claims that Jews have an advantage (sort of in 2:17-24 and with possibilities of boasting addressed in 3:9 and 27). I saying here that Paul had to convince gentiles not to be convinced of that purported advantage -- connected with the doing of works of the law.

1:18-32 is directed against "Gentile sins" (Jews considered things like idolatry and homosexuality as characterizing Gentiles, obviously a point where Jews were "better"). So up to that point the Jew-betters were with Paul, cheering along with him against the "sins of the Gentiles". But in 2:1 the argument turns. I take the "O man" here to be the same person as the "Jew" in 2:17 as well as the implied adversaries up though chapter 10.

I think it is possible that 1:18-32 is like a parody of Jewish writings now turned against Jews. The Jews were the ones who knew the truth and could suppress it (1:18). The Jews were the ones who could break a covenant (1:31 -- per ASV and KJV -- or described as untrustworthy in NASB). They knew the ordinances of God (vs 32). As such we can postulate that it was the gentile believers who were wrongfully judgmental as pointed out in 2:1-2.

2:6-16 (with 2:25-29) then explains that God cares what people do, not what they are externally. 2:17 picks up against the Jew-betters, showing their hypocrisy with its results (2:24), and to the ultimate "there is no difference" (3:22). Interestingly the same phrase "there is no difference" (identical in the Greek as well) occurs in 10:12-13, "there is no difference between Jew and Gentile . . . for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved". The plight and the solution in beautiful parallel, almost certainly done on purpose.

I addressed some points of an alternative reading of Rom 2 in the discussion on Steve's points. It was just useful to note that the first eleven chapters are replete with phrases that equalized Jews with gentiles. This was done regarding judgment as well as justification. The purpose of Romans seems primarily be the removal of division between Jews and gentiles. Then with recognition that the audience was gentiles, the effort was to create a benevolent attitude toward Jews.

Just my thoughts on the matter. If there is any interest or comments or disagreements I'll delve further.

Though I have been avoiding situations where points can only partially be developed, I enjoyed the opportunity to discuss this.

[dwilkins]

Though the intro has some bearing, the critical point of chapter 1 is the following,

Romans 1:18-32 (ESV)
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

It seems to me that this is pretty obviously describing the Israelites as they rebelled against God at the time that they received the Law at Sinai and shortly thereafter. There is no reason to think that the Gentiles knew intrinsically that they were due the death penalty for the listed sins (v.31) or that, unlike the Israelites who had the tabernacle for exactly this purpose, the Gentiles received a blueprint for the design of heaven and how God operated (v.20). If you make the audience of chapter 1 the Jews who considered themselves naturally superior to Gentiles I think the rest of the argument in the following chapters makes perfect sense.

Doug