Welcome again to this series of posts on the dialogue in Romans. It gives a basic outline of the sequence from the initial creation of Romans, its transportation to the Roman Church, and the probable method it would have been received by the Roman Church.
Here is a link to the first post which has the contents of all.
Today we continue our series of posts about Framing Romans and will look at Romans 2.17 onwards.
The aims of this series are;
- To apply speech act theory by considering the oral recital of Romans 1-4 to the original audience.
- To show an unassisted forward reading of the Romans 1-4 is potentially contradictory and confusing, and assuming Paul and Tertius were competent and intelligent enough to recognise this,
- To suggest instructions Paul gave the letter bearer to avoid confusing the audience, and then
- To frame the text of Romans in such a way as to make a forward reading of Romans 1-4 comprehensible to the original audience with these instructions built in.
As before I will continue using a certain method to achieve these aims. As we move through chapters 1-4 I will be attempting to answer the following questions;
- Who is speaking? (Normally this is the author)
- Who is being spoken to? (Normally this is the audience)
- Who or What is being spoken about?
Rom 2.17-29
Who is speaking? Paul. We assume so from Rom 1.16.
Who is being spoken to? In this section Paul says,
‘But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God’ (Rom 2.17).
Paul is addressing an individual Jew. It seems Paul is not addressing the Roman believers as we have been assuming from Rom 1.7,15. On further reflection, its not apparent this Jew is actually part of the Roman believers. Rather Paul has created an imaginary Jewish interlocutor to speak to in front of the Roman believers. We’ve been mistaken who Paul has been speaking to. From here onwards I will refer to him as ‘IJ’.
Romans 1-4 breaks with normal expectations of letters since not only does it address the intended audience – the Roman believers. It addresses another, in this case IJ. In fact, it switches from addressing the Roman believers to IJ without explicit warning in the text! In doing so the letter is confusing and misleading to understand, particularly if one had never encountered Romans before and a linear interpretation is adopted.
Remember, earlier Paul dictated this letter in front of Tertius. Has Paul spoken out this letter to intentionally confuse and mislead his listening audience and later readers? Have Paul and Tertius been so incompetent, that they have not realised listening to this text in a straightforward manner would confuse its listeners? I don’t believe either.
Paul and Tertius are both intelligent and capable people. Prior to his dictation of the letter, Paul knew what he wanted to speak about. So when he switched between who he was speaking to, he did so in such a manner as to make it clear to those watching the performance there was switch.
Hence I assume there is something not included in the text by which Paul intended to make the switch comprehensible to the original audience. If interpreters of Romans 1-4 don’t assume there is something Paul intended to be part the reading of the text indicating a switch. Then they are implicitly assuming Paul and Tertius were either intending to confuse the audience by its omission or they were so incompetent that they did not realise the text by itself is inherently misleading.
This raises another question. Are there other sections we have wrongly assumed Paul is speaking to the Roman believers when he is not? We need to consider this as we move along.
It is apparent Rom 2.17 is part of a broader scripted dialogue between Paul and IJ. Now we need to look back and forward from this point to see if and where he;
- Switches from speaking to the Roman believers to IJ, and where he
- Switches from speaking to IJ back to the Roman believers.
Rom 1.15 is clearly a point where Paul addresses the Roman believers. So we have one outer boundary. Rom 5.1 is another. The expression
‘Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.’ (Rom 5.1)
suggests the audience being spoken to is ‘justified by faith’ and has ‘peace with God’. These statements are contrary to Rom 2.1-5 which puts IJ under judgement. We have at Rom 5.1 the second outer boundary.
So in all the switch;
- From speaking to the Roman believers to IJ must occur between Rom 1.15-2.17, and the switch
- From speaking to IJ, back to the Roman believers must occur between Rom 2.17-5.1.
I’ve mentioned before that one of the basic assumptions people make in reading letters is once the author has identified the person or people being spoken to we assume from then onwards all the words following are for that same person or people. It is perfectly valid to assume this. But now instead of applying it to the Roman believers we should apply this same rule to Paul’s dialogue with IJ. However with this in mind we should carefully monitor the text to see if there are valid reasons to maintain this perspective as we go along. Because there will be an eventual switch back to the Roman believers.
‘But’ is a word connecting two sections of speech, in which the later section is intended to supersede the former. Paul’s use of ‘but’ connects Rom 2.17 with what is prior and indicates Paul has been speaking to IJ prior to this point. How far we haven’t worked out yet.
Since Paul has been speaking to IJ prior to Rom 2.17 and uses the pronoun ‘you’ to refer to IJ in Rom 2.17. It makes sense to view the ‘you’ Paul addresses in Rom 2.1,3-5 to refer to IJ as well and not the Roman believers as we earlier assumed. Consider;
[2:1] Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. (Rom 2.1)
Therefore, Paul has been speaking to IJ at least from Rom 2.1 onwards and this is made explicit in Rom 2.17 [3]. Now we know Paul has been speaking to IJ from at least Rom 2.1 onwards it makes a lot more sense of Rom 2.1-5. Paul was not judging the Roman believers for hypocrisy after all. He has somewhere switched who he is speaking to, without giving any prior indication in the text.
Romans 1-4 is not a simple text. We have to work hard at the text to understand it completely. We have to suggest the likely way Paul would have communicated the switch and possibly others without intentionally confusing his listeners. I will discuss this right at the end of this section. For now I can suggest the letter bearer – reader would have somehow made it clear in his/her performance.
Following Rom 2.17 we can assume Paul is continuing to speak to IJ. If he uses the pronoun ‘you’ we know he is speaking to IJ. He does (Rom 2.18,21-25).
[25] For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. [26] So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? [27] Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. (Rom 2.25-27)
The ‘you’ refers again to IJ. So looking at Paul’s use of pronouns, the text indicates Rom 2.1-29 is all part of the same speech from Paul to IJ.
I have previously argued these main points;
- D1) Paul spoke the text aloud in front of his scribe Tertius who wrote it down (Rom 16.22; 11.13).
- D2) The Roman audience had the text read out aloud in front of them.
- D3) The Roman audience consisted of Jewish and Gentile believers.
Now I will build another two on them.
- D4) An unassisted forward reading of the Romans 1-4 is contradictory and confusing.
- D5) Paul is speaking to an imaginary Jew (IJ) in front of the Roman believers (Rom 2.17, cf 2.1-29).
Who is being spoken about? Paul is speaking to IJ about a variety of people. IJ and the Jews (Rom 2.12-13,17-25), Gentiles (Rom 2.12,14-16), Gentile believers (Rom 2.26-27), believers in general (Rom 2.28-29) and God (Rom 2.16,17,23,24,29).
| Passage | Rom 2.1-29 |
| Who is speaking? | Paul (assumed from Rom 1.15) |
| Who is being spoken to? | Imaginary Jew (IJ) |
| Who is being spoken about? | Jews, Gentiles, Gentile believers, believers and God |
Since we have now identified IJ as the person Paul has been speaking to, we still need to consider how far forward and how far back Paul has been speaking to him.
Rom 3.1-8
I will address our three questions (Who is speaking? Who is being spoken to? and Who is being spoken about?) together here.
There are a series of questions in Rom 3.1-9 and they express Jewish concerns which value Judaism and circumcision. Rom 3.1 says,
‘Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?’
Rom 3.2 is a answer to these questions,
‘Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.’
These concerns are generated from Paul’s arguments against IJ in Rom 2.1-29 and especially Rom 2.25-29. Consider;
[25] For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. (Rom 2:25)
and
[28] For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. (Rom 2:28)
In Rom 2.25-29 Paul suggests the Jew will be condemned by the obedient Gentile and he undermines the value of circumcision. The concerns in Rom 3.1 are voiced in such a manner as if the speaker did think the Jew had advantages and circumcision is valuable. The question poses resistance to Paul’s earlier statements.
A few points follow;
1) In Rom 2.1-29 Paul has been addressing IJ, not the Roman believers. This is made explicit from Rom 2.17. It is doubtful Paul has switched from speaking to IJ in Rom 2.1-29 and resumed speaking to the Roman believers from Rom 3.1 onwards. There is nothing in the text at this point to indicate Paul’s dialogue with IJ has stopped. So Paul’s statements are still in the context of his dialogue with IJ. Does Paul want to portray the picture he is voicing both questions and answers while speaking to IJ (as shown above)? Doubtful again.
2) Since Paul has been addressing IJ, these concerns probably come from IJ’s viewpoint in response to Rom 2.1-29. IJ is a Jew (Rom 2.17) and I assume he is male. Therefore he is circumcised. The statements in Rom 2.3 assume he thought he would ‘escape the judgement of God’ – a significant advantage. The questioning in Rom 3.1 reflects concern coming from IJ’s viewpoint that he will now come under judgement.
3) Paul has gone beyond anticipating IJ’s response and leaving it silent. Instead he verbalised the anticipated responses of IJ.
4) To voice these concerns from IJ’s viewpoint, Paul has to switch from voicing his own position to voicing that of IJ’s. There is a definite and sustained question – answer form through Rom 3.1-9. So Paul will have to switch several times, saying things from his own viewpoint and then IJ’s viewpoint. Like before, Paul gives no prior notice of any of these switches to the audience. So Paul the author is intentionally speaking words articulating IJ’s viewpoint, which seek to question and refute his own arguments.
Think about how Paul dictated this. If we look at the bigger picture, Paul is uttering text from different viewpoints in front of Tertius his scribe [5]. He switches between his own viewpoint and IJ’s. When he switches to IJ’s mindset, he adopts and speaks as if he were IJ. Then he switches back to his own viewpoint, speaking as himself.
Therefore in the performance of Romans 1-4, Paul must be acting before Tertius. The sustained dialogue between himself and IJ, is much like a drama or play-right. Except here as a single person, Paul is switching from himself to act as IJ and back again as he is dictating to Tertius his scribe.
Tertius’ recording of the performance has captured the script of the dialogue. Paul acting as himself argues a position. Paul then switches, so that acting as IJ he then responds his earlier argument. He then switches back again, so as Paul he can then defend his position, answering IJ’s rebuttal. Paul intends the intended recipients of the letter to perceive all this. The switches aren’t explicitly noted in the text. However from the questions and answers in the text we can discern who is speaking none the less.
To remove some descriptive complexity I will change from saying Paul is voicing things from IJ’s viewpoint and instead say IJ is voicing things from his own viewpoint. I realise Paul is author of both viewpoints. However for simplicities sake its easier to contrast the two viewpoints as;
- Paul’s speech / viewpoint, and
- IJ’s speech / viewpoint
even though Paul authored them both.
5) The question-answer interaction continues through Rom 3.1-9. Then Paul continues in dialogue with IJ. It later seems to pick up again at Rom 3.27-31 with other questions and answers answering Jewish issues with respect to Gentiles. Considering the length of the question-answer interaction, I think it highly unlikely in each instance Paul is asking IJ rhetorical questions. The questions in this context suggest something else.
So, in Rom 3.1 (Paul acting as) IJ asks;
‘Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?’
Then in Rom 3.2 Paul (acting as himself) answers IJ’s questions with;
‘Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.’
Rom 3.1 is one instance where IJ is responding to Paul with a follow up rebuttal, and then Rom 3.2 Paul answering IJ’s argument.
Likewise Rom 3.7 is voiced from someone’s viewpoint in opposition to the prior argument. This person (IJ or Paul) says ‘but’;
“But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?”
In the same verse the personal pronoun ‘I’ is used. The ‘I’ is unlikely to refer to Paul. The ‘I’ has to be someone Paul has just condemned as a sinner. (Paul acting as) IJ must be referring to himself.
In short, Rom 3.1-9 is a sustained interaction between Paul and IJ. IJ speaks back to Paul.
I have already argued these main points.
- D1) Paul spoke the text aloud in front of his scribe Tertius who wrote it down (Rom 16.22; 11.13).
- D2) The Roman audience had the text read out aloud in front of them.
- D3) The Roman audience consisted of Jewish and Gentile believers.
- D4) An unassisted forward reading of the Romans 1-4 is contradictory and confusing.
- D5) Paul is speaking to an imaginary Jew (IJ) in front of the Roman believers (Rom 2.17, cf 2.1-29).
Now I will build another on them.
- D6) The interaction between Paul and IJ dominates most of Romans 1-4.
- a) Both speak to one another (cf. Rom 3.1-9).
Looking at the questions following Rom 3.1
We find at Rom 3.1,9,27; 4.1 each verse begins with a question framed from a Jewish viewpoint.
Rom 3.1 – ‘Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?’
Rom 3.9 – ‘What then? Are we Jews any better off?
Rom 3.27 – ‘Then what becomes of our boasting?’
Rom 4.1 – ‘What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?’
I mentioned before one of the basic assumptions people make in reading letters is that once the author has identified who is being spoken to we assume from then onwards all the words following are for that same person or people. But now instead of applying it to the Roman believers we should apply this same rule to Paul’s dialogue with IJ. Each of these questions framed from a Jewish (IJ’s) perspective suggests Paul’s dialogue with IJ continues at least til Rom 4.1. Consider the question and answer in Rom 3.31 for example;
Q. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith?
A. By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
If Paul was speaking to the combined group of Roman believers which included Gentiles. Are we to assume he is instructing them to uphold the Jewish law? Should they get circumcised? Observe the food laws? Jewish festivals? Or is it more likely Paul is answering IJ’s question, saying its okay for Jews like themselves to keep upholding the law? The question and answer can’t be answered very well unless it is seen as part of the dialogue between Paul and IJ.
Presentation of the text
I might draw attention again to why I am presenting the text the way I am. Firstly the greek text of Rom 3.1-8 looked something like this in its original form;
ΤΊ ΟΥ̓͂Ν ΤῸ ΠΕΡΙΣΣῸΝ ΤΟΥ͂ ἸΟΥΔΑΊΟΥ Ἢ ΤΊΣ Ἡ ὨΦΈΛΕΙΑ ΤΗ͂Σ ΠΕΡΙΤΟΜΗ͂Σ ΠΟΛῪ ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΆΝΤΑ ΤΡΌΠΟΝ. ΠΡΩ͂ΤΟΝ ΜῈΝ ΓᾺΡ ὍΤΙ ἘΠΙΣΤΕΎΘΗΣΑΝ ΤᾺ ΛΌΓΙΑ ΤΟΥ͂ ΘΕΟΥ͂ ΤΊ ΓΆΡ; ΕἸ ἨΠΊΣΤΗΣΆΝ ΤΙΝΕΣ, ΜῊ Ἡ ἈΠΙΣΤΊΑ ΑΥ̓ΤΩ͂Ν ΤῊΝ ΠΊΣΤΙΝ ΤΟΥ͂ ΘΕΟΥ͂ ΚΑΤΑΡΓΉΣΕΙ; ΜῊ ΓΈΝΟΙΤΟ· ΓΙΝΈΣΘΩ ΔῈ Ὁ ΘΕῸΣ ἈΛΗΘΉΣ, ΠΑ͂Σ ΔῈ ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ ΨΕΎΣΤΗΣ, ΚΑΘῺΣ ΓΈΓΡΑΠΤΑΙ ὍΠΩΣ ἊΝ ΔΙΚΑΙΩΘΗ͂ΙΣ ἘΝ ΤΟΙ͂Σ ΛΌΓΟΙΣ ΣΟΥ ΚΑῚ ΝΙΚΉΣΕΙΣ ἘΝ ΤΩ͂Ι ΚΡΊΝΕΣΘΑΊ ΣΕ. ΕἸ ΔῈ Ἡ ἈΔΙΚΊΑ ἩΜΩ͂Ν ΘΕΟΥ͂ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗΝ ΣΥΝΊΣΤΗΣΙΝ, ΤΊ ἘΡΟΥ͂ΜΕΝ; ΜῊ ἌΔΙΚΟΣ Ὁ ΘΕῸΣ Ὁ ἘΠΙΦΈΡΩΝ ΤῊΝ ὈΡΓΉΝ; ΚΑΤᾺ ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟΝ ΛΈΓΩ. ΜῊ ΓΈΝΟΙΤΟ· ἘΠΕῚ ΠΩ͂Σ ΚΡΙΝΕΙ͂ Ὁ ΘΕῸΣ ΤῸΝ ΚΌΣΜΟΝ; ΕἸ ΔῈ Ἡ ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ ΤΟΥ͂ ΘΕΟΥ͂ ἘΝ ΤΩ͂Ι ἘΜΩ͂Ι ΨΕΎΣΜΑΤΙ ἘΠΕΡΊΣΣΕΥΣΕΝ ΕἸΣ ΤῊΝ ΔΌΞΑΝ ΑΥ̓ΤΟΥ͂, ΤΊ ἜΤΙ ΚἈΓῺ ὩΣ ἉΜΑΡΤΩΛῸΣ ΚΡΊΝΟΜΑΙ; ΚΑῚ ΜῊ ΚΑΘῺΣ ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΟΎΜΕΘΑ ΚΑῚ ΚΑΘΏΣ ΦΑΣΊΝ ΤΙΝΕΣ ἩΜΑ͂Σ ΛΈΓΕΙΝ ὍΤΙ ΠΟΙΉΣΩΜΕΝ ΤᾺ ΚΑΚΆ, ἽΝΑ ἜΛΘΗΙ ΤᾺ ἈΓΑΘΆ; ὯΝ ΤῸ ΚΡΊΜΑ ἜΝΔΙΚΌΝ ἘΣΤΙΝ.
Clearly this is unintelligible for today’s English readers who do not know Greek. So in order for everyday people to read and understand the text a number of greek scholars have to interpret it on our behalf. In doing so they use their knowledge of Greek, the usage of Greek words, their own theology, the structure they perceive in the text to produce the English text we are familiar with. The original Greek has no punctuation either (full stops, commas, brackets, quotation marks, etc). So the interpreted Greek text (without the punctuation) in English looks like this;
then what advantage has the Jew or what is the value of circumcision much in every way to begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God what if some were unfaithful does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God by no means let God be true though every one were a liar as it is written that you may be justified in your words and prevail when you are judged but if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God what shall we say that God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us I speak in a human way by no means for then how could God judge the world but if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory why am I still being condemned as a sinner and why not do evil that good may come as some people slanderously charge us with saying their condemnation is just
Essentially I have done the same kinds of things the interpreters of scripture have before me. I’ve been looking at the text and making decisions on how we should view it based on what the text says. If I chose to present the text in playwright or scripted form as I have argued I could have presented it like this.
IJ: 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
Paul: 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
IJ: 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?
Paul: 4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written,“That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.”
IJ: 5 But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? – That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us [Jews]? (I speak in a human way.)
Paul: 6 By no means! For then how could God judge the world?
IJ: 7 But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?
Paul: 8 And why not do evil that good may come?
IJ: as some people slanderously charge us with saying.
Paul: Their condemnation is just.
In principle to argue against this presentation of the text brings into question the work of the english translators of the Greek text before me. If I go still further, and return to the bigger picture of what is going on. I now present the text in cartoon form. So we know exactly who is speaking to who (in the script), and also enable us to acknowledge the intended Roman Christian audience of the performance.
By drawing these cartoons I’m reconfiguring the text in a manner to reinforce what the text actually says about itself. I could reproduce it in script form like above, but I feel it will make greater sense of the possible implications of the text for the Roman believers this way. I could just present the flat English text, but then I would have to continually remind readers of how it would have been performed. This would involve too much repetition.
Lets return to our main questions.
Who is being spoken about? Paul and IJ are speaking about the Jewish people.
| Passage | Rom 3.1-8 |
| Who is speaking? | IJ and Paul |
| Who is being spoken to? | Paul and IJ |
| Who is being spoken about? | Jews (3.1-9) |
Rom 3.9-20
Who is speaking? We left off with Paul speaking (Rom 3.8). In Rom 3.9 someone says,
‘What then? Are we Jews any better off?’
This probably comes from IJ because it is a reaction to the consequences of Paul’s prior arguments. It is based on a prior assumption the speaker thought the Jews were ‘better off’ than Gentiles. The ‘we’ (derived in part from the Greek term ‘προεχόμεθα’ with transliteration ‘proechometha’) coming from IJ, most likely refers to Paul and IJ both as Jews. The following text answers this question,
‘No, not at all’
This must be Paul’s response to IJ’s question. Importantly for the consideration of an earlier section of text, Paul says in the remainder of Rom 3.9,
‘For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin’.
Who have we assumed so far to have made the charges of sin against Jews and Greeks in Romans 1-4 up to this point?
The Jews? Paul has charged IJ and Jews like him with sin in Rom 2.1-5,17-29; 3.1-8.
The Greeks? I have argued Rom 1.18-32 is a condemnation of Greeks. And who has charged the Greeks with sin? We assumed Paul, because we saw no reason in the text while reading forward to suggest a switch in speaker from Rom 1.16.
If Paul was the one charging the Gentiles in Rom 1.18-32 and then Jews in Rom 2.1-29, why does he say in Rom 3.9b,
‘we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks are under sin’?
The Greek verb rendered in part as ‘we’ is ‘προῃτιασάμεθα’. It has transliteration ‘proētiasametha’, is plural and in the aorist tense).
- ‘We’ states more than one person made charges of sin.
- ‘We’ whom I just identified as Paul and IJ who are both Jews, and
- ‘Already’ implying the charges were made in the immediate context of Paul’s dialogue with IJ.
If Paul was the only one making charges against Jews and Greeks for sin, why didn’t he say,
‘I have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks are under sin’?
Using the singular form. Paul certainly has no problem referring to himself in the first person (Rom 1.8,9,10,11,13,14,16). Paul’s use of ‘we’ could be explained in a couple ways. So I will consider a few possibilities now;
- Paul is alluding that IJ has charged the Greeks with sin (possibly in Rom 1.18-32). ‘We’ means both Paul and IJ.
- Paul and others (e,g, Timothy) have been speaking to IJ.
- Paul is using an apostolic ‘we’. When he speaks with the authority of all the apostles.
Possibility 1 – Paul is alluding IJ was the one charging the Gentiles with sin in Rom 1.18-32.
I believe the text supports this reading in some form. This possibility is consistent with IJ’s use of ‘we’ which is immediately prior. That is ‘we’ refers to both Paul and IJ (cf. Rom 2.2; 3.5,19,31). When I review the transition between Rom 1.18-32 and Rom 2.1-5 below, I will further consider this option – Paul is alluding that IJ made a judgment on Greeks similar to Rom 1.18-32, to which Paul has been responding in Rom 2.1-29.
Possibility 2 – Paul and others have been speaking to IJ
Paul and others could have been speaking to IJ. For example consider the introduction to Thessalonians.
[1:1] Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace. (1 Thes 1.1)
In this case ‘we’ could assume Paul is referring to the combined voice of himself, Silvanus and Timothy speaking. The problem with this possibility are that in Romans Paul only introduces himself (Rom 1.1).
Possibility 3 – Paul is using an apostolic ‘we’
Paul could be using an apostolic ‘we’. That is, Paul is saying he represents the apostles when he speaks. Paul uses this kind of ‘apostolic we’ in Rom 1.5; 3.28. But there is a problem with this suggestion if we apply it to Rom 3.9b. It doesn’t fit the way ‘we’ is used in the immediate context. Paul is answering IJ’s question;
IJ questions; ‘What then? Are we Jews any better off?’
Paul answers; ‘No not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks are under sin.’
This follows the same question – answer format between IJ and Paul we have observed through Rom 3.1-8. The closest ‘we’ to the one considered is in the same verse just prior. This ‘we’ refers to Paul and IJ. The proximity of this prior ‘we’ makes it unlikely Paul would then answer him using an apostolic ‘we’, because the shift in how the audience is to understand the plural reference would be confusing. Its more likely to view both instances referring to the same people, Paul and IJ.
Moving on to answering the three questions, from this point at least until 3.20, I don’t see any reason to suspect IJ has uttered anything more or Paul has switched to resume speaking to the Roman Christian audience.
Who is being spoken to? IJ and Paul.
Who is being spoken about? Rom 3.9 says Jews and Greeks (Gentiles). Rom 3.19 describes Rom 3.10-18 as the law speaking to ‘those under the law’. So at points Jews and Greeks are both spoken about, and at others just the Jews. Then it seems to return to both Jews and Gentiles when Paul says ‘the whole world’ (Rom 3.19).
| Passage | Rom 3.9-20 |
| Who is speaking? | IJ and Paul |
| Who is being spoken to? | Paul and IJ |
| Who is being spoken about? | Jews and Gentiles (3.9-20) |
Rom 3.21-26
Who is speaking? We assume Paul from Rom 3.9b.
Who is being spoken to? We assume IJ from Rom 3.9b.
Who is being spoken about? God (3.21-22,24-26), Jesus Christ (3.22), all who have sinned (3.23,24), those who have faith in Jesus (3.24,26).
| Passage | Rom 3.21-26 |
| Who is speaking? | Paul |
| Who is being spoken to? | IJ |
| Who is being spoken about? | God, Jesus Christ, all who have sinned and those of faith. |
This ends todays post. Tomorrow I will pick up from this point continuing to ask the same set of questions of the text.
Copyright © Joshua Washington and thescripturesays, 2014. All Rights Reserved.
