This long post 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.

Contents

Author, letter, and audience

a) Paul dictated the letter, Tertius writes

The apostle Paul was the author of the letter of Romans (Rom 1.1). In the introduction of the letter Paul names himself as the author.

[1:1] Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God (Rom 1.1)

However,

Paul did not write Romans. Paul dictated Romans to Tertius his scribe, who wrote down what he said.

[22] I Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord. (Rom 16.22).

Paul confirms this earlier in Romans saying,

‘I speak in a human way’ (Rom 3.5b)

and

‘Now I am speaking to you Gentiles’. (Rom 11.13)

Paul says he is speaking (Gk. λέγω). He is speaking before Tertius, as if to the Gentile believers in the Roman church.  For these reasons the paper refers to Paul’s communication in the letter as speech, and describes the utterances of the text as Paul speaking.

As the letter is nearing its completion, Paul does refer to Romans as if he was writing saying;

‘But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder’ (Rom 15.15)

What Paul is communicating by this statement, is that he is the author and therefore the owner of the letter. He does not mean he is the person who actually wrote it down on papyrus. We later find out Tertius is that person. Paul is speaking as if to the Roman believers, but he is also aware Tertius is writing what he says down on his behalf. Let me draw what this looks like using an example text from Romans 1.

Throughout this section ‘Dialogue’, I will be stringing together a series of main points. The first is;

• D1) Paul spoke the text aloud in front of his scribe Tertius who wrote it down (Rom 16.22; 11.13).

b) Paul instructs letter bearer in the letters delivery

Paul’s intention was to send the letter to the Roman Church. This is made clear when Paul says;

[7] To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: (Rom 1:7)

and

[15] So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. (Rom 1.15)

The letter had to get to Rome and Paul wasn’t going to deliver it himself. So Paul must have instructed a trusted letter bearer to take the letter to the Roman Church. Scholars today suggest from Rom 16.1-2 that Phoebe carried the letter to Rome.

16 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. (Rom 16.1-2)

The text suggests that Paul hoped or expected Phoebe would still be at the Roman church when they received this instruction in order that she would benefit from his request.

As we will find out later there are a number of places where the letter is open to misinterpretation. I assume Paul was aware of that and took steps to avoid miscommunication to his audience. The letter bearer is the only person capable of transmitting that information.

Other than Paul, no one was more qualified to communicate the letter as Paul intended and correct any misunderstanding than the people present when he initially dictated the letter. If we assume Phoebe was present, we know she would have witnessed this process and understood how the letter was intended to be orally delivered. Otherwise if she was not there at the time, at some point Paul must have made sure she was aware of any areas of possible misinterpretation, so she could influence the way the letter was communicated to the Roman believers accordingly.

c) Letter bearer takes letter to the Rome

This is fairly self explanatory.

d) The letter is read aloud to the Roman Churches according to Paul’s instruction

How did Paul intend the audience would receive his letter?

In the first century most letters were read aloud to their audiences. Consider some first century examples of how audiences interacted with scripture. Paul says to Timothy;

[12] Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. [13] Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. [14] Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you. [15] Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. [16] Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. (1 Tim 4:12-16)

Paul instructs Timothy in the primary way scripture was interacted with in the first century saying, ‘devote yourself to the public reading of scripture’ and by keeping a close watch on himself and the teaching Timothy will save his hearers. In Colossians Paul says,

‘And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.’ (Col 4.16)

Paul imagines that the letter will be ‘read among’ them. Its probable the letter will be read aloud by one person when they gather so they can all hear, rather than they all read it individually when they are all together. Likewise in Thessalonians,

‘I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.’ (1 Thes 5.27)

We can see from these quotes, Paul expects his letters to be read aloud to groups of believers when they gather together.

This same combination of public reading by the one, and hearing by the many is paired in Revelation. The apostle John says in Revelation,

[3] Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near. (Rev 1.3).

and there is a much repeated phrase that reinforces this first statement;

[7] He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’ (Rev 2.7,11,17,29; 3.6,13,22)

When John wrote revelation he expected the letter to be read aloud to the churches he was sending it to. Justin Martyr likewise, describes the early churches typical method of interacting with the scriptures,

“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen.” (Ch 67, First Apology, Justin Martyr)

Randolph Richards in Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection says, ‘Romans has more oratorical rhetoric and the strongest of oral features in Paul’s letters.’ He argues that Paul sent his representative to read his letter aloud to the Roman Christian audience.

Stirewalt in Paul, the Letter Writer says, ‘Paul is writing letters socially and theologically bound to the oral word. He does not conceive of a context in which, on reception, his word is not reanimated by oral speech.’

Douglas Campbell in The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul takes the idea of reading the letter aloud and goes further saying,

“For most people in the ancient world, reading was an aural and usually corporate experience. The people themselves were largely illiterate; their ‘reading’ was an experience of hearing the text. Indeed, even private reading was usually done aloud. This fundamentally oral/aural world was the setting in which Paul’s letters were composed and read – a setting we must recover, as best we can, if we are to hear them as Paul’s Roman Christian auditors probably did.

Paul’s letters were read out aloud by someone – presumably the letter bearer – to an audience. They were performed. In this sense, each letter exists for us rather like a script of an old play – but a script that often preserves only one actor’s lines (although an important one). …

In short, interpretation is best understood as the recovery of a set of performances by a letter bearer to an audience of listening believers.” (p531, ibid)

My main point here is – as a general rule;

Letters addressed to groups of people in the first century were intended to be read aloud to their audiences.

Letters written to individuals were obviously a likely exception. But our default assumption when we know a letter was written to a group of people, should be that the author assumed the letter would have been read aloud to them. They heard it, they didn’t read it. Same applies to Romans. There is a burden of proof for any interpreter of Romans who denies this.

We can assume with reasonable confidence that Paul expected the letter to be read aloud in a similar manner as he presented it to Tertius.

The believers in Rome didn’t meet in a single church. There were several house churches. (Dunn, cf. Rom 16; Campbell, p531) The creation of letters as long as Romans was time consuming and expensive in the first century (Richards). The time a trained scribe took to copy the four gospels has been estimated at six weeks (p25, Gospels and Acts: The First Three Gospels v. 1). So I assume it would take around a week to produce a single copy of Romans. In light of this, the letter bearer most likely moved from house church to house church with the original text.

What would Paul’s expectation be for the letter bearers involvement in the oral delivery of the letter? Paul’s oral delivery of the letter was assessed by him, Tertius and others in the room at the time.

Did Phoebe read aloud Paul’s letter to the Roman house churches according to Paul’s instruction? We don’t know. What we can assume is that if she didn’t, she would have made sure the letter was read aloud according to Paul’s instruction. So either way, whether the letter was read aloud by her or another, the letter would have been read aloud to the house churches according to Paul’s instructions.

Does it cause a problem if Phoebe was the lector? Does it conflict with Paul’s command that women should not teach (1 Tim 2.12)? Not necessarily, in New Testament times, the way people understood the role of ‘teacher’ was quite specific (see my review of John Dickson’s, Hearing her voice, A case for women giving sermons) and did not include the public reading of scripture or its interpretation. Phoebe could well have read out the letter of Romans with Paul’s instructions.

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).

Now I will build on this adding;

• D2) The Roman audiences had the text read out aloud in front of them according to Paul’s instructions.

e) The Roman Church consisted of Jewish and Gentile believers

Paul explicitly mentions his listeners in Rome have faith. The believe the gospel.

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you 10 always in my prayers, asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you— 12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine. (Rom 1.8-12)

More specifically, the letter directly addresses Gentile believers. In a verse I quoted before Paul speaks to the Gentile believers saying,

‘Now I am speaking to you Gentiles’. (Rom 11.13)

Clearly the Roman house churches included Gentile believers. There is other evidence as well. Paul says;

[5] through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations [Gentiles], [6] including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, (Rom 1.5-6)

Its harder to prove the Roman Churches included Jewish believers. I quoted Rom 11.13 above and it also proves the opposite. It describes Paul switching from speaking to the wider group to specifically the Gentiles in the group. This suggesting the wider group included Jewish believers.

Paul also singles out another specific group in his audience saying,

Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law (Rom 7.1)

These could be either Gentile ‘god-fearers’ educated in the law or Jews. Both ‘know the law’.

Consider Rom 14.1-3;

[14:1] As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. [2] One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. [3] Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. (Rom 14.1-3)

Paul is giving instructions to a group of people he believes includes two types of people. Those who are weak in faith who eat only vegetables, and those who believe they may eat anything. The Jews typically obeyed the food laws in their law. Paul is most probably speaking about them when he speaks of the ‘weak in faith’ who only eat vegetables.

We can assume from these inferences Paul intends the letter to be read out aloud to Jewish and Gentile believers.

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 audiences had the text read out aloud in front of them according to Paul’s instructions.

I will build on this adding;

• D3) The Roman churches consisted of Jewish and Gentile believers.

Displaying the context of the text by using cartoons

Each section where I discuss Romans 1-4 will include a cartoon / picture. The cartoons specifically identify important people and groups of people who are involved in the performance of the letter. The cartoon below shows Paul and a Roman Christian audience consisting of both Jewish and Gentile believers.

Why do I do this? I’m bringing to the fore some fundamental principles of biblical hermeneutics. I want to help readers of this paper to;

• Recognise the interplay between author, text and audience.

• Recognise the letter was intended to be read aloud in front of a listening audience of Jewish and Gentile believers, and
• Consider the illocutionary acts involved in the performance.

What’s an illocutionary act you ask?

Speech Act Theory and Illocutionary Acts

An illocutionary act is an aspect of Speech-Act theory. An illocution is an act performed in saying something;

For example;

As a greeting (in saying, “Hi John!”, for instance), apologizing (“Sorry for that!”), describing something (“It is snowing”), asking a question (“Is it snowing?”), making a request and giving an order (“Could you pass the salt?” and “Drop your weapon or I’ll shoot you!”), or making a promise (“I promise I’ll give it back”) are typical examples of “speech acts” or “illocutionary acts”.

In saying, “Watch out, the ground is slippery”, Mary performs the speech act of warning Peter to be careful.

In saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, please give me your attention”, Mary requests the audience to be quiet.

In saying, “I now pronounce you man and wife”, a minister seals the marriage between a couple

In saying, “You’re fired!”, a boss terminates a working relationship with his employee.

“In indirect speech acts the speaker communicates to the hearer more than he actually says by way of relying on their mutually shared background information, both linguistic and nonlinguistic. Together with general powers of rationality and inference on the part of the hearer.”

For example;

‘Do you have the time?’ – response: ‘6pm’;

‘Its cold in here’ – response: the person will turn the heater on.

The intention of a speaker’s utterance is to generate responses from their audience. Through considering the author, written text and the audience, one can derive likely responses from the audience. From these responses one can hopefully get a better understanding of the authors intentions.

When Paul first uttered what made up the contents of Romans to Tertius he performed illocutionary acts.

When the letter was performed in front of the mix of Jew and Gentile believers in Rome, it also generated illocutionary acts.

The original audience of Roman believers were under the effects of illocutionary forces generated by the performance of the Romans text.

So when I eventually step through my interpretation of Romans 1-4 I will be asking the following  questions of you (the reader of this post);

• What do you think reading this section aloud would do to a group of Jewish and Gentile believers?
• How do you think the JEWISH believers would respond?
• How do you think the GENTILE believers would respond?
• What do you think the effect of saying this to an audience of Jewish and Gentile believers would have on their GROUP DYNAMICS?
• Why do you think Paul crafted this performance this way? What was his intent?

The answers to these questions may vary from person to person. But, maybe we will come up with similar answers. It does depend on existing preconceptions of what the text is about, what people have always told you to believe about this text and many other factors. None the less, I will keep asking readers of this paper these questions in order to make them think what effect Paul wanted to have on the original audience of Jewish and Gentile believers.

Main Points

In this section I have introduced some simple ideas I believe are often overlooked in the study of Romans 1-4;

• D1) Paul spoke the text aloud in front of his scribe Tertius who wrote it down (Rom 16.22; 11.13).
• D2) The Roman audiences had the text read out aloud in front of them according to Paul’s instructions.
• D3) The Roman churches consisted of Jewish and Gentile believers (Rom 1.8).

Framing Romans (Rom 1-2)

I will be using pictures to help us visualise the author, text and audience involved in the reading of the text.

The aim of the next few sections are;

1. To apply speech act theory by considering the oral recital of Romans 1-4 to the original audience.
2. 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,
3. To suggest instructions Paul gave the letter bearer to avoid confusing the audience, and then
4. 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.

I’ve found a few links for listening to Romans. Try listening to it for yourself, because this is similar to the way the original audience heard the letter.

1. (ESV) Audio Bible – Romans, Ch. 1
2. (ESV) Audio Bible – Romans, Ch. 2
3. (ESV) Audio Bible – Romans, Ch. 3
4. (ESV) Audio Bible – Romans, Ch. 4

Method

I will be 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?

Initially we will be performing a sequential reading. This we will discover results in confusion and misinterpretation.

Hence in this section as we move forwards I will flag any texts that need reconsideration as I go along. Then from a certain point in the text I will proceed backwards with these elements in mind and start considering ways in which the confusion arising from a forward reading of the text could be overcome.

My argument will make use of pictures to help us visualise what a reading of the text aloud to the Roman believers would have looked like considering the three questions above. Again I’m doing this to help us consider the relationship between author, text and audience.

Moving Forwards

Rom 1.1-15

Who is speaking? Paul. He identifies himself as the speaker saying,

‘Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God’ (Rom 1.1)

Paul also refers to himself using the first person pronoun ‘I’ (Rom 1.8,9,10,11,13,14,15).

Who is being spoken to? The Roman believers. Paul identifies who he is speaking to saying,

‘To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints’ (Rom 1.7).

Soon afterwards he says,

‘So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.’ (Rom 1.15)

In addition to describing the Roman believers as those ‘in Rome’, he also uses the personal pronoun ‘you’ in several locations (Rom 1.6,7,8,9,10,11,13,15). For future reference, if Paul says ‘you’ we can probably assume he is speaking to the Roman believers in the second person.

What is being spoken about? Paul speaks about himself and his ministry (Rom 1.1,5), Jesus Christ (Rom 1.2-4) and the Roman believers (Rom  1.6-15). At one point Paul says,

11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you— 12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine (Rom 1.11-12).

Paul seems to be showing concern that they do not misunderstand his intentions in coming to them. I suggest he says verse 12 to further clarify what he means by verse 11. Paul is aware of possible areas of misinterpretation and does take steps to avoid it.

Passage	Rom 1.1-15
Who is speaking?	Paul
Who is being spoken to?	Roman believers
Who is being spoken about?	Paul, Jesus Christ and the Roman believers

Rom 1.16-17

A basic assumption people make when 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. So from here onwards some of our questions will be answered by carrying this assumption forward.

Who is speaking? Paul. The text uses the first person pronoun ‘I’. Which we previously identified as Paul.

Who is being spoken to? The Roman believers. The text doesn’t say. We assume so from Rom 1.15.

What is being spoken about? Paul is speaking about himself and the gospel.

Passage	Rom 1.16-17
Who is speaking?	Paul (using the personal pronoun ‘I’)
Who is being spoken to?	Roman believers (assumed from Rom 1.15)
Who is being spoken about?	Paul and the gospel

Rom 1.18-32

Who is speaking? Paul. The text doesn’t say. We assume so from Rom 1.16.

Who is being spoken to? The Roman believers. The text doesn’t say. We assume so from Rom 1.15.

What is being spoken about? We have to account for the large amount of the personal pronouns ‘their’, ‘them’ and ‘they’ (Rom 1.18,19,20,21,22,24,25,26,27,28,29,32). These personal pronouns make the following inferences;

• There are three people associated with this conversation
  • the person speaking (A)
  • the audience being spoken to (B)
  • the people being spoken about (C)
• Person A and audience B must share common ground with one another.
• Person A and audience B must be both different in some way from people C.

We’ve assumed so far Paul is the one speaking. He is Person A. We know Paul is a Jew and a believer.

Likewise, we’ve assumed Paul is speaking to a Roman Christian audience consisting of Jewish and Gentile believers.

Based on these assumptions;

• the common ground Person A (Paul) and audience B (Roman believers) have is their Christian faith (Rom 1.8,12),
• the people being spoken about logically, holding to these assumptions must therefore be unbelievers.

Therefore if we hold to these assumptions Paul is probably speaking about unbelievers.

But, there is scholarly agreement that Rom 1.18-32 is a paraphrase of the Wisdom of Solomon (Ch 13-14) containing a strong Jewish indictment against ungodly and unrighteous ‘men’. Would this have been recognisable to the Roman believers? We don’t know.

See the Excursus – Wisdom of Solomon  for a comparison of the two texts.

A careful examination of chapter 12 of Wisdom shows the ‘ungodly’ and the ‘men’ (Wis 12.9) are those who ‘dwelt of old in the holy land’ (Wis 12.3). In the context of chapters 12 and 13 the author of Wisdom is speaking about the non-Jewish (Gentile) nations, particularly those whom Israel drove out when entering the promised land. If Paul is drawing from Wisdom he is paraphrasing chapters 12 and 13 to likewise condemn unbelieving Gentiles.

If we follow this line of thought, Rom 1.18-32 is a judgement upon Gentiles or perhaps more specifically (because of the reference to homosexuality present in first century Greece) Greeks. It condemns Greeks for being ungodly, unrighteous, ‘suppressing the truth’ (Rom 1.18), being futile in thinking (Rom 1.21), foolish (Rom 1.22), idolatrous (Rom 1.23), sexually immoral (Rom 1.26-27) and sinful (Rom 1.28-32). These were typical Jewish caricatures of Greeks in the first century.

This means we can possibly narrow down who Paul is speaking about to Greek unbelievers.

Passage	Rom 1.18-32
Who is speaking?	Paul (assumed from Rom 1.16)
Who is being spoken to?	Roman believers (assumed from Rom 1.15)
Who is being spoken about?	[Greek] unbelievers

Rom 2.1-5

Who is speaking? Paul. The text doesn’t say. We assume so from Rom 1.16.

Who is being spoken to? We assume from Rom 1.15 Paul has been speaking to the Roman believers. Paul uses the personal pronoun ‘you’ to refer to the person / people he is speaking to in this passage (Rom 2.1,3,4,5). As we noted before, Paul used this same pronoun earlier to refer to the Roman believers (Rom 1.6,7,8,9,10,11,13,15). Paul’s continued use of ‘you’ suggests Paul is still speaking to the Roman believers.

In addition to this, he describes the Roman believers as ‘O man’ (Rom 2.1,3). The Greek noun for this expression is ‘νθρωπε’, it has transliteration ‘anthrōpe’ and could be rendered ‘mankind’, ‘human being’, or ‘man’. Its a reference to a singular person. Perhaps an individual in the Roman church.

Then he describes them in the plural as ‘every one who judges’ and again in the singular as ‘you the judge’. Paul is speaking to a group of people and/or a singular figure who represents them. Based on our prior assumption that Paul is speaking to the Roman believers, its probable Paul is speaking to a number of judgemental believers in the group, and perhaps a singular figure in the group as his main target.

What or Who is being spoken about? Paul is rebuking the people he is speaking to. Paul seems to be addressing a problem with the Roman believers. They seem have been judging and condemning others, yet sinning in the same ways themselves. Rom 2.1-5 says this. In context we’ve assumed Paul has just condemned unbelievers (Rom 1.18-32).

The expressions which refer to a singular person – ‘O man’ and ‘you the judge’ contradict his earlier references to Church as a group (identified as ‘you’ in the plural). Paul’s judgement on the Roman believers is a complete reversal from what he said about the Roman believers earlier. Consider;

‘I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.’ (Rom 1.8).

and

that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine. (Rom 1:12)

Paul’s statements in Rom 2.1-5 contradict his earlier statements about their commendable faith. Paul has provided no explanatory comments for the switch in the way he names the Roman believers or the description of their behaviour.

I contend this will lead to their confusion if the text is read aloud to them without some sort of prior explanation.

It also seems a considerable oversight since Paul was earlier keen to remove any possible misunderstanding (Rom 1.12).

In addition to speaking about the Roman believers (so we assume), at points Paul is speaking about God (Rom 2.2-5).

We may have to come back to this point after considering some later statements. I have added the previous table so we can consider the transition between Rom 1.18-32 and Rom 2.1-5.

Passage	Rom 1.18-32	Passage	Rom 2.1-5
Who is speaking?	Paul (assumed from Rom 1.16)	Who is speaking?	Paul (assumed from Rom 1.16)
Who is being spoken to?	Roman believers(assumed from Rom 1.15)	Who is being spoken to?	Roman believers?(assumed from Rom 1.15)
Who is being spoken about?	Unbelieving Gentiles	Who is being spoken about?	Roman believers (condemned for judgmental hypocrisy)? God (will punish them)

Rom 2.6-16

Who is speaking? Paul. We assume so from Rom 1.16.

Who is being spoken to? We’ve assumed from Rom 1.15 Paul has been speaking to the Roman believers.

What is being spoken about? God (Rom 2.6-7,11), Jews and Greeks (Rom 2.9-10). Here we find something else that doesn’t add up. If Paul was speaking about believers, why has he spoken on racial grounds (Jew, Greek) saying

[9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. [11] For God shows no partiality. (Rom 2:9-11)

and not spiritual (Believers, Unbelievers) like this?

[9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the believer first and also the unbeliever, [10] but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the believer first and also the unbeliever. [11] For God shows no partiality. (Rom 2:9-11)

This is the initial assumption we made when we considered the audience B and people C in Rom 1.18-32. We are finding more contradictions with our assumption that Paul is speaking to the Roman believers in Rom 1.18-32.

Passage	Rom 2.6-11
Who is speaking?	Paul (assumed from Rom 1.16)
Who is being spoken to?	Roman believers? (assumed from Rom 1.15)
Who is being spoken about?	God, Jews and Gentiles

Framing Romans (Rom 2-3)

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;

1. Switches from speaking to the Roman believers to IJ, and where he
2. 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;

1. From speaking to the Roman believers to IJ must occur between Rom 1.15-2.17, and the switch
2. 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.

(Note: The given text has upper and lower case greek letters. The original text however was more likely to be ‘unicals’ – uppercase only.)

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: Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?

Paul: Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.

IJ: What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?

Paul: 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: 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: By no means! For then how could God judge the world?

IJ: But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

Paul: 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;

1. Paul is alluding that IJ has charged the Greeks with sin (possibly in Rom 1.18-32). ‘We’ means both Paul and IJ.
2. Paul and others (e,g, Timothy) have been speaking to IJ.
3. 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.

Framing Romans (Rom 3-5)

Rom 3.27-31

Who is speaking? There is another question asked like Rom 3.1 voicing Jewish concerns. IJ is probably asking the question. Paul briefly answers. Paul and IJ are interacting again through this section.

Rom 3.29 poses two questions which seem to promote Paul’s argument rather than resist it. Rather than assume all questions come from IJ’s viewpoint. It is more likely in some situations Paul is asking IJ rhetorical questions to promote his argument. This is one example. So both these questions and their answer come from Paul’s voice.

Who is being spoken to? Paul and IJ are interacting again.

Who is being spoken about? Jews (Rom 3.27,29-31) and Gentiles (Rom 3.29-30)

The dialogue looks like this;

So the answers to our three questions are;

Passage	Rom 3.27-31
Who is speaking?	IJ and Paul
Who is being spoken to?	Paul and IJ
Who is being spoken about?	Jews and Gentiles

Rom 4.1-8

Who is speaking? Rom 3.31 left off with Paul answering IJ. The text asks;

[4:1] What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? [2] For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. (Rom 4:1-2)

and an answer follows;

but not before God. [3] For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” (Rom 4:2-3)

‘Our forefather’? The text makes a basic assumption that the person speaking and the person being spoken to have Abraham as their forefather. Again it seems to assume something was gained by Abraham ‘according to the flesh’. Rom 4.1-2a seems to be voiced from IJ’s viewpoint because again it presents resistance to Paul’s prior arguments. From Rom 4.1 IJ is speaking, then Paul gives an extended answer onwards from Rom 4.2b.

Who is being spoken to? From above. Paul and then IJ.

Who is being spoken about? Abraham, David, Jews and the ‘ungodly’.

Passage	Rom 4.1-8
Who is speaking?	IJ and Paul
Who is being spoken to?	Paul and IJ
Who is being spoken about?	Abraham, David, Jews and Gentiles

Rom 4.9-22

Who is speaking? Rom 4.9-10 has another set of questions and answers.

Q; Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?

A; For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness.

Q; How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised?

A; It was not after, but before he was circumcised.

These questions promote Paul’s argument rather than deny it. For this reason I don’t think it likely IJ has voiced them. Rather Paul has voiced these as rhetorical questions at IJ to further his argument with IJ. Paul continues to speak in Rom 4.9-16.

Who is being spoken to? From above I judge IJ.

Who is being spoken about? Paul is speaking about the circumcised / adherents of the law (Jews), uncircumcised (Gentiles) and Abraham before he was circumcised.

Passage	Rom 4.9-10
Who is speaking?	IPaul
Who is being spoken to?	IJ
Who is being spoken about?	The circumcised, the uncircumcised and Abraham.

Rom 4.23-5.11

4.23-25 seems a good stopping point. Lets consider the transition into chapter 5 and start with out set of assumptions from just before and ask the three questions.

Passage	Rom 4.16-22	Rom 4.23-25	Rom 5.1-11
Who is speaking?	Paul (assumed from Rom 4.2)	Paul (assumed from Rom 4.2)	Paul (assumed from Rom 4.2)
Who is being spoken to?	IJ (assumed from Rom 4.2)	IJ (assumed from Rom 4.2)	IJ (assumed from Rom 4.2)
Who is being spoken about?	Abraham	Jews and Gentiles	believers

Rom 4.23-25; Who is speaking? Paul. Assumed from Rom 4.2.

Rom 4.23-25; Who is being spoken to? Paul says in Rom 4.23-24;

[23] But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, [24] but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord,

I contend when Paul mentions the pronouns ‘ours’ and ‘us’ who believe in him. He has switched audience. Because they a share mutual belief ‘in the God who raises the dead’. Paul has switched who he is speaking to and resumed speaking to the Roman believers.

Rom 4.23-25; Who is being spoken about? Paul and the Roman believers.

Rom 5.1-11; Who is speaking? Paul. Assumed from Rom 4.2.

Rom 5.1-11; Who is being spoken to? I’ve carried forward the assumption Paul continues to speak to the Roman believers. In 5.1 Paul speaks to his audience using another personal pronoun saying ‘therefore since we have been justified by faith’. Sometimes pronouns can be ambiguous. ‘We’ could mean Paul and other believers, but not who he is speaking to, or it could mean Paul and who he is speaking to, now assuming they are all believers.

I assume the later. The text doesn’t give a strong indication IJ has converted to the Christian faith. So far 1.16-4.25 addresses issues about Jew-Gentiles throughout (1.16; 1.18-32; 2.9-10,14-16,17-29; 3.1-9,27-31; 4.1-2,9-12,16) and this changes from chapter 5 onwards. From 5.1 onwards and through chapters 5-8, the text stops referring to ‘Jew only’ and ‘Gentile also’ issues which are a prominent theme of Romans 1-4.

The verses of 5.1,5,6,8,10 suggest from 5.1 onwards that Paul is speaking to believers. Since IJ has been identified as a unbelieving Jew (Rom 2.17; a Jew, Rom 3.7; a sinner under judgement), Paul has most likely shifted from his dialogue with unbelieving IJ (1.16-4.22) and has resumed speaking to the believers in Rome (5.1f). Again without giving explicit notice.

Stopping at 4.25 is Douglas Campbell’s position and part of his argument is that there is a shift in soteriologies between 1.16-4.25 and 5.1-8.39. I’ve drawn a couple pictures below to explain. Recall my section on the Christian framework describing how the apostles relate to their church audiences.

The diagram above represents the way Paul is interacting with IJ in his letter.

Because of the statements Paul makes towards IJ and IJ’s statements about himself, I have located IJ at the C1 Sinner location in the framework from Paul’s point of view. Paul’s arguments about IJ come from this viewpoint because IJ is not a Christian, does not believe the gospel and has not been saved. The assumptions and statements Paul makes to IJ reflect a forward looking perspective to various events I have described in my framework. Consider the following;

[3] Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? [4] Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? [5] But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. (Rom 2:3-5)

In Rom 2.1-5, Paul condemns IJ as a unrepentant hypocritical judge and storing up future wrath of God. He is looking forward from C1 to C4 and C5.

[21] you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? [22] You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? [23] You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. [24] For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (Rom 2:21-24)

In Rom 2.21-24; Paul describes IJ in the same way he describes the ‘unrighteous’ in 1 Cor 6.9-10 who will not inherit the kingdom of God. The ‘unrighteous’ are C1 Sinners, they will not inherit the kingdom of God. This suggests again, by IJ’s behaviour that he is a C1 Sinner.

[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)

In Rom 2.25-27; Paul suggests IJ who breaks the law (another suggestion he is a C1 Sinner) will be condemned the future by obedient Gentiles. Paul is looking forward from C1 to C4.

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? (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? (Rom 3:5-7)

In Rom 3.5-7; IJ identifies himself as a ‘Sinner’ under judgement who will endure God’s wrath. IJ identifies himself as a C1 Sinner and the statements look forward from this position to the events of C4 and C5.

Overall, Romans 2-3 locates IJ in the C1 Sinner location according to the framework and before the C2 event of salvation described in the earlier section. Romans 2-3 continually looks forward to the future events of judgement (C4) and wrath of God (C5) from the C1 Sinner location and the outcome is clearly undesirable.

In Rom 3.22-25 Paul presents God’s solution to sinful humanities plight and describes the initial event of salvation.

[22b] For there is no distinction: [23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24] and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. (Rom 3:22-25)

It is important to realise the C2 event of salvation here is viewed from the C1 Sinner location because Paul is speaking to IJ a C1 Sinner.

In Romans 5 however, Paul resumes speaking to the Roman believers.

Hence I’ve located them at the C3 location and Paul’s perspective now looks back to initial justification and reconciliation with God Paul knows the Roman believers have already experienced and forward expecting deliverance from God’s wrath. For example consider;

[5.1] Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (Rom 5.1-2)

[8] but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. [9] Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.  (Rom 5:8-11)

Hopefully you can see in Rom 3.24-25 and Rom 5.8-9 Paul is looking at the same C2 event of justification from different viewpoints. When speaking to IJ, Paul looks forward from C1 to C2, because IJ is an unbelieving Jew, a C1 Sinner. When speaking to the Roman believers, Paul looks backward from C3 to C2, because they are believers, we know they have been saved and have all the benefits of believing the gospel.

From Romans 5 onwards Paul also looks forward to the return of Christ, end time judgement (C4) and resurrection (C5). He does this in an entirely different and positive light to that in Rom 1.18-3.20. As I have shown previously this forward and backward looking from the C3 location is the dominant perspective adopted by the apostles when ministering to their believing audiences.

Douglas Campbell highlights the significant shift in assumptions which arise from whom Paul is speaking to. Unfortunately, many interpreters commonly miss this shift (Campbell 2009, 62-89,406-409). The shift takes place because Paul has changed who he is speaking too. That is, he has switched from his dialogue with IJ in Rom 1.16-4.25 and resuming to address the Roman believers from Rom 5.1 onwards.

I slightly modify Campbell’s position though. I think the transition between whom Paul is speaking to makes more sense from if we start from Rom 4.23-25 because Paul’s intent seems to assure his audience who already believe when he says;

[23] But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, [24] but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, [25] who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. (Rom 4.23-25)

Paul’s reference, ‘but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe’ (Rom 4.24) is a definite possibility that a change in audience has occurred. Here, Paul could be making a segway to the Roman believers, reaffirming the gospel, its benefits and assuring them with these statements.

Rom 5.1-11; Who is being spoken about? The Roman believers. Assumed from Rom 5.1 and above.

Passage	Rom 4.16-22	Passage	Rom 4.23-25	Passage	Rom 5.1-11
Who is speaking?	Paul (assumed from Rom 4.2)	Who is speaking?	Paul (assumed from Rom 4.2)	Who is speaking?	Paul (assumed from Rom 4.2)
Who is being spoken to?	IJ (assumed from Rom 4.2)	Who is being spoken to?	Roman believers (‘us’ and Rom 5.1)	Who is being spoken to?	Roman believers
Who is being spoken about?	Abraham	Who is being spoken about?	Roman believers	Who is being spoken about?	believers

Framing Romans (Rom 2-1)

Moving Backwards

Considering the standard blocks of text interpreters divide Romans 1-4 into, the switch from the Roman believers to IJ before Rom 2.17 could have occurred at;

1. Rom 2.1, or
2. Rom 1.18, or
3. Rom 1.16.

So we should work backwards now, considering the question ‘Who is Paul speaking to?’ For simplicity since I have argued Rom 2.1-29 Paul is speaking to IJ, so I will jump back to Rom 1.18-32.

Back to Rom 1.18-32

Let me bring up the table considering the transition from Rom 1.18-32 to Rom 2.1-5 with what we worked out.

Passage	Rom 1.18-32	Passage	Rom 2.1-5
Who is speaking?	Paul (assumed from Rom 1.16)	Who is speaking?	Paul (assumed from Rom 1.15)
Who is being spoken to?	Roman believers(assumed from Rom 1.15)	Who is being spoken to?	Imaginary Jew (IJ)
Who is being spoken about?	Unbelievers Gentiles	Who is being spoken about?	IJ and judgmental Jews (condemned for hypocrisy) and God (will punish them)

We need to review some of the answers in this table. We can see an immediate transitory tension with the answers to the question ‘Who is being spoken to?’ When there is a switch we will notice a transitory tension. So this could be the spot. We should also reconsider ‘Who has Paul been speaking about?’

Rom 1.18-32; Who is speaking? We assumed Paul from Rom 1.16. At the time it made for a smooth transition so we assumed Paul was the one speaking. But, we need to consider how Paul’s statement in Rom 3.9 affects our understanding of Rom 1.18-32. Remember, Paul said;

‘For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin’ (Rom 3.9).

And because of this text I suggested that IJ is in some way associated with Rom 1.18-32. IJ has charged the Greeks with sin. The immediate context and Paul’s use of ‘therefore’ in Rom 2.1-5 suggests the following;

a) Paul has spoken Rom 2.1-5 aware that IJ knew what was being said in Rom 1.18-32. Paul refers to the things that have been mentioned in Rom 1.18-32;

‘because you, the judge, practice the very same things.’ (Rom 2.1)

We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. (Rom 2.2)

‘Do you suppose, O man — you who judge those who practice such things’ (Rom 2.3)

How would Paul assume IJ knew what he meant by ‘the very same things’ and ‘such things’ unless he believed IJ knew what was said in Rom 1.18-32? Paul assumes outright that IJ knows what was said in Rom 1.18-32. Therefore Rom 1.18-32 is part of the dialogue Paul is having with IJ.

b) Paul has spoken Rom 2.1-5 knowing IJ and others like him judge others for the same things as in Rom 1.18-32.

In Rom 2.1 he says,

‘Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself.’ (Rom 2.1)

‘Do you suppose, O man — you who judge those who practice such things’ (Rom 2.3)

Paul is accusing IJ of judging and therefore, Paul is responding to IJ’s prior judgement on others.

So here is another point from the text suggesting IJ was charging the Greeks with sin which is alluded to in Rom 3.9. Paul actually says IJ was the one who passed judgement on another. Paul says in Rom 2.1 and then Rom 3.9;

Paul: Therefore you [IJ] have no excuse, … ‘For in passing judgment on another …’ …

IJ: What then? Are we [Paul & IJ] Jews any better off?’

Paul: No, not at all. For we [Paul & IJ] have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin’ (Rom 3.9).

The way Paul says this implies IJ had made a judgement. Its possible IJ was the one speaking in Rom 1.18-32 to which Paul is responding from Rom 2.1 onwards.

Note again the frequent use of the personal pronouns ‘their’, ‘them’ and ‘they’ in Rom 1.18,19,20,21,22,24,25,26,27,28,29, 32. The person uttering the condemnation in Rom 1.18-32 is passing judgement on other people, but not himself. That’s what Paul says;

Paul: Therefore you [IJ] have no excuse, … ‘For in passing judgment on another …’

Who does IJ (a Jew) judge when he is pronouncing judgment on ‘those who practice such things’? Jews like himself? Not likely considering the speaker A, audience B, people C relationships we discussed earlier. More probably IJ judges Greeks in this way. IJ judges Greeks ‘who practice such things’.

c) Paul has spoken Rom 2.1-5 as a response to IJ’s judgement on Greeks. We can see this from Rom 2.1,3

Paul: ‘Therefore you [IJ] have no excuse because you [IJ] practice the same things [as the Greeks you judge].’ (Rom 2.1)

Paul: ‘Do you suppose, O man—you [IJ] who judge those [Greeks] who practice such things and yet do them yourself…’(Rom 2.3)

Paul is in agreement with IJ’s judgment. This is clear from Rom 2.2-3

Paul: We [Paul & IJ] know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you [IJ] who judge those [Greeks] who practice such things…

But he doesn’t like the fact that IJ is judging the Greeks, when he also does the same things. Paul’s made an issue of this. So, Paul is using IJ’s theology and judgment against him. In Rom 2.1-5, Paul is responding to IJ’s judgement on Greeks and using IJ’s own judgement against him.

Rom 1.18-32 must be recognised as IJ’s judgment on Greeks as well as Paul’s. Paul’s use of ‘therefore’ suggests Paul uttered Rom 1.18-32. But what Paul says from Rom 2.1 onwards makes it clear what was said was meant to be IJ’s judgment.

If we look ahead as well to Rom 2.26-27, Paul still responding to IJ’s prior judgment, creates the possible reverse situation where an obedient Gentile could condemn IJ.

Paul: Therefore you [IJ] have no excuse, … ‘For in passing judgment on another [the Greeks]’ (Rom 2.1)

(PAUL RESPONDS TO IJ’S JUDGEMENT) …

Paul: 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 [IJ] who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. (Rom 2.26-27)

(PAUL CREATES A POSSIBLE SITUATION OF A REVERSAL IN JUDGEMENT) …

Paul: For we [Paul and IJ] have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin’ (Rom 3.9).

(PAUL REFERS TO IJ’s JUDGEMENT ON GREEKS, AND HIS OWN JUDGEMENT ON JEWS)

Rom 2.26-27 seems to be a deliberate reversal of what IJ imagined or expected would happen in the future judgement. If like in Rom 1.18-32, IJ the Jew condemns the Greeks (Gentiles), Paul responds, in the defense of Gentiles, and highlights the possibility they could condemn IJ. The reversal of judgement seems to suggest Paul is reacting against an earlier condemnation by IJ of Gentiles.

And again in Rom 3.29 Paul asks IJ,

Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, (Rom 3.29)

Implying again IJ as a Jew was alienating Gentiles (Greeks) from God as in Rom 1.18-32 to which Paul responds from then onwards arguing that there are some Gentiles who will be justified (Rom 2.13-14; 3.30) and receive praise from God (2.26-29).

In summary, my argument that Rom 1.18-32 is also IJ’s condemnation of Greeks is based on these elements in the text;

1) Rom 1.18-32 is part of the same dialogue he’s having with IJ.

In Rom 2.1-5 and referring to Rom 1.18-32 (especially Rom 1.29-31) Paul says;

Paul [to IJ]: because you, the judge, practice the very same things.(Rom 2:1)

Paul [to IJ]: on those who practice such things (Rom 2.2)

Paul [to IJ]: those who practice such things (Rom 2.3)

The references to the ‘same things’ and ‘such things’ said to IJ, imply Romans 1.18-32 was part of the same dialogue between Paul and IJ and not primarily directed by Paul at the Roman Christian audience. At this point they are meant to understand Paul is in dialogue with IJ.

2) More than one person has charged people with sin in the dialogue.

The dialogue between Paul and IJ in Rom 3.9 has;

IJ: What then? Are we Jews any better off?

Paul: No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, (Rom 3:9)

By using the plural (‘we-have-already-charged’) in Rom 3.9b Paul states that more than one person has been involved in charging Jews and Greeks with being under sin. In the immediate context the plural refers to both Paul and IJ.

In the dialogue the Greeks are condemned with sin in Rom 1.18-32 and the Jews are condemned with sin in Rom 2.1-29. We know Paul has condemned IJ and some Jews with sin in Rom 2.1-29. This carries the logical implication that IJ is associated with the judgment of Greeks in Rom 1.18-32.

3) Paul says in Rom 2.1-5  IJ passed judgement on the Greeks.

Paul [to IJ]: ‘every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another’ (Rom 2:1)

Paul [to IJ]: ‘you who judge those who practice such things’ (Rom 2.3)

4) Paul’s arguments following Rom 2.1 are in response to IJ’s judgement of the Greeks (Gentiles).

Following mention of IJ’s judgment on Greeks, Paul opposes IJ’s assumption by putting them on equal ground with the Jews.

Paul [to IJ]: There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality. (Rom 2:9–11)

Paul [to IJ]: For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. (Rom 2:13–14)

Paul [to IJ]: So, if a man who is uncircumcised [a Gentile] 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 2:26–27)

Paul [to IJ]: For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. (Rom 3:28–30)

Paul [to IJ]: 9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised [Jews], or also for the uncircumcised [Gentiles]? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised [believing Gentiles], so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, (Rom 4:9–11)

Rom 1.18-32; Who is speaking? Paul, but IJ is associated with it.

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).
• D6) The interaction between Paul and IJ dominates most of Romans 1-4.
• a) Both speak to one another (cf. Rom 3.1-9; 3.27-4.1).

Now I will build another onto point 6.

• b) Paul is responding to IJ who has judged Greeks (cf. 1.18-32; 2.1-5; Rom 3.9b).

Rom 1.18-32; Who is being spoken to? We originally assumed the Roman believers. Making this assumption creates a significant transitory tension. But from above, it seems IJ is speaking to Paul.

Rom 1.18-32; Who is being spoken about? unbelievers? We based this on a wrong assumption that Paul was speaking to the Roman believers. Considering the speaker A, audience B, people C relationships we discussed earlier. Paul and IJ share a common Jewish heritage, but not Christian faith. The just condemned are Gentiles. Are they Gentile believers? I assume IJ would judge Gentile believers without any concern. This gives rationale for Paul’s defense of Gentiles from Rom 2.1 onwards.

Passage	Rom 1.18-32	Passage	Rom 2.1-5
Who is speaking?	IJ	Who is speaking?	Paul
Who is being spoken to?	Paul	Who is being spoken to?	Imaginary Jew (IJ)
Who is being spoken about?	Gentiles	Who is being spoken about?	IJ and judgmental Jews (condemned for hypocrisy) and God (will punish them)

This relieves the transitory tension we initially assumed by thinking Paul was addressing the Roman believers and makes sense of Rom 2.1-5 and 3.9.

But we still need to consider how far back Paul’s dialogue with IJ goes. So we should continue working backwards considering the question ‘Who is Paul speaking to?’

Back to Rom 1.16-17

Who is speaking? Paul. We assume so from Rom 1.15. But based on Rom 3.9 and Rom 2.1-5 the text suggests Rom 1.18-32 is part of the dialogue Paul is having with IJ and is associated with IJ’s own judgment on Greeks. So is Paul or IJ speaking in Rom 1.16-17? In Rom 2.16 Paul says,

‘on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.’ (Rom 2.16)

When speaking to IJ, Paul claims the gospel as his own. Its not IJ’s. This eliminates the possibility IJ is speaking in Rom 1.16-17. Paul must be speaking, and this is strongly reinforced with verse 15.

Who is being spoken to? Is Paul speaking to the Roman believers as we originally assumed or is he speaking to IJ?  Moving forward through the text, we would normally assume (as we did) Paul is still speaking to the Roman believers from Rom 1.16 onwards. Traditionally this is always done. But now considering the dialogue between Paul and IJ, Rom 1.16 and onwards could be part of the dialogue and like before Paul hasn’t given notice.

Rom 1.16-17 is a statement concerning the gospel. The closest references in both directions to the noun ‘gospel’ are; backwards at Rom 1.15 (to the Roman believers) and forwards Rom 2.16 (to IJ) where Paul says ‘according to my gospel’. Rom 1.16-17 could either be part of Paul’s statements to the Roman believers in Rom 1.1-15 or part of his dialogue with IJ.

If Rom 1.16-17 is included in the dialogue between Paul and IJ, it is the first instance where Paul addresses IJ. From this first mention of Paul’s ‘gospel’, IJ could acknowledge Paul’s portrayal of it when he says ‘my gospel’ within the dialogue at Rom 2.16. Rom 1.16 also states an expression used in the dialogue, ‘to the Jew first and also to the Greek’ as in Rom 2.9,10. Providing further support Rom 1.16-17 is included in the dialogue.

On the other hand, Rom 1.16-17 makes sense of the introductory statements made to the Roman concerning the gospel and provides further justification for Paul wanting to preach the gospel in Rome (Rom 1.15).

15 So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (Rom 1.15-16)

I find the possibility that Paul has begun at this point speaking to IJ has insufficient support considering its immediate context. Paul is speaking to the Roman believers.

How would the lector know of the a switch from;

• Paul speaking in Rom 1.16-17 to the Roman believers, to
• the dialogue between Paul and IJ, with IJ speaking to Paul in Rom 1.18-32?

Two suggestions;

1) The letter bearer was told in advance that Romans 1-4 contains a speech-in-character dialogue between Paul and an imaginary Jew, and

2) Paul’s use of ‘For’ at the start of Rom 1.18 is redundant and does not facilitate a logical connection between verses 17 to 18. As Douglas Campbell comments Paul’s use of redundant ‘for’’s facilitates breaks between speakers and could possibly be used to signify the switch between Paul’s discourse with the Roman believers and his dialogue with IJ.

The lector after Rom 1.16-17 can forewarn the Roman Christian audience that he is now engaging in dialogue with IJ the Jew. If this does not happen the Roman believers will assume Paul is continuing to speak to them. They will will not understand Rom 1.18-32 as part of the dialogue with IJ (as indicated in Rom 2.1-5) and will misunderstand Rom 2.1-5 thinking Paul is still speaking to them (now judging them for judgemental hypocrisy).

Who is being spoken about? As before – Paul is speaking about himself and the gospel. We have no reason to reconsider this.

Passage	Rom 1.16-17
Who is speaking?	Paul (assumed from Rom 1.15)
Who is being spoken to?	Roman believers
Who is being spoken about?	Paul and the gospel

Rom 1.16-17 is now our outer boundary we discussed in the first section considering Rom 2.17. Paul switches here without giving any explicit evidence of it in the text. I will consider how he does this below.

So overall there are significant shifts between (Campbell 2009, 587-593);

1. 1.1-15 where Paul is engaging the Roman believers (C3 Saints).
2. 1.18-4.22 where Paul is in dialogue with IJ (C1J3 Sinner and Jew).
3. 4.23 onwards where Paul resumes addressing the Roman believers (C3 Saints).

Since I have worked out Paul and IJ are interacting with one another in Rom 1.16-4.22. I have gone ahead and made several decisions which sections of text have Paul speaking to IJ, and which sections have IJ speaking to Paul.

I have made these decisions based on;

• Argumentative Questions posed and counter answers given, such as the instance in 3.1-9 above. (For the majority of 1.16-4.25 I assume that most of the argumentative questions and answers are interactions between IJ and Paul.)
• A change in the use of personal pronouns from ‘them’, ‘their’, ‘they’, to ‘we’, ‘our’, ‘you’ and ‘your’.
• Noting which sections of text condemn Gentiles, and others which defend Gentiles and condemn Jews.
• Noting which sections of text support Paul’s argument, and which sections of text seek to deny it.
• Noting switches in assumptions made of the audience between sections of text.

I have applied these to the whole text and you can see the results in the Sneak Peak after this section.

Distinguishing the speakers

How could the audience know of the switches and distinguish between speakers?

Admittedly readers today move past these sections without noticing the switch in audience. Thinking all along Paul was writing and/or speaking to the Roman believers. I have shown interpreting the text this way is misleading. An unassisted forward reading of the text is inherently confusing. In particular, Rom 2.1-5 cannot be understood correctly without forewarning that Paul is in dialogue with IJ. Rom 1.18-32 would never be perceived as part of the dialogue as Rom 2.1-5 implies, without forewarning as well.

If we assume Paul and Tertius are competent and intelligent enough to realise an unassisted forward reading of Romans 1-4 is confusing. It makes logical sense to assume they instructed the letter bearer in various ways to avoid the likely misinterpretation by their intended audience and to avoid giving offense when Paul condemns IJ.

My starting point to answer this question is to note again – Paul dictated Romans to his scribe Tertius (Rom 16.22). He did not write it. I’m assuming prior to his dictation of the letter he knew what he wanted to speak about. So when he switched from Rom 1.1-15 to Rom 1.16-4.22 and then back again from Rom 4.23 onwards, he would have done so in a manner which made it clear to those listening to his utterances of these changes. Likewise in the dialogue with IJ, when he switched between uttering his own position and that of IJ’s, he would have done so in a manner which made it clear to those watching the performance of these changes.

Hence I believe the performance of the text was intended to be comprehensible to the original audience provided it was made clear to them in ways beyond the text what was happening.

My proposal for how the audience understood these switches is;

• Paul dictated the letter to Tertius and performed it in such a manner as to make these switches clear.
• Paul would have created stage instructions for the letter bearer to either use herself or pass on to the lector to enable the audience to distinguish between speakers.
• The lector would have spoken to the audience beforehand so they knew what was being read out was a dialogue between Paul and an imaginary Jew.
• The lector would be trained to posit non-verbal clues such as changes in tone, timing, facial expressions, gesture, posture, distance, and movement. These would allow the audience to distinguish between speakers and whom was being spoken to.

Just like any stage performance.

One person would have performed this text. In the historical context, this was the letter bearer and/or the reader. Paul’s training of the letter bearer’s would prepare them to perform the text just as Paul did before his scribe. Their performance would allow the Roman believers to tell who was speaking to whom.

For clarity the cartoons I have drawn show two people. These are representations of Paul and IJ, in order to make it clear who I believe is speaking and whom is being spoken to as we look at the text. I acknowledge it likely only a single person performed the text, however for clarity in my paper the cartoons will show two people.

Main Points

Douglas Campbell also has a go at this kind of reading. Check this link (goto 1:22:00 and wait for it to load) out.

In this section I have observed the text is much more complicated than normally assumed. I’ve framed the text in a manner that significantly differs from traditional interpretations. So I will review again the main points of my logic that got us here;

• 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 (Rom 1.8).
• 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).
• D6) The interaction between Paul and IJ dominates most of Romans 1-4.
• a) Paul and IJ speak to one another (cf. Rom 3.1-9; 3.27-4.1).
• b) Paul is responding to IJ who has judged Greeks (cf. 1.18-32; 2.1-5; Rom 3.9b).

In conclusion, the dialogue between Paul and IJ which dominates most of Romans 1-4, was performed in front of the Roman audience consisting of both Jewish and Gentile believers.

The next section is another post. In it I give a sneak peek of what a performance of the text would look like with a series of cartoons.

---

Copyright © Joshua Washington and thescripturesays, 2014. All Rights Reserved.

Save