Christ Replaces The Law, But Israel Remains The People of God - Farla, Pier

Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 93/4 (2017) 581-632. doi: 10.2143/ETL.93.4.
3256942
© 2017 by Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses. All rights reserved.
“Christ Replaces the Law, –

but Israel Remains the People of God”
The Rhetorical Dispositio of Romans 1,13–11,36
Piet Farla
It remains an intriguing question what could have motivated Paul to

write such an extensive and theologically consequential letter to the Chris-
tian community in Rome, a community he did not found but which he did
praise (Rom 1,9-12). The central issue is whether the letter primarily
reflects the author’s interests, or rather the situation of the addressees. Paul
was planning to expand his activities to the west, to Spain, and he hoped
to find support for this mission in the Christian community of Rome
(Rom 15,23-24)1. He sent the Christians of Rome a letter with the purpose
of establishing fruitful cooperation with them. Before giving them advice
on a number of practical issues (12,1ff), perhaps he first (in 1–11) wished
to present to them the central themes of his theology as these had devel-
oped over the preceding years in countless conversations and discussions?
Did Paul realise, on the basis of previous experience (see for instance
Gal), that his gospel might encounter resistance, and was he intent on pre-
empting this as much as possible by committing to paper his opinion on
a number of issues that were important to him? Or, conversely, had debate
already erupted, and did he feel compelled – in view of his missionary
plans – to address a number of misunderstandings and imputations con-
cerning him and his teaching, perhaps misunderstandings that had been
imported to Rome from other Christian communities?
One might expect that an analysis of this letter according to the model
of classical rhetorical oratory would shed new light on the matter2, but
attempts to do this have shown that this kind of analysis yields very few
1. See M. Theobald, Der Römerbrief (EdF, 294), Darmstadt, 2000, p. 36.
2. “A rhetorical approach to Paul’s letters will attempt to account for the way in which
Paul’s own situation and person, and the congregation, are integrated. A rhetorical-critical
method will synthesize historical and sociological hypotheses with theological conceptions,
for all are part of the rhetorical act. Authors and audiences are real and historical, and
rhetorical texts engage both”, according to J.A. Crafton, Paul’s Rhetorical Vision and the
Purpose of Romans: Towards a New Understanding, in NovT 32 (1990) 317-339, p. 318.
On the possibilities and limitations of a rhetorical-critical interpretation of Paul’s letters, see
the recent article by C.J. Classen, Can the Theory of Rhetoric Help Us to Understand the
New Testament, and in Particular the Letters of Paul?, in S.E. Porter – B.R. Dyer (eds.),
Paul and Ancient Rhetoric: Theory and Practice in the Hellenistic Context, Cambridge,
2016, 13-39.
582 P. Farla
results in this case, unlike for other letters by Paul. 1. There is uncertainty
about the delimitation of the exordium and the narratio, and it is even
unclear whether there is in fact a narratio at all; this also means that we
are unsure what the precise ‘causa’ or ‘issue’ is that the letter addresses3.
2. 1,16-17 is generally considered to be the propositio, but it has also been
suggested that these verses state the ‘theme’ of the letter: this, however,
is to confuse exordium and propositio: the exordium states the ‘issue’, the
propositio articulates the speaker’s opinion on the issue. 3. Scholars
usually agree on the delimitation of the argumentatio (1,18–15,13; pos-
sibly 1,18–11,36), but this section is so large, and so complex and obscure
that one of the letter’s major problems is the mutual relation between the
various parts of the argumentatio, and precisely on this structural aspect
the rhetorical model has little to offer4. The conclusion must be that the
model of rhetorical oratory does not apply to the letter to the Romans.
At least, it does not apply to the letter as a whole: it is applicable, but
to the three parts of Rom 1–11 separately: 1–4; 5–8; 9–115. This insight
admittedly rests on two unorthodox presuppositions: 1. The addressees are
not Gentiles, but Jewish Christians. 2. 1,16-17 is not the ‘theme’ or propo
sitio of the letter, but is part of the exordium (1,13-17) of the argument of
1,13–4,25. Both hypotheses will be briefly justified in an introductory
section: only an analysis of the three parts mentioned can provide defini-
tive proof. The three subsequent sections of this article provide an attempt
3. T.W. Martin, Invention and Arrangement in Recent Pauline Rhetorical Studies:
A Survey of the Practices and the Problems, in J.P. Sampley – P. Lampe (eds.), Paul and
Rhetoric, New York – London, 2010, 48-118, p. 79. (The quotation in n. 2 has been derived
from this article, p. 81).
4. The rhetorical-critical commentaries of R. Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Min-
neapolis, MN, 2007, and B. Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-
Rhetorical Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, prove this: both regard 1,1-12.13-15 or
1,8-10.11-15 respectively as exordium and narratio, 1,16-17 as propositio, 1,18–15,13 as
argumentatio, and 15,14–16,23 or 15,14-21.30-33 respectively as peroratio. They have dis-
tinguished four or twelve rounds of arguments respectively in the argumentatio (four:
1,18–4,25; 5–8; 9–11; 12,1–15,13; twelve: 1,18–2,16; 2,17–3,20; 4,1-25; 5,1-11; 5,12-21;
6–7; 8,1-17; 8,18-39; 9–11; 12; 13; 14,1–15,13; Witherington regards 3,21-31 as a “reca-
pitulation and expansion” of the propositio). But the following holds true for both: “Deut-
lich ist, dass diese rhetorische Analyse nicht über die klassischen thematischen Gliederungs-
vorschläge hinausführt”, according to O. Wischmeyer, Römerbrief, in Id. (ed.), Paulus:
Leben – Umwelt – Werk – Briefe, Tübingen, 22012, 281-314, p. 294, on comparable divi-
sions (1,1-15: exordium; 1,16-17: propositio; 1,18–15,13: argumentatio; 15,14–16,23:
peroratio) by W. Wuellner and E. Lohse.
5. According to J.-N. Aletti, La présence d’un modèle rhétorique en Romains: Son
rôle et son importance, in Bib 71 (1990) 1-24, and Id., The Rhetoric of Romans 5–8, in
S.E. Porter – Th.H. Olbricht (eds.), The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from
the 1995 London Conference (JSNTSup, 146), Sheffield, 1997, 294-308, Rom 1,16-17 is
the “proposition principale” that is elaborated in “propositions secondaires”. “Paul pro-
ceeds by relatively argumentative units (…) which, while being strongly linked, have each
in them a dispositio that is quite complete and autonomous” (p. 295). As will be seen, the
analysis proposed in this article is substantially different.
The Rhetorical Dispositio of Romans 1,13–11,36 583
to do just that. We have limited ourselves in our argumentation6. The

analysis is concentrated entirely on clarifying the rhetorical structure of
the text as well as the function of its parts in their mutual interdependence.
A more detailed examination of individual passages is not necessary as far
as Rom 1–4 and 5–8 is concerned. Rom 9–11 does however require closer
inspection, precisely because of its more complex structure, involving
duplication in the rhetorical structure.
I. Guiding Premises
1. The Communicative Situation

Many authors have observed that the letter to the Romans has a double
character: Paul wrote this letter for an audience of Christians of Gentile
background, but at the same time in many passages he engages in heated
discussion with Judaism, the election of Israel and the Jewish Law 7.
Communication therefore operates at two levels: a fictitious dialogue of
the second degree with Jewish or Jewish Christian objections against
Paul’s contentions is embedded in communication of the first degree with
Christians of Gentile background8. This arrangement of the text has
inevitably led to the conclusion that the letter must be read from the per-
spective of the author’s situation. In order to establish good collaboration
6. References to and debate with exegetical literature have been kept to a minimum and
mainly concern the justification of our proposal for the interpretation of 9–11. We have
made frequent use of the works by Theobald (n. 1), Jewett (n. 4) and Witherington (n. 4)
that have already been cited, as well as the following commentaries: H. Ridderbos, Aan
de Romeinen, Kampen, 1959; H. Schlier, Der Römerbrief (HTKNT, 6), Freiburg, 1977;
U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (EKKNT, Studienausgabe), 2010; D.J. Moo,
The Epistle to the Romans, Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, 1996; A.J. Hultgren,
Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, 2011.
7. See W.S. Campbell, The Addressees of Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Assemblies of
God in House Churches and Synagogues?, in F. Wilk – J.R. Wagner (eds.), Between
Gospel and Election: Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11 (WUNT, 257),
Tübingen, 2010, 171-195, p. 192: “One of the characteristic features of Romans is the
double character as a letter addressed to Gentiles but at many points dealing with Israel
(…)”.
8. Theobald, Römerbrief (n. 1), p. 267: “…über weiten Strecken in seinem Schreiben”
Paul conducts a fictitious “dialogus cum Iudaeo”, which has nothing to do with the address-
ees of the letter, but has “gewiss auch (…) ‘Relevanz’” for them. And, ibid., p. 74:“Wie
Zuschauer im Parkett werden die Adressaten Zeugen einer Auseinandersetzung auf der
Bühne des Briefs (dialogus cum Iudaeo). Diese will sie am Ende aber nicht als neutrale
Beobachter, sondern als Parteigänger des Paulus entlassen. Verwickelt in die Inszenierung
jenes Dialogs sollen sie zustimmend zu Paulus Stellung nehmen”. According to Wilckens,
Der Brief an die Römer (n. 6), II, p. 190, on the contrary, Paul conducts “die ganze
Erörterung des Briefkorpus vor der römischen Gemeinde in ständiger Auseinandersetzung
mit der Synagoge”.
584 P. Farla
with the community in Rome, Paul gives them a presentation of his inter-
pretation of the gospel that is as specific and as clear as possible9. But this
view of the letter raises important questions. Not only does it mean that
transitions from one communication level to the next have to be identified,
it is also necessary to explain how Paul thinks that the discussion with
Judaism is relevant to Gentile Christians: even if Paul did develop his
theology in confrontation with Judaism, why is he presenting his insights
to the Gentile Christians in precisely this way? Of course a careful distinc-
tion must be made between historical and literary details; it would be
wrong simply to jump to the conclusion that the letter was addressed to
Jewish Christians, but given that the community in Rome included not
only Gentile, but also Jewish Christians (see also 9,24)10, this is a possibil-
ity, all the more so because the letter deals with issues that were particu-
larly explosive to Jewish Christians11.
The argument that the letter is addressed to Christians of Gentile back-
ground effectively rests on three texts: 1,5-6; 1,13 and 11,1312. But these
texts do not prove that the argument is true. In the extensive elaboration
(1,1b-6) of the standard address (1,1a.7) Paul legitimises himself as
“the Apostle of the Gentiles”, who as such takes the liberty of writing to
the community in Rome: the Christians in Rome, too, belong to “the
Gentiles” (1,5-6). The addressees are not the “Gentile Christians”, but, as
1,7 says explicitly and unequivocally, “all who are God’s beloved in
Rome, the saints who were called”, ‘the’ Christians in Rome. Paul’s apos-
tolate among the Gentiles also extends to Rome. In 1,13, too, “among you,
as … among the Gentiles elsewhere” does not imply that all members of
the community are Gentile Christians – Paul too knows better than that –
but that the community as a whole belongs to Paul’s missionary territory.
He considers his work among the Gentiles in the east of the Empire to be
completed (15,17-21), and this gives him the opportunity to realise his
long-cherished desire to go to Rome (15,22-24; cf. 1,14-15). Rom 1,5-
6.13 (and 15,16) in fact say nothing about the composition of the com-
munity. But if the community in Rome consisted of both Gentile and
Jewish Christians, then it is conceivable that Paul would initially address
the community as a whole, but subsequently only one of these two groups,
or that he would alternate between one group and the other. In effect this
9. Theobald, Römerbrief (n. 1), p. 41.

10. See Jewett, Romans (n. 4), pp. 18-23.
11. According to S. Schreiber, Der Römerbrief in seiner Zeit: Aspekte einer histori-
schen Exegese, in S. Loos – Th. Schumacher – H. Zaborowski (eds.), Paulus. An die
Römer: Urtext-Übersetzungen-Philosophische und theologische Interpretationen (IQ, 3),
Freiburg – München, 2013, 337-350, three factors are important when it comes to determi-
ning the communicative situation: 1. Paul’s missionary plans; 2. the discussion about the
coexistence of Jewish and Gentile Christians; 3. the confrontation with the political power
(pp. 341-344).
appears to be what happens in 11,13. The introduction “Let me say then

to you Gentiles…” can be interpreted as a request for renewed attention
on the part of the readers, the readers to whom Paul has been addressing
himself all along, but it can also be read as a call to attention from those
readers who had not so far been addressed directly. It depends on one’s
idea of who the reader of the preceding discourse was whether one prefers
one interpretation or the other13. Yet the formula – “Let me say then to
you Gentiles”, with “to you” following the conclusions of 11,1-12 some-
what abruptly and placed at the beginning for emphasis14, as well as
the elementary addressing of the group as “Gentiles” – point more to the
latter than to the former possibility. This would mean that Paul addresses
the Gentile Christians here for the first time, following on from what he
has said in the preceding discourse about the unbelieving part of Israel and
in 11,12 about the role of the Gentiles in salvation history. As the apostle
to the Gentiles, he expresses his concern for Israel, and appeals to the
Gentile Christians’ responsibility towards Israel. The following analysis
will therefore assume that the entire argument up to 11,12 was intended
for Jewish Christian readers. (This removes many difficulties of inter
pretation, and this is possibly a good sign).
Paul is writing to Jewish Christians, and his letter deals with the prob-
lems that existed in the community, problems that they, Jewish Christians,
had with Paul’s teaching. Paul is defending himself against them; he is
not writing about theological issues as a theologian who teaches patiently,
but as a fiery, often indignant and misunderstood orator. He praises the
community and adopts an attitude of humility (1,8-12), but that is rhe-
torical sophistication; what he has to say to his readers is radical and
shocking, as he subsequently admits (15,15-16). It is clear from the start
that he is on the defensive: Rom is a work of apologetics. Despite the
interest in the ‘theme’ of the letter (1,16-17 or 1,16b-17), modern readers
are prone to overlook the function of the introduction: “I see no reason to
be ashamed of the gospel” (1,16a). This assertion cannot be interpreted in
the light of other texts (Mk 8,38 par.; 1 Cor 1,18ff), or be regarded as an
understatement, as if Paul’s intention were to underline his credibility15.
13. Campbell, The Addressees of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (n. 7), pp. 183 and 184
respectively, translates this as: “Yes, I am speaking to you Gentiles”, and concludes in
relation to 9–11: “whilst Paul clearly distinguishes between Israel and the Gentiles, at no
point does he address Israel directly”. It is true that Paul speaks to the Christian community
about (the unbelieving part of) Israel in 9,1–11,12, and specifically to the Jewish Christians;
from 11,13 he addresses the Gentile Christians directly.
14. Similarly Jewett, Romans (n. 4), p. 678.
15. These are the received interpretations; see for instance Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to
the Romans (n. 6), p. 72: “In saying that he is not ashamed of the gospel, Paul is saying
that he is a robust confessor of it”; M. Wolter, Das Proömium des Römerbriefes und das
hellenistische Freundschaftsethos, in C. Breytenbach (ed.), Paul’s Graeco-Roman Context
(BETL, 277), 253-271, p. 261: “eine rhetorische Bekräftigungsformel”. On the strength of
an article by K. Grayston from 1964, Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (n. 6), p. 66, has
586 P. Farla
Anyone who refers to his opinions or behaviour by saying that he is not

ashamed of them is defending himself, in the knowledge or on the assump-
tion that the other is criticising him on the basis of them. Apparently
Paul’s ideas had come to the attention of the Christians in Rome, who
considered them disgraceful (see 3,1-8). Paul’s intention in writing his
letter is to counter the criticism. He defends himself and his gospel in the
two explanatory sentences of 1,16b-17. They clarify what was going on
in Rome. The gospel is “God’s power for anyone who has faith”. But then
Paul specifies this by saying “Jew first, but Greeks as well”. This is
a categorical distinction from a Jewish perspective. “But Greeks as well”
is placed at the end of the sentence for emphasis. Apparently there was
criticism of Paul’s teaching of the gospel, which eliminated the distinction
between Jews and Gentiles, and this criticism came from Jewish Chris-
tians. In 1,17 Paul mentions the cause of the levelling effects of the gospel.
For him, this is the heart of the matter. In the gospel “is revealed the sav-
ing justice of God based on faith and addressed to faith”. In this way, Paul
contrasts his view of God’s justice with that of his readers. By quoting
Hab 2,4, Paul points out by way of conclusion that he has the authority of
Scripture on his side. The communicative situation of Rom is already
evident here. In this letter, Paul is defending his gospel, his theology of
justification by faith, against Jewish Christians who clung to the Law and
position themselves as a group in their own right, thus threatening the
unity of the community. Paul faced this problem before, and he is there-
fore able to respond to it on this occasion in an extensive, well-considered,
but also passionate discourse.
2. Rom 1,16-17: ‘Theme’ / propositio of the Letter?

1,16-17 (or 1,16b-17) is rather generally considered to be the ‘theme’,
the motto or propositio of the letter16: but this means that the entire further
exegesis of the letter starts off on the wrong foot.
casually suggested: “It may also be that accusations to the effect that Paul’s gospel was
antinomian or anti-Jewish lie behind this denial (cf. 3:8; 9:1-5)”.
16. See for instance Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (n. 6), p. 71: these two
verses “function as an overture does in some works of classical music”. Th. Schumacher,
Ein Schlüssel zum Römerbrief: Zur Bedeutung von Röm 1,16f., für die Briefkomposition, in
Loos – Schumacher – Zaborowski (eds.), Paulus. An die Römer (n. 11), 351-393, p. 375
has formulated a very outspoken view: “Im Zentrum des Themasatzes von Röm 1,16f.
lassen sich (…) vier inhaltliche Schwerpunkte ausmachen: 1. die Zuwendung Gottes, 2. die
menschliche Antwort auf diese Zuwendung, 3. eine darin gründende Gottesbeziehung, die
zugleich die Basis eines entsprechenden Lebensvollzuges darstellt und 4. die heilsgeschicht-
liche Vorrangstellung Israels. Und genau diese vier Aspekte entfaltet Paulus im weiteren
Verlauf des Römerbriefs (…)”, i.e. pp. 375-387, in 3,21-31; 4; 5–8 and 9–11 successively;
the passage 1,18–3,20 to a certain extent forms the backdrop for 3,21-31. Aletti, La
présence (n. 5), p. 15, also regards 1,16-17 as the propositio containing “les points forts
(…) de l’argumentation”.
The thanksgiving of 1,8-12 is followed in 1,13-17 by a discussion of

the issue at stake, begun with the disclosure formula “I do not want you
not to know, brothers….”. He has worked successfully in all layers of
society across the entire Gentile world, and now he is planning to come
to Rome as well to “preach the gospel” (1,13-15). The immediate sequel
is “For I see no reason to be ashamed of the gospel” in 1,16-17, which
characterises this gospel as divine power of salvation. 1,18ff then contin-
ues with “for”, and, in sharp contrast with 1,13-17, with a discussion of
God’s retribution against the wickedness and iniquity of the people. Thus,
in its own turn, 1,13-17 is an organic constituent of 1,13–4,25.
To characterise this passage as propositio is to fail to appreciate the
nature and function of the propositio. The propositio is always preceded
by an exordium and a narratio, but these are absent here. More impor-
tantly, the propositio is the claim that has to be proven; but in this case,
the rest of the letter goes well beyond this claim – which makes no men-
tion of God’s salvific actions in Jesus Christ. This is also why it is wrong
to regard 1,16-17 as the ‘theme’ of the letter. Rom 5–8 and 9–11 each
form a coherent whole, each with its own excellent introduction. This has
in fact always been acknowledged in respect of 9–11; it requires extra
ordinary theological agility to bring 9–11 under the heading of 1,16-17. In
fact, the three chapters undeniably form a separate entity. Whatever way
the ‘theme’ of 9–11 is described, 9–11 is about (the destiny of) the unbe-
lieving part of Israel; 1,16-17 does not refer to this theme at all. The same
is true in effect for 5–8. With its opening words “so then, now that we
have been justified by faith” (5,1), 5–8 is directly linked with 1,13–4,25,
but without the “so then” or the phrase in its entirety, 5,1ff is fully c redible
as the start of a separate entity, distinct both as regards literary form and
substance. 5–8 is normally regarded as the description of the gifts of grace
for the life of the believer, after the proclamation of justification by faith.
But not only is this a different theme, the argument of 5–8 speaks of the
Christian life as contrasted with Jewish existence under the Law and in
the power of Sin. There is nothing in 1,16-17 to indicate that Paul is
already thinking of this question there17. The conclusion can be no other
than that 1,13-17 is tailored to the argument of 1,13–4,25. There are many
links that connect the three parts to each other, but this does not negate
the fact that they are each coherent and distinct units, both in a literary
sense and as regards the arguments they make18.
17. According to Wolter, Das Proömium des Römerbriefes (n. 15), p. 262, too, 1,16-17
contains “keinerlei Signal (…), das die Aufmerksamkeit der Leser kataphorisch auf das
ausrichtet, was noch folgt”. As far as Rom 5–8 and 9–11 are concerned, this is certainly
correct, but it is certainly wrong as with regard to 1,18–4,25.
18. There is no shortage of proposals for a rhetorical division of the letter. For an
overview, see Theobald, Römerbrief (n. 1), p. 57. On p. 61 he himself adopts the follow-
ing arrangement: 1,1-7/8-15: “Brieferöffnung mit Zügen eines exordium”; 1,16-17:
propositio; 1,18-32 narratio, “samt anschliessender argumentatio (2,1-29), wobei 3,9-20
588 P. Farla
II. Rom 1,13–4,25
The first large part of the letter consists of chapters 1–4, excluding
therefore 5,1-11 or all of 5,1-21, which have sometimes been included19.
On the one hand 4,23-25 concludes the preceding argumentation and 5,1ff
begins an entirely new discussion, both as regards style and content. On
the other hand, the latter cannot be said of 5,11ff or 6,1ff: these passages
are linked immediately to the preceding ones. This means that 1,13–4,25
consists of two panels: 1,18–3,20 and 3,21–4,25, two contrasting panels,
the first of which itself in turn consists of two parts: 1,18-32 and 2,1–3,20.
If it is possible to summarise the second panel as “Salvation for anyone
who believes thanks to Jesus Christ”, a title for the first, 1,18–3,20, that
runs along the lines of “The sinfulness / lost state of humankind before
the gospel”20 would be inaccurate. This title presupposes that 1,18-32 and
2,1–3,20 – which deal with the sin of the Gentiles and the sin of the Jews
respectively – are on an equal footing and together paint a total picture of
the pre-Christian situation. But not only do neither of the two parts give a
‘description’ or a ‘diagnosis’, 1,18-32 also functions as the introduction to
2,1–3,20: in 1,18-32 Paul condemns all who live in sin, but – given the
pragmatics of the text – there is nothing he wants more than to persuade
the Jewish Christian reader to concur with this judgement.
1. Rom 1,13-17: Exordium

Paul begins his letter in his usual manner: prescriptum (sender: 1,1-6;
addressees: 1,7a; blessing: 1,7b). This is followed in 1,8-12 by the usual
thanksgiving for the success of his preaching21. The thanksgiving takes
a particular form here: as Paul did not himself found the community in
Rome, he expresses the hope that he will once be able to thank God
for an instructive meeting with them. It is because Rome is part of his
mission territory that he, the “apostle of the Gentiles”, is contacting them.
Paul presents himself as committed, complimentary and humble. What he
has to tell his readers is something significant. The actual letter begins in
1,13-1722; this is the exordium of the discussion of 1,13–4,25. Paul for
den Charakter einer conclusio besitzt”; 3,1-8: digressio; 3,21–5,21: confirmatio, with
3,21-26 as “ausdrückliche Wiederaufnahme der proposition” and 5,12-21 as conclusio;
6,1–8,17: refutatio I, with subsequently 8,18-30 and 8,31-39 respectively as “Wiederauf-
nahme von 5,1-11 aus der confirmatio”; 9,1–11,36: refutatio II; 12,1–15,6: exhortatio;
15,7-13: peroratio.
19. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (n. 6), I, p. 93; Theobald, Römerbrief (n. 1),
p. 48.
21. See 1 Cor 1,4-9; 2 Cor 1,3-7; Phil 1,3-11; 1 Thes 1,2-10; 2 Thes 1,3-12; 2 Tim 1,3-5;
Phm 4–7.
22. B.R. Gaventa, “To Preach the Gospel”: Romans 1,15 and the Purposes of Romans,
in U. Schnelle (ed.), The Letter to the Romans (BETL, 226), Leuven, 2009, 179-195, also
believes 1,13-17 is the beginning of the corpus of the letter.
the first time addresses his readers with the intimate word “brothers”, and
rouses their curiosity by using the formula “I do not want you not to
know, brothers….”23. Even more explicitly, he professes his desire to
come to Rome (he has “often” “planned” this) and states the purpose of
this visit (“that I might work as fruitfully among you as I have among the
other Gentiles”) (1,13). In 1,14-16, Paul specifies more precisely what
the purpose of his intended visit is and what subject he is planning to
discuss with them, – a subject he is in fact already addressing in his letter.
He does this diplomatically. He points to his successes elsewhere in the
Gentile world, how his preaching is intended for everyone and extin-
guishes human divisions, and what responsibility this entails for him (cf.
15,16; 1 Cor 9,16-18; 2 Cor 1,14). “Hence”, he says, “the eagerness on
my part to preach the gospel to you in Rome too” (1,15)24. That Paul is
keen in 1,14 to characterise his preaching primarily as something that
transcends boundaries is clear from 1,16-17, the argument that belongs
to 1,15: the gospel erases the distinction between Jew and Greek. The
question that Paul addresses in 1,13-17 is therefore the contrast between
Jewish and Gentile Christians; he wants to bridge this gap in Rome as
well. As he writes that he would like to come and preach the gospel in
Rome too, that it transcends boundaries between people, that it has been
a great success elsewhere, and that it also transcends the distinction
between Jew and Greek – he says this without shame –, as he writes all
these things, concisely and intriguingly, Paul has already begun his dis-
course and has formulated the issue he wants to address25.
23. The disclosure formula “I do not want you not to know (brothers)…” always marks
the beginning of a new step in the discourse in the letters of Paul: Rom 11,25; 1 Cor 10,1;
12,1; 2 Cor 1,8; 1 Thes 4,13. In 2 Cor 12,8, the formula also marks the transition from
thanksgiving to exordium; the other letters normally also have a comparable formula at this
transition: 1 Cor 1,10; Phil 1,12; 1 Thes 2,1; 2 Thes 2,1; 1 Tim 2,1; 2 Tim 1,6. See also
Gaventa, “To Preach the Gospel” (n. 22), pp. 182-183.
24. Rom 15,20 does not contradict 1,15. In 15,14-21.22-24 – which is not a peroratio,
but an epistolary passage; see also F.W. Horn, Das apostolische Selbstverständnis des
Paulus nach Römer 15, in Schnelle (ed.), The Letter to the Romans (n. 22), 225-246,
pp. 228-229 – Paul apologises for the fact that he is “interfering” for the first time in his
apostolate with the situation in a community he did not found; his letter is to “refresh your
memories on some points” (15,15); as 1,13-17 shows, the letter primarily wants to contrib-
ute to bridging the mutual divisions within the community.
25. According to Wolter, Das Proömium des Römerbriefes (n. 15), pp. 256-258, 1,8-17
is a coherent literary unit that has the characteristics of a proomium/exordium, and that is
primarily intended to “Unbekanntheit abzubauen und Freundschaft aufzubauen” (p. 270).
Paul does in fact speak constantly about himself and his work, but as far as the content of
action is concerned, there are good grounds to distinguish between 1,8-12 and 1,13-17. In
1,8-12 Paul assures the community in Rome of his great commitment and interest, of his
wish to come to them, to strengthen them, or rather, as he corrects himself, to strengthen
each other. But immediately after this, in 1,13-17, which is introduced by “I do not want
you not to know” / “You must be quite certain…”, he nevertheless presents himself as
the teacher, who is emphatically asking for attention because he has something important
to say.
590 P. Farla
As is evident also from the grammatical construction, 1,16-17 is not

intended as an enumeration or inventory of the various subjects of the
letter. Paul defends the gospel, and this not as if he needed to defend its
“scandalous” content before the forum of a sophisticated Gentile world
in Rome. Paul describes not the content of the gospel – he does not do
this until 3,21-26 – but its effects: it is, as the argument of 1,16b-17 says,
divine power for the salvation of everyone who has faith, which moreover
wipes out the difference between Jew and Greek. The first part of the
letter addresses this issue very extensively. The following sections deal
with the guarantee of salvation for the Jew who has become a Christian,
versus the Law as the accomplice of sin (5–8), and with Israel’s state of
being cut off from salvation (9–11). Paul defends this levelling view of
the faith against those Christians who apparently find it difficult to accept
it: J ewish Christians26. The exordium has been carefully tailored to match
the discourse of 1,18–4,25, and only this discourse.
2. Rom 1,18–3,20: Narratio

The purpose of the narratio is to inform the listeners/readers in a con-
vincing way of the facts that are relevant to the matter at issue; it should
be clear, succinct and probable or plausible, and it is permitted to manip-
ulate the facts somewhat if this is expedient; it is important to use illustra-
tive language; the narratio is a preparation for the proof. The passage
1,18–3,20 matches this profile; it is rather long by Paul’s standards (but
cf. Gal 1,13–2,21), but this is entirely due to the nature of the situation
that must be described and to the passage’s rhetorical character. Paul is
confronting his Jewish-Christian readers with the fact – shocking to them
– that the Law is fundamentally flawed.
People are justified by faith, and this is also true for the Jews. It is
precisely from this perspective that Paul addresses the issue, as the factual
account of 1,18–3,20 shows; it begins in 1,18 with “For the wrath of God
is being revealed (…) against all human ungodliness and injustice …”
and ends with the conclusion of 3,20: “So then, no human being can be
found upright [in God’s eyes] by keeping the Law; all that the Law does
is to tell us what is sinful”. But for his Jewish Christian readers this argu-
ment is not only initially unclear, it is also highly disturbing: they were
brought up to regard themselves as God’s chosen people, separated from
the sinful world of the Gentiles. Before Paul is able to propose his argu-
ment as the hard truth, he first has to prove its inevitability in a way that
is as convincing as possible. He does this in three steps: 1,18-32; 2,1-29
and 3,1-20. Paul describes the factual, visible effect of the Law: the Law
is powerless to effect righteousness; from the antithesis Paul clarifies the
issue mentioned in the exordium: it is faith that justifies, not the Law.
26. Cf. Acts 22,28.

The propositio of 3,21-26 is directly connected with this. Thus the pas-
sage of 1,18–3,20 is undeniably the narratio of the argument27. The
powerlessness of the Law is described as factual reality, as a clarification
of the definition of the problem: justification for anyone who believes.
a) Rom 1,18-32: Narratio (Beginning)

In 1,18-32 Paul describes how God’s retribution descends upon “all
ungodliness and injustice” (1,18). But this description is special, both as
regards content and as regards form: it has a carefully considered com-
position and is a masterful example of the rhetorical art of persuasion. As
regards content, Paul uses themes and motifs from Hellenistic Jewish
polemics with the religious and ethical culture of the surrounding pagan
world. Characteristic is the notion that God can be known from creation
(1,19-20: see Ws 13,1.5.8; Si 17,8), but that the Gentiles have been
remiss in this respect (1,21.25.28: see Ws 13,1), they have lapsed into
idolatry (1,23; see Ws 11,15; 12,24; 13,10.13-14; 14,8; 15,13-14).
Another characteristic concept is that of appropriate retribution
(1,24.26.28: see Ws 11,16), leading to further idolatry and moral decay
(1,26-27: see Ws 14,12.23-26). In 1,21 and 1,23, Paul alludes to Ps 94,1;
106,20 and to Gen 1,26-27, and he concludes with a long catalogue of
vices.
And then there is the composition of the passage. Paul begins in 1,18
by ascertaining that God’s retribution is being revealed against the reign-
ing ungodliness and injustice. In 1,19-20ab he explains why: people do
know God, but they are suppressing this knowledge. In 1,20c he gives
his judgement: there are no exculpatory excuses. Then, in three rounds,
1,21-24; 1,25-27 and 1,28-31, he gives specific substance to the sinfulness
described in abstract terms in 1,18 and the general condemnation of 1,20c.
Each of the three parts begins again with a reference to the root cause of
the sinfulness: the suppression of the knowledge of God (1,21.25.28). The
description of the punishment begins each time with the formula “there-
fore God abandoned them to …”. This gives the list the character of
refrain. It is striking that the descriptions of the sinfulness become ever
more succinct (to the extent of disappearing altogether in 1,28) and the
descriptions of the punishment become ever more lengthy: 1,21-23 and
1,24; 1,25 and 1,26-27; 1,28a and 1,28b-31. This gives the passage huge
momentum towards a climax, which in fact follows in the conclusion of
1,32: although they are well aware that those who behave like this deserve
27. Similarly F. Vouga, Romains 1,18–3,20 comme narratio, in P. Bühler –

J.-F. Habermacher (eds.), La narration: Quand le récit devient communication, Genève,
1988, 145-161. His division of the letter: 1,1-17: exordium; 1,18–3,20: narratio; 3,21-31:
propositio; 4,1–11,36: probatio; 15,14-33: peroratio; the passage 12,1–15,13, as exhorta-
tio, does not belong to the rhetorical model, but to the epistolary genre.
592 P. Farla
to die, yet they applaud others who do the same. Paul uses derogatory
language when he speaks of the Gentiles’ sexual mores, which were
repugnant in Jewish eyes, especially (what anachronistically is called)
‘homosexuality’: he uses the terms “male” and “female”, first discusses
the misconduct of the women and then (1,27, introduced by “in a similar
fashion”) that of the men, and he describes this conduct drastically with
the words – in R. Jewett’s translation – “males who work up their shame-
ful member in other (males)”28. The enumeration of vices and villains
(the longest and densest in the New Testament) in 1,29-31 also has a
rhetorically well-thought out structure – in an asyndetic staccato –, and
concludes with four terms with alpha privans that recur frequently in these
kinds of lists and that refer to essential characteristics of human dignity.
A final striking feature which becomes evident when the text is read aloud
is the combined effect of numerous phonetic and linguistic characteristics
(such as alliteration, end rhyme, parallelism, and antithesis).
The passage in 1,18-32 is usually described as “The Revelation of
Divine Wrath”29, or as “prophetische Gerichtsrede gegen die Heiden”30.
These interpretations totally ignore the pragmatics of the text, and
the function of the passage in the specific communicative situation of the
discourse. What is at stake in 1,18-32 and 2,1-29 is not, first, a condemna-
tion of the Gentiles, and then of the Jews, alongside each other; 1,18-32
is a rhetorically sophisticated move that is entirely subservient to the accu-
sation of 2,1-29. Paul has painted an almost purely negative picture of
what is happening in the Gentile world. With a certain relish he describes
the idolatry and moral decay of the Gentiles, using clichés and stereotypes
that his readers would have been familiar with, stimulating their feelings
of horror: it has the ring of party propaganda. Paul is mobilising the moral
indignation of his readers and is playing on their sense of superiority and
revulsion of Gentile culture. But at the same time, he is manipulating
them: he is consciously causing misunderstanding. It is essential to under-
stand correctly the linguistic act that is 1,18-32, to discern the tension
between what Paul is actually arguing on the one hand and the spontane-
ous understanding of his words on the part of his readers on the other31.
The way in which Paul describes sinfulness has lured his readers into
hearing what they want to hear in Paul’s judgement: a judgement of the
28. Jewett, Romans (n. 4), pp. 163.179.

29. Ibid., p. vii. Similarly for instance. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (n. 6),
p. ix: “Wrath against the Gentile World”.
31. 1,18-32 cannot be the narratio, if only because of its function; cf. Aletti, La
présence (n. 5), p. 11, who thinks it is possible to recognise the rhetorical model in 1,18–3,20:
1,18: propositio; 1,19-32: narratio; 2,1–3,18: probatio; 3,19-20: peroratio. But the problem
is that there is no exordium, that narratio and propositio are in the wrong order, and that
the probatio is an accusation against the Jews, whereas the narratio (1,19-32) addresses the
situation of the Gentiles.
“others”, the Gentiles. But in fact, Paul is condemning “all ungodliness

and injustice” (1,18). And his concluding sentence is yet another attempt
to play on the Jewish sense of exclusivity: the Gentiles are also a threat
to them, because if Paul, as they think, is judging the Gentiles and insinu-
ating that they are a threat to the religious and moral life of others, who
else could these “others” be than the Jewish Christian readers themselves?
Paul is in fact judging all sinners, but he does this in language that his
readers interpret as being a judgement of the Gentiles.
b) Rom 2,1-16.17-29: Narratio (Continuation)

In 2,1 (“Therefore…”), Paul suddenly involves his readers directly in
his condemnation. Their assent has led them into a trap, and Paul is now
ready to pounce. The readers condemn the Gentiles, now Paul directly and
individually addresses this condemnation, first, in 2,1.3 with “you, no
matter who you are, if you pass judgement”, and then, in 2,17, with “you,
Jew”. Paul proceeds cautiously. In 2,1-16 he is still speaking in general
terms; although he focuses his description on the division between Jews
and Gentiles (2,9-10.12-16), he speaks about them as if he were still
engaging in theoretical reflection. Thus Paul offers his readers breathing
space for a few instances to postpone any too direct identification, while
creating scope for himself to tell them the hard truth without any hesita-
tion.
In 2,1-16 Paul offers a brief exposé on God’s justice, which will judge
all humans on their deeds, without respect to persons. From a Jewish
perspective he distinguishes between two groups, Jews and Gentiles.
“Therefore”, he concludes the argument of 1,18-32, repeating the accusa-
tion of 1,20, “you have no excuse”. The reader’s own deeds are chal-
lenged on the basis of his own assent to the judgement of the Gentiles.
Paul opens with a rhetorically strong statement (2,1): “anyone who judges
others, also condemns himself, because he behaves in the same way”
(as described in 1,18-32). On the basis of the principle, admitted both by
Paul and the reader, that God justly judges those who do such things (2,2),
Paul then explains in three steps (2,2-5.6-11.12-16) that they who judge
others are guilty too. The insight of 2,2 is immediately applied to the
addressee in 2,3-4: the judgement of others is based entirely upon
the inability to see one’s own failures and upon the false illusion of the
certainty of salvation. The hard verdict is pronounced in 2,5.
2,5 is followed in 2,6-11, now in the third person singular, by a short
reflection on God’s justice. The starting point is the authoritative statement
of 2,6: God will repay everyone according to their deeds (Ps 62,12). This
is developed in two antithetical chiastic sentences. On the basis of the
statement of 2,11 (“God is not a respecter of persons”) and its develop-
ment in 2,12-16, the distinction between “Jews and Gentiles” offers Paul
the chance to point also to the Gentiles’ own responsibility: even though
594 P. Farla
they do not have the Law, they will be judged no differently than the
Jews: on the basis of their acts. But this insight constitutes a challenge
to the reader, who was so quick to condemn the Gentiles: whereas the
Gentiles have to deliberate constantly to distinguish between good and
evil, the Jews have the convenience of the Law for this. After 2,12-16 the
reader realises: if God judges the Gentiles according to their deeds, then
surely he will judge the Jews according to their Law.
This is the moment for Paul to challenge the reader expressly and
directly as a Jew, to challenge his Jewish self-consciousness of election
and superiority. The anacoluthon in 2,17-20 illustrates through its form
what it argues as regards substance: the Jew prides himself on an endless
series of qualities that raise him high above the Gentiles on the basis of
his knowledge of God and possession of the Law. And then Paul asks his
readers the cynical and devastating question: “So he who teaches others,
does not teach himself?” (2,21a). The Jews have the Law, they think they
have the right to teach others, but in fact they are transgressing against
every commandment of the Law. As he explicitly points out that salvation
is also open to the Gentiles, Paul unmasks the Jewish certainty of salvation
as a form of self-deception and as a false illusion, and denounces the Jews
for their inconsistency and hypocrisy. In fact they do not observe the Law,
and thus they even put God to shame, especially among the Gentiles, all
the while thinking that they are superior to the Gentiles on account of their
knowledge of God (2,24, quoting Is 52,5). In 2,25-29, Paul precipitates a
crisis among his readers concerning their Jewish identity. The Law and
circumcision are declared to be anachronisms, and Jewish certainty of
salvation is exposed as arrogance and self-deception.
c) Rom 3,1-8 Narratio (Continuation: Anticipatio)

The question of 3,1 is the question of the Jewish-Christian addressees.
Before Paul unveils his disconcerting conclusion (3,9-20), he first reas-
sures his readers. His discourse is a defence against Jewish Christians who
think he should be ashamed of everything he has recently been preaching
(see 1,16). The criticism that he articulates and refutes in a sharp dialogue
in the style of a diatribe in 3,1-8 is in fact the Jewish Christian criticism
of his teaching32. This criticism is first briefly and generally summarised
and answered with the question of 3,1 and the answer of 3,2a, and then
the two fundamental objections that underlie it are specified and answered
in 3,2b-4 and 3,5-8. What is at stake here is Judaism and the Law; Paul
32. According to Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (n. 6), II, p. 181: “Paulus ist von
Kapitel 6 an damit beschäftigt, sich mit den beiden zentralen Einwänden seines jüdischen
Gesprächspartners gegen das Evangelium auseinanderzusetzen, die er in 3,1-8 zunächst nur
schroff abgewiesen hatte”.
knows he will lose his Jewish Christian readers if he is unable to answer

these two questions satisfactorily.
The first one concerns the very existence of Israel as the people of God
(3,2b-4). Israel’s status as the people of God rests on God’s election and
his gift of the Law. But Paul’s faith in Jesus Christ has convinced him that
the Law can no longer count as the way to salvation. Given the fact that
the majority of Israel does not believe in Jesus Christ, but continues to put
faith in the Law, this immediately raises the question for Jewish Christians
of God’s faithfulness to his covenant: does Paul’s theology not imply that
God has forsaken (the unbelieving part of) Israel? The second question
concerns ethics (3,5-8). If our injustice elicits God’s justice, if God
responds to our sin by grace (cf. 5,20-21), how then God’s grace does
relate to his justice? Does this theology not lead to a licence to sin, even
constitute an encouragement to sin? What is at stake therefore is how
justification by faith relates to the Law as the norm for a sinless life.
Before Paul formulates the hard conclusion of 1,18–2,29, he first reassures
his readers. The great deficiency of the Law is soteriological: the Law is
powerless to defeat sin; but the Law retains its indispensable value in a
salvation-historical respect; God has not broken off his relationship with
Israel, God remains faithful to humans. And justification by faith makes
the highest ethical and moral demands (see chapter 6): however merciful
God is towards the sinner, as the Judge of the world he will obviously
continue to punish sin. Paul will return to these questions at length in the
continuation of the letter, but here – succinctly and firmly – he already
gives his readers a reassuring answer to both questions33.
“Is there any benefit, then, in being a Jew, or any advantage in circum-
cision?” (3,1), Paul asks on behalf of the Jewish-Christian reader “A great
deal” (3,2a), is the positive answer, somewhat surprisingly after what has
just been said. Paul mentions the fact that God has entrusted his “words”
to Israel (3,2b). Israel is God’s chosen people, but – as the Jewish-Chris-
tian objection of 3,3 asks – has this election not been squandered because
Israel (“some”, Paul writes) has not accepted Jesus Christ? Does Paul’s
theology not lead to the shocking conclusion that God has broken off his
relationship with Israel? Paul decisively rejects this idea (3,4). He states
expressly, quoting Ps 116,11 and 51,6, that God shows his justice even
in the face of constant faithlessness on the part of humans. He assures
his Jewish Christian readers that Israel is still God’s chosen people in his
view.
33. Although M. Theobald affords little importance in his exegesis of the letter to the
communicative situation, he very correctly characterises this when he writes in relation to
the connection between 3,1-4 and 9–11 that Paul addresses objections there that “auch
Judenchristen” will have raised against him: “Keinesfalls ist es so, wie man ihm, vielleicht
aufgrund früherer Äusserungen aus seinem Mund bzw. überhaupt wegen seiner beschnei-
dungsfreien Heidenmission, nachgesagt hat, dass seine ‘Rechtfertigungslehre’ die Erwäh-
lung Israels aushöhle!”. Theobald, Römerbrief (n. 1), p. 262.
596 P. Farla
Then Paul switches from the third person to the first person, both
s ingular and plural, and thus speaks directly about himself and the readers.
Paul’s vision of Judaism and the Law causes a second problem: how is it
possible to lead a sinless life without the Law? The structure of 3,5-8 is
clear. The passage starts with the question of 3,5: the assertion that our
injustice serves to bring God’s justice to light, raises the question, whether
this does not mean that God is unjust when he manifests his retribution
(3,5). How does God’s grace relate with his justice? This question is the
question of Jewish Christians, and is in fact a serious and heavy objection
against Paul’s theology of God’s grace, against Paul’s gospel of justifica-
tion by faith. Paul rejects the objection with a resolute denial (3,6a), filled
up with two alternative answers (3,6b-7 and 3,8), both formulated as a
counter-question. The fact that God is the judge of the world proves that
he is just (3,6b). With 3,7 he then concentrates this argument on the indi-
vidual person, the sinner, on himself and on each of his readers. My
iniquity does not increase God’s truthfulness and glory, God will judge
everyone as a sinner. They all agree that God will judge humankind and
the world, each of them; but, Paul says, this proves the sovereignty of
God, his glory is in no way dependent on our behaviour. Paul concludes
in 3,8 with his alternative answer, cynically deflecting as slanderous and
blasphemous a false accusation levelled against him by some of his
addressees: it would be different – God might indeed be called unjust – if
it were true what has been said about him. What Paul summarises in the
slogan of 3,5a had evidently been interpreted as meaning that there was a
causal connection between human sin and God’s justice, as if God were
promoting sin on account of God’s glory. Paul does not mince his words
here: in effect he curses those who twist his words in this way. The con-
clusion must be that Paul’s answer is the right one. In 3,5-8 Paul refutes
the objection of Jewish Christians against his preaching: justification by
faith has its ethical and moral implications, it demands living a sinless life.
This passage has its own function in the structure of Rom 1,13–11,36.
On the one hand, Paul interrupts the argument of 1,18–3,20, feeling com-
pelled as he does to discuss two existential but complex issues, and on the
other, he outlines his stance on these matters resolutely if briefly. This
points to the fact that the passage fulfils the function of an anticipatio34.
34. The rhetorical stylistic device of the anticipatio belonged to the standard repertoire
of the orator; but the anticipatio can also be a separate part of a discourse, see J. Smit,
“About the Idol Offerings”: Rhetoric, Social Context and Theology of Paul’s Discourse in
First Corinthians 8:1–11:1 (CBET, 27), Leuven, 2000, pp. 145-146. He quotes Rhetorica
ad Alexandrum 18.1432b-1433b: “Anticipation is the device by which we shall remove any
ill-feeling that we encounter by anticipating the criticisms of our audience and the arguments
of those who are going to speak on the other side”. The anticipatio can be used in any part
of the discourse, but it is most fitting in the introduction (Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 18.1432b;
29.1437a.3; 29.1437b.24; 36.1442b.5. See also Quintilianus, Institutio oratoria, IV,1,49;
IX,1.30-31.44; IX,2,16-18; IX,3,98). Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 33.1439b who describes the
anticipatio as a part in its own right as follows: “Anticipation is the method by which you
The passage is most clearly effective precisely as anticipatio within the

narratio. The argument of 1,13–4,25 is followed by two parts – which
form separate discourses in their own right – which extensively address
the two issues mentioned in 3,2-4.5-8: God’s faithfulness to Israel (9-11);
justification by faith demands a sinless life, but fulfilling this demand is
not possible on the basis of the Law, it is only possible by living one’s life
“in Christ” (5-8).
d) Rom 3,9-20: Narratio (Conclusion)

The Jews live in blinded pride in their attitude to the Gentiles: they are
just as guilty as the Gentiles are. After the reassuring explanation of 3,1-8,
Paul resumes the questions of 3,1 in 3,9 (“Well? Are we at any advan-
tage?”), before returning to the issue. In 3,9-20 he draws his conclusions
from the discourse of 1,18–2,29, and this also on behalf of the Jewish
Christian readers, who have no further objections after their confrontation
with the powerlessness of the Law. Paul then establishes without further
ado that we – Paul and the readers – cannot but acknowledge that we,
Jews, are no better off in God’s eyes than the Gentiles, “because (…) all,
both Jews and Greeks, are under the dominion of sin” (3,9c). Paul empha-
sises the argument with a long and carefully structured chain of Scriptural
quotations (3,10-18). In this way he shows that his judgement of the sin-
fulness of all people is nothing other than the judgement of Scripture. Paul
explicitly establishes that his readers and he agree that Scripture is intended
for the Jews: that the Gentiles are living in sin is obvious to the Jew, but
on the basis of Scripture it has now become impossible to deny that the
Jews too are living in sin (3,19). The final verse 3,20 provides the defini-
tive argument for the great deficiency of the Law: no one is justified by
keeping the Law, because, as 3,20b specifies, all that the Law does is to
show what is sinful.
The only thing the narratio 1,18–3,20 wishes to show is that the Jews
too are living under the power of Sin. The conclusion 3,19-20 confirms
this. These verses have the same structure as the verses 1,16-17: the actual
argument (1,16b; 3,20a) is made specific towards the end (1,17; 3,20b)
with a new argument. In the first case, this argument mentions the issue
(faith justifies) by way of conclusion, in the second case it mentions the
fundamental fact that is relevant to this issue: that the Jews, too, despite
their Law, are living in sin.
anticipate the objections that can be advanced against your arguments and sweep them
aside”; it immediately precedes the conclusion (29.1436a-34.1440b; 36.1441b-1445a). He
also recommends (36.1444b.9-20) using questions and answers: “Also one must not be slack
about any questions and answers that occur in this class of cases, but in one’s answers one
must clearly distinguish what one admits and what one denies”. Rom 3,1-8 can serve as an
exemplary instance of this kind of anticipatio. Similarly, according to Theobald, Römerbrief
(n. 1), p. 51, 3,1-4 and 3,5-8 anticipate 9–11 and 6,1–8,17 respectively.
598 P. Farla
3. Rom 3,21-26: Propositio

Once Paul has demonstrated that all humans, including the Jews, are
living in sin (3,23 summarises the argument), he posits an assertion, a
solemn, carefully formulated proclamation of the gospel, undeniably
intended for Jewish Christians. The gospel is “God’s power for the salva-
tion of everyone who believes” (1,16; cf. 3,26b), but it has this saving
power, Paul now says for the first time, thanks to Jesus Christ’s redeeming
death, thanks to God’s eschatological, definitive and universal saving
action in Jesus Christ, outside the Law, but according to the true sense of
the Law and the Prophets, because God is just and faithful to Israel. In this
new economy of salvation (3,26) there is no longer any distinction between
Jews and Gentiles: all are sinners and all are freely justified by God’s
grace through the redemption that Jesus Christ has brought (3,24)35.
4. Rom 3,27–4,22: Argumentatio

After the dense formulas of 3,21-26, Paul switches back in 3,27-31 to
the lively style of the diatribe, with questions and answers. The questions
articulate once again what the narratio denounced: the false certainty of
salvation of the Law; the answers are in fact assertions that are explained
on the basis of the story of Abraham. The first question and the first
answer: “So what becomes of our boasts?” “There is no room for them!”
(3,27a; cf. 2,1.23) once again summarise Jewish arrogance vis-à-vis
the Gentiles in respect of salvation. Then Paul argues that this Jewish
‘apartheid’ on the basis of the Law is absolutely incompatible with faith
in Jesus Christ. Salvation is universal, because humans are justified on the
basis of faith (3,28). He even sharpens the repudiation of Jewish religious
particularism on the basis of Israel’s first and most important article of
faith: God is one. This means that the God of the Jews is also the God of
the Gentiles. For this one God, the one way of salvation is the way of faith
(3,29-30). But Paul knows that he must provide a sound argument for his
view on the Law; he is preparing it in 3,31. Using an alienating and
authoritative “we”, he plays on the suspicion which his readers doubtless
harbour that he is radically renouncing the Law: “Are we abolishing the
Law by faith?” His reply: “On the contrary! We are placing the Law on
35. Rom 3,21-26 is not an “ausdrückliche Wiederaufnahme” (Theobald, Römerbrief

[n. 1], p. 61) or “recapitulation and expansion” (Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the
Romans [n. 4], p. viii) of 1,16-17: in 3,21-26 Paul explicitly takes a stand on the issue of
1,16-17 concerning the unity of Jewish and Gentile Christians: according to Paul in 3,21-26
(he further explains this, not in 1,13–11,36, but in 1,13–4,25), this unity is based on faith
in Jesus Christ, the faith that transcends all thinking in terms of groups, including the
distinction between Jew and Greek, freeman and slave, man and woman (Gal 3,28), and
married and unmarried (1 Cor 7,1-7, even though Paul, in view of the expected end that is
very near, recommends to those who are able to do so to remain unmarried for practical
reasons).
its true footing!” What I am arguing about justification by faith and the
universality of salvation, he says soberingly, is exactly what the Law con-
tends. And he then explains this at length with the story about Abraham
(4,1-22): he, too, our ancestor – Paul’s and his Jewish Christian readers’
– was justified by faith.
5. Rom 4,23-25: Peroratio (Application)

Otto Kuss has called 3,21-26 “the theological and architectural centre”
of the letter36, and many scholars have accepted this judgement. But how-
ever aptly it describes the theological weight of this passage, it ignores
the function that the passage fulfils in the whole of the structure of
Rom 1–11. The passage is the propositio of 1,13–4,25, and this part, how-
ever important it is, serves as a preparation for the two following parts
(5–8; 9–11). The exposé on justification by faith provides the insight on
the basis of which Paul is able to refute the objections that are advanced
against his teaching. He is able, therefore, to summarise this entire argu-
ment briefly and almost nonchalantly in 5,1: “So then, now that we have
been justified by faith…”. As a result of this function there is no perora-
tio, by contrast with 5–8 and 9–11. Instead, there is a short application of
the argument to the present circumstances. Scripture not only recounts the
story of Abraham in connection with Abraham himself, but it does so
particularly “for our sake”, to teach the Jewish Christians, the readers
and Paul, that Abraham, the ancestor of the Jews (4,1: “our ancestor”;
4,12 conclusion: “our father”) is the prototype of all believers, Jews and
Gentiles (4,11b-12; 4,16-17.18: “ancestor of us all”, “father of many
nations”). Thus Paul is in fact addressing a group, Jewish Christians,
within a group, the Christian community in Rome. Humans are justified
not by the Law, but, precisely as the Law itself demands (see 3,31), by
faith. Paul makes this explicit in 4,24b-25, anticipating the central subject
of the following discourse: we are justified by God’s offer of salvation
in Jesus Christ, “who was handed over for our transgressions and raised
to life for our justification”.
III. Rom 5–8
Rom 5–8 is regarded as a complex whole, and it is even disputed

whether it actually forms a distinct whole at all; it is all rather unclear how
the many different passages are related to each other, what the precise
argument is, and what the real purpose of this discourse is. These four
chapters deal with the Christian life, but descriptions such as “Die
36. O. Kuss, Der Römerbrief übersetzt und erklärt, I-III, Regensburg, 1957-1978.
600 P. Farla
Gnadengaben der Glaubensgerechtigkeit”37 or “The New Life in Christ”38

are most unsatisfactory. Rom 5–8 do not constitute a systematic-theolog-
ical treatise on ‘the’ life of ‘the’ Christian. Paul is defending his gospel of
justification by faith (1,16) against Jewish Christian readers who have
many objections against the consequences of this teaching that threaten
their practice of life (see 3,1-8). Rom 5–8 is a passionate argument in
which Paul attempts to convince his readers that only faith in Jesus Christ
offers certainty of salvation and redeems us from sin; justification is
indeed the object of the Law, but is entirely impossible through the Law:
in a soteriological sense, the Law has lost its significance39.
1. Rom 5,1-5: Exordium

The passage 5,1-11 is often regarded as a single unit40, but it can easily
be divided into two parts on the basis of literary form as well as content:
5,1-5 and 5,6-11. The first part discusses the present, “our” Christian
certainty of salvation, that is of the Jewish Christians, the readers and Paul
himself; and the second discusses the past, the redemptive death of Jesus
Christ as the basis for this certainty of salvation. Paul does not therefore
offer a specific description of “the Christian existence” in 5,1-5, but he
describes it as life in the absolute certainty of salvation, now and in the
future. We live in peace with God, in grace, even now, and can exult in
the hope of God’s glory (5,1-2). We exult even in our hardships, because
they only strengthen our hope (5,3-4). The loaded sentence of 5,5 con-
cludes this typification: our hope will not be put to shame, because the
love of God has been poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit which
has been given to us. A new discourse starts with 5,1ff: 5,1-5 is its
exordium. The issue (causa) is the certainty of salvation by faith. That was
the question that Paul’s view of the Law elicited among the readers: how
is it possible to think of being saved without the Law?
2. Rom 5,6-11: Narratio

The narratio of 5,6-11 – which is connected to 5,1-5 by “for if” – men-
tions the historical fact that is the basis for “our” certainty of salvation:
37. Schlier, Der Römerbrief (n. 6), p. 137.

38. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (n. 6), p. 197. According to Schumacher,
Ein Schlüssel zum Römerbrief (n. 16), pp. 380-381, Rom 5–8 addresses “der Aspekt des
christlichen Lebensvollzuges ausführlich”; the chapters are “eine thematische Entfaltung”
of the quotation in 1,17.
39. The character of Rom 5–8 has been described correctly by Jewett, Romans (n. 4),
p. viii: “Life in Christ as a New System of Honor That Replaces the Quest for Status
through Conformity to the Law”.
40. See M. Wolter, Rechtfertigung und zukünftiges Heil: Untersuchungen zu
Röm 5,1-11 (BZNW, 43), Berlin – New York, 1978.
the death of Jesus Christ. Corresponding with the description of the cer-
tainty of salvation as the Christian reality of the present and the eschato-
logical future, 5,6-11 too speaks of the significance of Jesus’ death for the
present and always. We were living in discord with God, were weak,
godless, sinners, enemies of God, but God restored the relationship: he
manifested his love in the death of Jesus Christ (5,6.8). Paul explicitly
emphasises the excessive abundance of God’s love. He does this by con-
trasting the love that God has shown in the death of Jesus Christ with the
vicarious death that can sometimes be found among humans (5,7). Paul
characterises the enormous difference in the strikingly redundant and chi-
astic composition of 5,6-8, in which 8a, on the love of God, catches the
eye in particular. He contrasts the anonymous person who from some
inescapable sense of duty, is possibly prepared to die for one good human,
with the historical fact of Jesus’ dying on the cross for many, for the weak,
the godless and the sinners, and this from pure love41. Our redemption,
5,9 continues, also guarantees our future eschatological salvation. Verse
5,10 repeats 5,6-9 using other words. Whereas 5,9 describes the Christian
existence as “justified” and 5,10b as “reconciled”, 5,11 adds a third
characteristic: “exulting in God”, and this establishes salvation through
Jesus Christ for the future as well. Paul returns to the current situation in
the conclusion of 5,11.
3. Rom 5,12-21: Propositio

Some years ago already, Aletti contended that chapters 5–8 should be
read from the perspective of the model of classical rhetorical oratory. He
regards 5,1-11 as the exordium, and 5,12-21 as the narratio, which culmi-
nates in the proposition of 5,20-2142. But this view is untenable; not only
is 5,20-21 inseparably part of 5,12-21, this passage does not actually offer
a factual account, but rather a (salvation-historical) comparison between
Adam and Christ; for Paul, the historical basis for life in peace with God,
in grace and the certainty of salvation, is God’s superabundant love in the
death of Jesus Christ (5,6-11). 5,12-21 in its entirety must therefore be
regarded as the propositio.
The passage is linked to 5,1-11 with the words “therefore” (διὰ τοῦτο).
This conjunction is often downplayed43. This tendency betrays a mistaken
(theological) question, as if 5,12-21 were an explanation of 5,1-11. But in
fact, 5,12-21 does describe the consequence of God’s salvific actions. In
this passage, Paul makes explicit for his readers what they have already
41. See E. Seitz, Korrigiert sich Paulus? Zu Röm 5,6-8, in ZNW 91(2000) 278-287.
42. Aletti, La présence (n. 5), p. 22: probatio: 6,1–8,30; peroratio: 8,30-39.
43. Thus for instance Schlier, Der Römerbrief (n. 6), p. 159, who needs 18 lines to
establish that it is an “unprägnante Übergangspartikel”: “Sie ist nicht begründend, sondern
fortführend, etwa in dem Sinn: man muss ja bedenken: …”.
602 P. Farla
implicitly accepted as Christians (cf. 5,1-11): through Jesus Christ,

the reign of sin and the Law has yielded to that of grace. Paul uses this
insight as his starting point for the rest of the discourse of chapters 6–8.
In 5,12-21, he explains to his readers what the consequences are for their
Christian life of Jesus’ death on the cross, and he does this more specifi-
cally on the basis of the problem defined in the exordium, with a view to
their certainty of salvation: the Christian life is a life in grace, set free
from sin and the Law. God’s action in Jesus Christ leads to a new perspec-
tive on history and on the role of the Law in it, a perspective that Paul
explains by comparing Christ with Adam. In 5,12-21 Paul defines the
function of the Law: as if subservient to sin, the Law, like sin itself, has
yielded to the power of grace. The Law, which is subservient to sin, exists
for the sake of the superabundance of grace.
The entire passage argues on the basis of the notion of corporate per-
sonality: all are contained in the one. Adam is the prototype of Christ
(5,14), but at the same time they are each other’s counterpoint: just as
history began as a history of sin and death, with Adam as the initiator and
representative of humankind, thus history began anew, this time defini-
tively as a history of justice and life with Christ as the initiator and repre-
sentative. Sin entered the world through Adam, and with sin, death;
“thus” (οὕτως) – i.e. as described in the ὥσπερ sentence of 5,12ab,
through the worldwide power of sin and death – death became the fate of
all people without exception. “Because everyone has sinned” (5,12b);
with this sentence Paul adds the missing link in the argument: everyone
has sinned in Adam. This is a logical addition, with a corporative signifi-
cance. In order to prevent an obvious misunderstanding, Paul interrupts
his comparison at this point. For his Jewish Christian readers, Paul must
now explain why death – the punishment of sin – reigned during the
period between Adam and Moses, when there was as yet no Law, and sin
could not therefore be reckoned as sin (cf. 4,15) (5,13-14). His explanation
is that everyone, contained in Adam, has also sinned in Adam: with Adam
the history of humankind begins as a history of sin and death.
The antithetic-parallel relationship between Adam and Christ is
described in 5,18.19.21, three verses phrased in perfect antithetic parallel-
ism (18a/b; 19a/b; 21a/b (without the conclusion 5,21c). But each com-
parison is defective. Christ’s redemptive act has an incomparably greater
effect than Adam’s transgression. To prevent any misunderstanding, as if
Christ’s act were merely a matter of settling or compensating for Adam’s
sin, Paul first points out in 5,15-17 how incomparably different they actu-
ally are. The passages 5,15-17 and 5,18-21 have clearly been tuned to
correspond with each other. 5,15-17 twice articulates the incomparable
aspect (in 5,15: οὐχ ὡς … οὕτως; in 5,16: οὐχ ὡς), and does this by
mentioning three arguments (5,15bc.16bc.17) in three sentences (begin-
ning with εἰ (εἰ γάρ)); these arguments deal with the same issues men-
tioned in the three comparisons of 5,18.19.21 (each with ὡς (ὥσπερ)….
οὕτως): the one man (Adam and Christ), the one act (sin and justification),
and the one effect (the reign of sin and death, and the reign of justice and
life). The effects of Jesus Christ as the initiator of grace, justice, and life,
are incomparably greater than those of Adam as the initiator of sin and
death. Paul uses a rabbinic Qal Wahomer argument in 5,15 and 5,17, and
only mentions a clear reason in 5,16c. In the parallel sentence, the “offence
of one man” strikingly corresponds with the “grace for many offences”:
the one (Adam) who is the cause of the judgement, is contrasted with the
“many offences” that are the cause of the justification. The judgement that
followed Adam’s sin concerned the sin of this one man; grace, however,
was an incomparably greater reaction to the many offences. Paul is allud-
ing here to the Law, without which there would be no transgressions.
For Paul, it is only possible to speak about sin and grace (and this means
speaking about sin and the superabundance of grace) if the role of the
Law is also mentioned. And this is precisely the point of 5,18-21: the
passage 5,12-21 on “Adam and Christ” is about Christ, the last Adam
(1Cor 15,45), and the Law.
After the explanations of 5,13-14 and 5,15-17, Paul returns in 5,18 to
the comparison of 5,12 that he had interrupted (“Well then…”), in order
to launch his thesis proper, and this from the basis of the illuminative
verse 5,20, where he clearly and explicitly formulates why Christ cannot
in truth be compared with Adam: the difference is the Law. The last of
the three comparisons, the concluding passage of 5,21, has therefore been
formulated as a final sentence to 5,20. The radical eschatological turning
point in history lies in Jesus Christ: in him, the reign of sin and death
yields to that of grace and life. But because of his readers, Paul cannot
afford to omit giving a definition of the place and function of the Law in
this history; this topic directly reflects the entire communicative situation
of the discourse of 5–8. For Paul, the Law was only the Law for an inter-
mediate phase, a phase which has in the meantime come to an end, and
the actual – and, in Paul’s view, explicitly intended – effect of the Law
was only to increase sin: since Moses sin is a transgression of the Law,
and is counted for sin (as Adam’s fall, 5,12). Thus the propositio of
5,12-21 means that Jesus Christ has brought the reign of sin to an end, but
in doing so he has also brought the reign of the Law to an end. The new
Christian existence of the former Jew was made possible precisely because
Christ has overruled the Law.
4. Rom (6,1-23); 7,1-6.7-25: Argumentatio

The argumentatio (6,1–7,25) shows the Jewish Christian reader that he
has been set free from “Sin”, and therefore also from the Law, because
the Law has permitted itself to be abused as the accomplice of “Sin”.
The argument starts with a fictitious discussion in the style of a diatribe
(cf. the beginning of the argumentatio 3,27ff; and also 9,19-24), with a
604 P. Farla
misunderstanding concerning 5,20-21 – the misunderstanding already

pointed out and challenged in 3,5-8, that Paul was arguing that grace
depended on sin, giving licence to ethical libertinism.
The first phase of the argumentation comprises 6,1-14 and 6,15-23. Paul
contends that the Christian has been freed of the power of Sin through
baptism, and has acquired a new life in Jesus Christ, in grace, and that he
is therefore called to live a sinless life. The passage 6,1-14 offers a brief
theology of baptism, but this theology is entirely subservient to the proof
that the state in which the Christian lives is a state of salvation, redeemed
from Sin, and therefore also set free from the Law. The passages 6,1-14
and 6,15-23 both begin with a question in the “we” form (6,1.15a). The
reply of 6,2-13 is supported by 6,14a (“because sin will no longer have
any power over you”), but this conclusion in turn is supported by 6,14b
(“because you are no longer under the Law, but under grace”). The ques-
tion of 6,15a is directly linked to 6,14b, so that the answer of 6,15b-23 is
also further proof of the impotence of the Law. For the benefit of confused
Jewish Christians, the passages 6,1-14.15-23 extensively and poignantly
describe the ethical consequences for the new life of grace, but as such
they serve as proof for the propositio of 5,12-21: Christ sets free from the
dominion of the Law.
The argument enters a new phase with 7,1-6: Paul also explains the
limited function of the Law mentioned in the propositio, its soteriological
powerlessness (5,20). For the first time since 1,13, Paul directly addresses
the readers again as “brothers”, twice even (7,1.4). In applying the anal-
ogy of 7,1-3 and returning to “we”, he summarises the entire discourse
from 6,1ff onwards (7,4-6). The question of 7,1 for the third time – after
the questions of 6,3 and 6,16 – appeals to the readers’ knowledge
and experience (“do you not know?”), but this time not to knowledge
arising from their current Christian existence, but from their Jewish past:
they know the Law. There is a sharp contrast between the present of the
Christian, set free from the Law and sin, and the past of the Jew, sinful
because of the Law. This is yet another attempt to convince the readers
that the Law by definition has no further role to play in their Christian
lives, because the Law only effects the power of Sin, and it is precisely
from this that they have been set free in Christ.
And then Paul switches from “we” to the infamous “I”. This transition
is of the same character as that in 3,5-8, - the anticipation on these chap-
ters; it is not only logical within the communicative situation, but it is also
extraordinarily effective vis-à-vis the reader. Whereas 7,4-6 only mentions
the radical change in the life of the Jew who has become a Christian, for
Jewish Christians in general, 7,7-25 describes this change in great detail,
and this for the individual person, because it is a change that takes place
in the personal life of the individual. The persons that make up the “we”
are in fact identical to the “I”: “we” are Paul and the readers, “I” is the
author Paul and each of his readers individually. In 7,7-25, Paul plays his
last trump card, which is oriented directly to the religious sensibility of

each individual reader: the Law serves Sin. Readers would encounter
the gravest difficulties were they to attempt once again to strive for their
salvation through the Law. Paul asks the reader to recall his Jewish past
and to imagine how hopeless his situation under the Law was at the time:
trying to fulfil the Law, fully aware of being inescapably entangled in sin
through the Law.
Paul begins his analysis – from his Christian perspective – with a char-
acterisation of Jewish life as a life under the Law on the basis of its ori-
gins, his own and his readers’ Jewish existence: taking the Law upon
oneself means relinquishing oneself to the power of Sin (7,7-12)44. It is
out of the question that this passage should be regarded as an allusion to
the story of paradise – the “I” is supposedly invested with characteristics
of Adam45. But Adam’s history is totally different46. Adam faces a real
death in the future, the “I” faces death in a metaphorical sense, and this
in the past. Rom 7,10a speaks (metaphorically) of a death that has in fact
already taken place (ἀπέθανον), of the (metaphorical) real death of the
“I” that continues to live, of the definitive end of the time in the life of
the “I” that he was not yet accountable for keeping the Law and still
“belonged to himself”. Gen 3,18-19, on the contrary, refers to a future
death, which is the end of life pure and simple. The confrontation with the
Law creates a duality within the “I”: it is because of the Law that an “I”
living in covetousness and sin knows that there is an “I” that has “already
died”, a “self” that was still unknowing and innocent. These phases do
not exist for Adam; for him, life begins with the command of Gen 2,16-
17: there is no period preceding this command47. Through the command,
44. Both Schlier, Der Römerbrief (n. 6), p. 223, and Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer
(n. 6), II, pp. 78-79, (rather briskly) reject this interpretation.
45. Thus for instance Schlier, Der Römerbrief (n. 6), pp. 222f; Wilckens, Der Brief
an die Römer (n. 6), II, p. 79; Theobald, Römerbrief (n. 1), p. 157; U. Schnelle, Paulus:
Leben und Denken, Berlin – Boston, MA, 22014, p. 355; S. Byrskog, Adam and Medea
– and Eve: Revisiting Romans 7,7-25, in Breytenbach (ed.), Paul’s Graeco-Roman Con-
text (n. 15), 273-299, pp. 281-286; A. Reichert, Literarische Analyse von Römer 7,7-25a,
in Schnelle (ed.), The Letter to the Romans (n. 22), 297-325, p. 306, who thinks that: “Die
Paradiesgeschichte ist nicht eine referentielle Bezugsgrösse auf die der Leser durch Röm
7,7c-11 oder aus Einzelelemente daraus hingewiesen wird, gleichwohl wird er indirekt zur
Assoziation dieser Geschichte aufgefordert”, “indirekt”, but, “vom Text selbst ausgelöst”
(p. 307). “Insgesamt fordert die Frage nach der Beziehung zur Paradiesgeschichte zu einem
eigentümlichen Balanceakt heraus” (p. 307).
For an overview of this debate, see particularly H. Lichtenberger, Das Ich Adams und
das Ich der Menschheit: Studien zum Menschheitsbild in Römer 7 (WUNT, 164), Tübingen,
2004.
46. J.-N. Aletti, Rm 7,7-25 encore une fois: Enjeux et propositions, in NTS 48 (2002)
358-376, p. 363, even thinks that: “le scénario (…) est exactement le même en Rm 7,7-12
et en Gn 2–3 et peut se résumer en trois mots: précepte, convoitise, mort”.
47. Versus E. Süld, Adam bei Paulus in Römer 7: Bemerkungen zur paulinischen Para-
diesgeschichte, in Schnelle (ed.), The Letter to the Romans (n. 22), 771-777, pp. 773.776.
606 P. Farla
sin became alive and the “I” died (7,9-10); the command of Genesis, on
the contrary, has a positive objective; it constitutes Adam’s existence as
a life in obedience to God. For Adam, mortality is a punishment from God
for transgressing the commandment; for the “I”, death becomes a reality
as the result of accepting the Law. And if the passage is read in the light
of the paradise story, the exclusive significance of “the Law” and “the
commandment” is stretched to the extent of giving them a general sig-
nificance48. But the Law mentioned in the question of 7,7a is the Law of
Moses: and this means that the Law mentioned in the answer is also the
Law of Moses. “The commandment” is simply the commandment “Thou
shalt not covet”, a commandment that could also serve as a summary of
the Law, and that is identical here with “the Law”49: as no other, it rep-
resents the Law in its imperative and ineluctable nature: the Law – an
institution from the period between Adam and Christ, for the use of the
power of sin (cf. 5,20) – activates sin and makes him who accepts the
burden of the Law, a prisoner of sin, because learning he must not covet,
the Law awakes all kinds of covetousness in him (7,7-8). There can be no
doubt about this: the period “outside the Law” refers to the period in
which the Law already existed, but in which no personal responsibility
could yet be imputed to the “I” for keeping it: the years of childhood50.
In 7,7-12, Paul describes the effects of the Law on Jewish life, and thus,
on the basis of his own typical theology of sin and Law, characterises the
Law as the accomplice of Sin (7,11). However, the definitive answer to
the question of 7,7a is that, in itself, “the Law is holy, and the command-
ment is holy and just and good” (7,12).
After 7,7-12, 7,13-23 analyses – from his Christian perspective – what
it actually means to live under the Law: to know what is good and what
is sin, and yet, as captive of sin through the Law, not to be able to fulfil
the Law. But Paul wants his readers to experience in person what it would
48. Theobald, Römerbrief (n. 1), p. 157: “Liefert die Paradieserzählung den hermeneu-
tischen Rahmen für die Apologie des Gesetzes von 7.7ff. dann ‘sprengt’ damit Paulus ‘auch
den engen und ausschliesslichen Bezug des Nomos auf das “Gesetz des Mose vom Sinai”
und gibt ihm eine universalmenschliche Bedeutung’”, with a quotation by R. Schnacken-
burg. For similar comments see Reichert, Literarische Analyse von Römer 7,7-25a (n. 45),
pp. 306-307.
49. Thus Schlier, Der Römerbrief (n. 6), p. 223.
50. J. Lambrecht, The Wretched “I” and Its Liberation: Paul in Romans 7 and 8
(LTPM, 14), Leuven, 1992, p. 86, similarly argues that “Paul composed Romans 7 with a
Christian view of (his) pre-Christian existence”. He believes it is unlikely that Paul is think-
ing of Jewish childhood days in 7,7-13; his objections, ibid., pp. 81-82: a. 7,7 “does not
immediately think of a developing subjective awareness during the process of maturation,
rather one thinks of a proclamation of the law which comes from the outside” ; b. is child-
hood really the “true” life of which 7,9 speaks?; c. do Jewish children live “completely
outside the law, (…) apart from the law?”; d. “the pericope contains unequivocal allusions
to Adam and unredeemed Israel”. These objections are not convincing; the last one has
been refuted above, the other three are strongly psychological in nature and ignore the
strongly antithetical character of the passage.
entail if they were to hold on to the Law51. Paul defends the Law, but this
defence serves as proof for the powerlessness of the Law. If the Law
allowed itself to be so abused by Sin, then surely it is wrong to trust in the
Law for one’s salvation. The concluding verses of 7,21-23 establish that
he who trusts in the Law is in a hopeless situation: he wants to do good,
takes pleasure in God’s Law, knows what reason commands, but evil
imposes itself in his actions, he is the prisoner of Sin. Just as 7,7-12, this
passage begins with a conclusion formulated as a question, drawn from
the preceding discourse (7,7a.13a), but it is articulated in such extreme
terms that it is immediately and resolutely swept aside (“out of the ques-
tion”), and then replaced, in a sentence beginning with “but”, by a less
far-reaching contention (7,7c-d.13c-d), – a deliberate rhetorical strategy to
persuade the reader of what is, despite everything, still an uncomfortable
insight: Sin abuses the Law for its own purposes and brings about death.
Paul then explains this view on the basis of the twofold insight of 7,14
which he shared with the reader: the Law is spiritual (7,14a), but “I” am
in the power of Sin (7,14b). The first contention is then further developed
in 7,15-16, the second in 7,17-20. Each time, Paul first describes how the
“I” wants one thing (the good; and given the conclusion of 7,16 and the
context, the good is: that which the Law commands), but does another
(evil) (7,15.17-19); then, in a construction with a conditional clause that
summarises the situation once again, he indicates what that situation says
about the “I”. Paul proves in 7,15-16 that the “I” embraces the Law, and
in 7,17-20 that the “I” is in the power of Sin. The conclusion follows in
7,21-23. Playing on the concept of “law” (νόμος), Paul observes that
the “I” is seeking to work out his salvation with the Law, but remains52
hopelessly captive in the clutches of Sin through the same Law. The
soteriological character of the passage53 is confirmed by the existential cry
of distress (7,24) and the words of thanksgiving for salvation through
Jesus Christ (7,25a). 7,13-25 speaks about an imaginary dichotomy, is
a retrospective by a Jew who has become a Christian, i.e. by Paul and each
of his Jewish Christian readers, who looks back to his Jewish existence
under the Law, and who, as a Christian, realises with horror the hopeless-
ness of the situation in which he was at the time.
51. There is therefore no question of a true interior struggle (for Christians) between
good intentions and the weakness of the will in Rom 7; cf. J. Müller, Willensschwäche
und innerer Mensch in Röm 7 und bei Origenes: Zur christlichen Tradition des Handelns
wider besseres Wissen, in ZNW 100 (2009) 223-246.
52. Nor therefore is the “I” in Rom 7 the rhetorical figure of the prosopopoeia; as
B.R. Dyer, “I Do Not Understand What I Do”: A Challenge to Understanding Romans 7
as Prosopopoeia, in Porter – Dyer (eds.), Paul and Ancient Rhetoric (n. 2), 186-205
concludes correctly.
53. “Ausgangspunkt der paulinischen Gesetzes- und Sündenlehre ist nicht die Anthro-
pologie, sondern die Christologie und Soteriologie”, according to E.P. Sanders, Paulus und
das palästinische Judentum (SUNT, 17), Göttingen, 1985, pp. 456-457.
608 P. Farla
5. Rom 8,1-17.18-30.31-39
a) Rom 8,1-17: Peroratio / Recapitulatio

Rom 6–7 proves the proposition of 5,12-21. In 8,1-17, Paul draws the
conclusion and summarises his argument, ensuring as an excellent orator
that there is sufficient variation and vibrancy. Entirely in line with what
the argumentatio has established, the passage discusses the new life of
the Jew who has become a Christian, against the backdrop of his former
existence: not a life under the Law, but life “in Christ” sets me/us free
(8,2/8,4ff: the “I” of 7,7-25) from Sin and allows me to satisfy the demand
of the Law to live a sinless life. The focus is now on the contrast between
“spirit” and “flesh”, a contrast that had already been used in 7,5-6 (see
also 5,5) to characterise the changeover of power between sin and grace
that is effected in baptism.
Paul begins the passage in 8,1 with great emphasis by confirming his
proposition, formulated as a motto: “So there is now no condemnation
for those who are in Christ Jesus” (for “now” see 5,9.11; 6,19.22; 7,6;
for “condemnation” (κατάκριμα,) see 5,16.18 (not elsewhere in the N.T.);
for “in Christ” see 6,11). 8,2-4 then briefly and succinctly – if somewhat
too profusely – summarises the arguments54. The reign (“the law”) of the
spirit of life in Christ (see 6; 7,6; and also 5,10.17) has set the Jew who
has become a Christian free of the reign (“the law”) of Sin and Death
(see 6,18.22-23). In principle, it was the Law that was meant to offer this
liberation (cf. 5,20), but given the human condition (“the flesh”; 6,19;
7,5.18.25), the Law was unable to do this. Now God has brought about
this liberation: by sending his son in the form of “sinful flesh” (6,10; see
also 5,8). In order to defeat the power of “the flesh”, he has condemned
Sin in “the flesh”, on the terrain where Sin exercised its power. The pur-
pose of this, 8,4 says, was that we would be able to satisfy the requirement
of justice that the Law – which in itself is holy and good; 7,12 – sets for
us, by “living our life” (περιπατεῖν; see 6,4) not “according to the flesh”,
but “according to the spirit”. We are “dead to Sin” (6,2-11), we must
“lead a new life” (6,4) serving “justice” (6,13.19).
In 8,5-17 Paul again – if differently – develops what this new existence,
described already in chapter 6, consists of: first in a general-theoretical
way in 8,5-8, then in a practical-encouraging way, addressed directly to
his readers, in 8,9-11, and finally in a conclusion in 8,12-17. He refers
again to central concepts from 5,1-11 and 5,12-21: the spirit tends towards
“life” and “peace” (8,6.10; cf. 5,1.10.17.18.21); the “flesh” tends
towards “enmity towards God” (8,7; cf. 5,10). In the expressly phrased
conclusion of 8,12-17 (“So then, my brothers”) Paul, alluding to the
54. “V 3 ist (…) vor lauter Bestreben, möglichst alles und genau zu sagen, recht unver-
ständlich geraten”, according to Schlier, Der Römerbrief (n. 6), p. 240.
etaphor of slavery (6,15-23), uses his most poignant words to describe

m
life in the Spirit. We are obliged to serve, not the “flesh”, as if we were
to live according to the “flesh”, which leads to death, but the Spirit, so
that we can live (8,12-13). Then Paul introduces the contrast “slave” –
“child”/“son”, and with “son” also “father”: we are no longer “slaves”,
but “children” and “sons” of God, whom we may call “Abba”, “Daddy”.
There is an asyndetic transition from 8,16-17 to 8,18-30: if we are children
of God, then we are also his heirs, together with Christ: we share in his
suffering (see 5,3-4) in order to share in his glory (see 5,1-2).
b) Rom 8,18-30: Peroratio / Amplificatio

The function of the peroratio is not only to briefly summarise the
insights that the argument has yielded, but also to give the orator one more
opportunity to make an impression on his audience, to play on their
emotions, especially on their hope or their fear (amplificatio)55. Paul uses
the amplificatio here – and in 9–11 – to view the problem under discussion
in the context of the eschatological future. Paul could not have concluded
his discourse on the certainty of salvation more penetratingly or persua-
sively than by giving his readers a perspective on the future. In 8,18-30,
Paul situates the Christian life he has described in 5,1-5.6-11 and 8,10-11
in the tension between being “already” redeemed and being “not yet”
glorified from the perspective of the eschatological fulfilment of the whole
of creation. In doing so he uses the Jewish apocalyptic scenarios that his
Jewish Christian readers (see 8,28-30.33.37.39) would have been familiar
with. In offering this perspective on eschatological fulfilment, Paul
advances the ultimate argument for the proposition of which he is seeking
to convince his Jewish Christian readers: ultimate certainty of salvation in
Jesus Christ, without the Law.
55. “Even the ancient rhetorical handbooks disagreed both about number and the names
of (the) (…) parts of speech”, according to Martin, Invention and Arrangement in Recent
Pauline Rhetorical Studies (n. 3), p. 65. The peroration often consists of three parts: reca-
pitulatio, indignatio and conquestio, but this division is not fixed; Cicero, De partitione
oratoria 15,52-53, distinguishes two parts, the amplificatio and the recapitulatio; see
J. Martin, Antike Rhetorik: Technik und Methode, München, 1974, pp. 147ff. The perora-
tio not only provides another opportunity for a brief summary of the discourse and to
remind the audience of the arguments; it also gives the orator another chance to impress
his audience and to win it over to his point; the amplificatio allows him to sharpen his
arguments once more and to broaden their scope (see Martin, Antike Rhetorik, pp. 153f).
After the recapitulatio of 8,1-17, 8,18-30 can very plausibly serve as a persuasive strength-
ening of the argumentatio as far as its function is concerned – i.e. to integrate the indi-
vidual reader’s certainty of salvation in the context of the apocalyptic fulfilment of the
entire creation.
610 P. Farla
c) Rom 8,31-39: Peroratio / Concluding Hymn of Praise

8,31-39 concludes the discourse in hymnic tones, tying in with the motif
of God’s overwhelming love (see 5,8-9): if God has given us his son, he
– and Paul also refers to himself – will also give us all his gifts. Nothing
can separate us from God’s love in Jesus Christ: we are victors: set free
from the powers of Sin and Death.
IV. Rom 9–11
The year 2010 saw the publication of an impressive collection of mostly

exegetical studies on Rom 9–11 under the title: “Between Gospel and
Election”56. According to the blurb Paul reflects deeply in Rom 9–11 on
the “fundamental theological question”: “How do the truth claims of the
gospel of Christ square with the biblical testimony to God’s abiding elec-
tion of the Jewish people?”57. F. Wilk gives the following answer in his
contribution on the structure of 9–11: “Paulus kontrastiert (…) in 9,1-5
angesichts des ‘Neins’ vieler Juden (…) zum Evangelium dessen Wahr-
heitsanspruch als Christusbotschaft mit der Gewissheit der Heilszusage, die
in der Identität der Israeliten begründet ist (…)”58. The volume emphati-
cally confirms the traditional interpretation of the three chapters as it can
also be found in other recent literature, for instance by U. Schnelle59,
M. Theobald60 and M. Wolter61. But their problem is not Paul’s problem.
56. Wilk – Wagner (eds.), Between Gospel and Election (n. 7).
57. According to the cover text of Between Gospel and Election (n. 7), see also the
Introduction, p. xii: Rom 9–11 is “Paul’s most rigorous and sustained attempt to hold
together two fundamental convictions that”, (given Israel’s disbelief) “appear to stand hope-
lessly in conflict: that the gospel he proclaims is ‘the power of God for salvation for all
who trust, for the Jew first and likewise for the Greek’ (1:16), and that this same God
remains irrevocably committed to the promises graciously made to God’s own people Israel
(e.g., 9:1-5; 11:1.28-29)”.
58. F. Wilk, Rahmen und Aufbau von Römer 9–11, in Id. – Wagner (eds.), Between
Gospel and Election (n. 7), 227-253, p. 237.
59. Schnelle, Paulus (n. 45), p. 368: “Das übergreifende Thema von Röm 9–11 ist die
Frage nach der in Jesus Christus erschienenen Gerechtigkeit Gottes und damit der Treue
Gottes angesichts der an Israel ergangenen Verheissungen (…). Gottes Gerechtigkeit steht
auf dem Spiel”.
60. M. Theobald, Unterschiedliche Gottesbilder in Röm 9–11? Die Israel-Kapitel als
Anfrage an die Einheit des theologischen Diskurses bei Paulus, in Schnelle (ed.), The
Letter to the Romans (n. 22), 135-177, p. 151: “Schärfer konnte Paulus die Aporie, in der
er ‘seine Verwandten dem Fleisch nach’ sieht, nicht auf dem Punkt bringen: Getrennt von
Christus, mit Gott verbündet”. In his Römerbrief (n. 1), p. 262, however, he observes that:
3,1-4 gives “sehr genau schon die Themenstellung von Kap. 9–11 zu erkennen: (…) ob
nämlich das Nein Israels das vorgängige Ja Gottes in seinem erwählenden ‘Wort’ zunichte
gemacht hat”, – and that is an entirely different question; see also n. 34.
61. M. Wolter, Paulus: Ein Grundriss seiner Theologie, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2011, p. 427:
“Ausgangspunkt der Israel-Frage ist (…) eine Status-Diskrepanz: Wie lässt sich Israels
gegenwärtige Unheilssituation mit seiner Erwählung theologisch zusammenbringen?”.
Two presuppositions recur constantly in attempts to interpret 9,1-5:

1. Rom 9–11 is an elaboration of the conviction proclaimed in 1,16-17 that
God will also ultimately bring about his salvation for Israel62; 2. the begin-
ning of the discourse, the question in 9,1-5, or this question together with
the proposition of 9,6a, corresponds to what is supposedly the answer to
this question and this proposition, the conclusion and the purpose of the
discourse, 11,25-27(32)63. These presuppositions are premature: 1,16-17
does not articulate the theme of the letter, but is the exordium of 1,13–
4,25; and whether 9,1-5.6a and 11,25-27(32) belong together as question
and answer or proposition and conclusion will first have to be demon-
strated from the structure of the discourse. It is precisely with regard to
the structure of the discourse that Rom 9–11 poses serious problems.
If Paul is indeed asking in 9,1-5 how Israel’s lack of faith fits into God’s
plan of salvation, then M. Wolter’s rather peculiar conclusion would be
warranted, that Paul first repeatedly dodges this question in 9,6a-29 and
9,30–10,21 and 11,1-10, only to address “the real problem” in 11,11-32
when he asks: “did they stumble so that they would come to their down-
fall?” (11,11): “Ist (Israels) derzeitige Unheilssituation definitiv und
endgültig?”64. But this problem is not Paul’s problem.
In 5–8, Paul demonstrated to his Jewish Christian readers that they may
be assured of eschatological salvation thanks to Jesus Christ, and that this
certainty of salvation is part of God’s eternal purpose to choose them
and call them (8,28-30)65. But however reassuring and encouraging this
62. “Wahrscheinlich deckt die propositio 1.16f. auch Röm 9–11 mit ab”, according to
Theobald, Römerbrief (n. 1), p. 262. Wischmeyer, Römerbrief (n. 4), p. 307: “Diese Kapi-
tel diskutieren (…) die propositio generalis und ihre Auslegung in 3,21ff. für die Juden”.
And K.-W. Niebuhr, “Nicht alle aus Israel sind Israel” (Röm 9,6b): Römer 9–11 als
Zeugnis paulinischer Anthropologie, in Wilk – Wagner (eds.), Between Gospel and Elec-
tion (n. 7), 433-462, p. 438, writes: “Die Einbindung von Röm 9–11 in die Gesamtargu-
mentation des Römerbriefs lässt die Intention erkennen, den Aufweis der Offenbarung der
Gerechtigkeit Gottes im Christusgeschehen mit dem Nachweis der Verheissungstreue Got-
tes gegenüber sein Volk Israel zu verknüpfen”.
63. See for instance Theobald, Unterschiedliche Gottesbilder (n. 60), p. 148: what is
at stake in 9,6a is “die alle drei Kapittel abdeckende propositio principalis (…), denn Paulus
löst sie erst ganz am Ende seiner Trias ein, nämlich in der prophetische Aussage des ‘Myste-
riums der Rettung ganz Israels’”; Id., Studien zum Römerbrief (WUNT, 136), Tübingen,
2001, p. 343: Rom 11,13-32 appears “die paränetische und theologische Pointe der drei
Kapitel insgesamt zu enthalten”; K. Haacker, Das Thema von Römer 9–11 als Problem
der Auslegungsgeschichte, in Wilk – Wagner (eds.), Between Gospel and Election (n. 7),
55-72, pp. 63-64: 9,6a and 11,29 form an inclusio, which is “für das Gesamtverständnis
von Röm 9–11 von entscheidender Bedeutung”. And in the same volume Wilk, Rahmen
und Aufbau von Römer 9–11 (n. 58), p. 238: precisely 11,25-36 offers “die endgültige
Lösung des in 9,1-5 präsentierten Problems”; he regards 9,1-5 as the exordium that simul-
taneously serves as narratio (p. 236), 11,25-36 is the peroratio (p. 237).
64. Wolter, Paulus (n. 61), pp. 427-432, quotation p. 430.
65. “God’s elect” (8,33) are the same as “they who have been called according to God’s
purpose” (8,28), the “we” Paul mentions in 8,31b-32 and throughout the entire discourse
of 5–8: the Jewish Christians; cf. 9,24. “Es ist ein Ehrennahme der Söhne Israels (vgl.
1 Chr. 16,13; Ps 104,6.43)”, according to Schlier, Der Römerbrief (n. 6), p. 277; cf. also
612 P. Farla
message may be, it only reinforces their concerns about Israel. And it is
Paul himself who has cast them into this crisis: Israel is cut off from sal-
vation; does this not mean that God has broken off his relationship with
Israel (see 3,3)? Paul is inquiring into the causes of Israel’s current state
of being cut off from salvation66.
1. Rom 9,1-3: Exordium (1)

Two parts can easily be distinguished in 9,1-5: 9,1-3 and 9,4-5. The
verses 9,4-5 are a relative clause (οἵτινές εἰσιν) belonging to 9,1-3, but
they are very different. The personal and emotional aspects of 9,1-3 give
way to a carefully constructed, solemn, but matter-of-fact summary of
the gifts that God has bestowed upon Israel and that made Israel into the
chosen people. The relative pronoun of 9,4 is causal: 9,4-5 deals with
the past and clarifies 9,1-3 (specifically “my brothers”), which deals
with the present; 9,4-5 does not itself formulate the problem, but explains
it: the present is a problem because of the past. The exordium consists
of 9,1-3, and 9,4-5 is the accompanying narratio67.
Paul begins his discourse on Israel with a solemn and momentous oath
(9,1) that he is in great sorrow and constant agony (9,2): he would prefer
to be “accursed” and “cut off from Christ” himself instead of (i.e.: for
the benefit of) his “brothers”, his own flesh and blood (9,4). This is an
emotive and moving lament of the state of being cut off from salvation
into which Israel has been plunged. But it is also a rhetorical masterstroke.
It can be deduced from the proposition 9,6a that Paul – with his radically
levelling views on election and the law – has deeply affected his Jewish
Christian readers and confused them concerning the position of the unbe-
lieving part of Israel. At the beginning of his discourse, Paul wants them
to realise how empathetic he is towards them and how dear the fate of
Israel is to his heart. He assures them that he would be prepared to give
up his own salvation for theirs, calls them “my brothers” – a qualification
that he otherwise uses only for fellow Christians –, and, taking a cautious
and diffident attitude, does not mention the cause of his sadness by name,
but only indirectly. The ‘causa’ that Paul raises, and which he knows is
occupying the minds of his Jewish Christian readers, is Israel’s current
state, cut off from salvation.
Deut 4,37; 7,7-8; 10,15; Ps 47,5; 78,68; Jer 31,3; Mal 1,2-3; he thinks, like most authors
do, that the term refers here to “the Christians”. “God’s elect” appears twice elsewhere in
the New Testament, in Col 3,12 and Tit 1,1, but these letters are not by Paul.
66. The following rhetorical-critical analysis of Rom 9–11 also answers the much-
debated question as to the internal coherence and inner logic of these three chapters.
67. J.-N. Aletti, Romains 11: Le développement de l’argumentation et ses enjeux
exégético-théologiques, in Schnelle (ed.), The Letter to the Romans (n. 22), 197-223,
envisions the rhetorical structure 9–11 as follows: 9,1-5: exordium; 9,6–11,32: probatio;
11,33-36: peroratio. He divides the probatio into the following parts: 9,6-29 with 9,6a as
the propositio, 9,30–10,21 with 10,4 as propositio, and 11,1-32, with 11,1a as propositio.
2. Rom 9,4-5: Narratio (1)

Paul calls his physical relatives by the salvation-historical honorific of
“Israelites”, and lists God’s gifts. This list does not provide extensive
information that would be essentially superfluous to the Jewish Christian
reader, but is limited to a pithy summary of the privileges of Israel. It also
includes the fact that Christ originated from Israel presented as God’s
ultimate offer of salvation to Israel, the ultimate seal of their relationship,
the purpose of their election. Thus Paul continues the line of Israel’s
privileged past into the Christian community. That is rhetorically ingen-
ious and effective: in fact this view of Israel’s history confirms what Paul
wants to demonstrate in the following argumentatio. The doxology in 9,5b,
concluded with “Amen”, serves as a hymn of praise to God’s masterful
plan of salvation.
The narratio explains and highlights the seriousness of the situation
described in 9,1-3, explains why Paul is so intensely sad at Israel’s plight.
He observes a dramatic turning point in Israel’s history, from “chosen by
God” to “accursed and cut off from Christ” (9,3) – this is the fate that
Paul would like to assume himself in Israel’s stead. He asks himself how
it is possible that the chosen people of Israel, of all peoples, is now cut off
from salvation68. The question with which 9–11 begins is the question
concerning the cause of Israel’s current state of being cut off from salva-
tion, not the fundamental theological questions how the mutually exclu-
sive realities of being chosen and being cut off from salvation could still
both be part of God’s plan of salvation, and whether the current state of
being cut off from salvation is permanent. The problem is Israel’s present,
and Israel’s present is a problem because it forms a diametrical contrast
with Israel’s past.
3. Rom 9,6a: Propositio (1)

In 9,6a, Paul takes a stand in relation to the issue: “Yet it is not that
God’s word has lapsed”. That Israel is cut off from salvation does not
mean that God has repudiated his covenantal relationship with Israel. The
meaning of “God’s word” is a matter of controversy69, but what is at issue
here is what 3,2 calls the great privilege of Israel, God’s word as it is
expressed in the gifts mentioned in 9,4-5 and in the elective act of God
that is described in the following argument (9,7.9.12-13). The wording of
9,6a is striking and significant; it provides insight into the communicative
situation. If 9,6a is logically connected with 9,1-5, and if the argument of
9,6b-29 (following with “because”) offers the proof for 9,6a, then this
68. Similarly, A. Nygren, Der Römerbrief, Göttingen, 1951, p. 256: “Warum zieht
Paulus alle diese Vorzüge Israels heran? Um das Rätsel der Verwerfung Israels recht gross
zu machen”.
69. See for instance Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (n. 6), pp. 363-364.
614 P. Farla
confirms that the issue that Paul is addressing is indeed the question how
Israel’s current situation can be explained; 9,6a is the rejection of a spe-
cific answer to precisely that question and no other. Paul formulates his
proposition in response to what had obviously already been concluded –
erroneously – in the community with regard to the cause of Israel’s state
of being cut off from salvation. But the wording of 9,6a, following very
abruptly after 9,1-5 and with its corrective connotation, also reveals that
the entire discourse on Israel is intended first and foremost precisely to
clear up this misunderstanding, and that Paul is initially willing to answer
the question only in a preliminary way, and only in the negative – his real,
positive answer follows later. The misunderstanding in the community
bothers Paul so much because he holds himself personally responsible
for it because of his theology of justification and his view of the Law.
Rom 9,1-5 addresses the problem that had already been observed in 3,3:
Paul’s teaching surely means that God no longer regards Israel as his
chosen people70?!
4. Rom 9,6b-29: Argumentatio (1)

Paul’s argument for the propositio develops in two stages. In 9,7-13.14-18
he shows the principle according to which God realises his plan of salva-
tion with the world, on the basis of the early phase of Israel’s history: time
and again he autonomously and sovereignly chooses whom he wants, and
he hardens the hearts of whomever he wants. It was on the basis of this
principle that Israel became God’s chosen people, while other peoples did
not. But Israel’s privilege is not exclusive; God is and remains autono-
mous and sovereign, Creator of the world. And it was on the basis of this
principle, Paul says in 9,19-29, that God has now, in the time of salvation
that began with Jesus Christ, also granted his salvation to the Gentiles:
God’s election is now extended to anyone who believes in Christ, the
Christian community, which consists of Christians of both Jewish and
Gentile heritage. The conclusion, placed at the start in 9,6b in the form of
a proposition, cannot therefore be any other than that, from a Christian
perspective, not all of Israel is Israel. Since Christ, Israel has consisted of
two parts: a believing part and an unbelieving part. But the proposition of
9,6b is the argument for 9,6a. Because a part of Israel believes, it is no
longer possible to argue that the part that is cut off from salvation proves
that God has abandoned Israel. This is all 9,6-29 wants to prove; Paul has
not yet addressed the unbelieving, non-elect, “hardened” part of Israel in
this argument.
70. Cf. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (n. 6), II, p. 181: “Paulus will und muss
Antwort geben auf den zentralen Einwand des jüdischen Partners, die universale Heils
verkündigung des Evangeliums für Juden und Heiden sei erkauft um den Preis des Bruches
der Erwählungszusage Gottes an Israel”; see also n. 32.
The argument for the proposition of 9,6a consists of a rather cryptic,

but also rather provocative contention of 9,6b: “Not all born Israelites
belong to Israel”. “Not all” is used adjectivally, and is placed at the front
of the sentence for emphasis; just like the corresponding “some” in 3,3
and 10,16, it must be understood as a litotes, meaning “most do not”.
With this contention, Paul compels his readers to distinguish between
“the people of Israel” as an ethnic concept, and the “chosen people” as
a theological concept, the Israel intended by God, in fact – but this will
be the conclusion of the discourse – between the unbelieving and the
believing parts of Israel: it is not through descent that anyone belongs to
Israel, but through God’s election. And precisely because Paul redefines
“Israel” in this sentence, what he said in 9,6a is true: God’s word has not
lapsed. In what follows, Paul explains what right he has to make this
distinction: in fact the entire argument of chapter 9 is a clarification of
the argument of 9,6b, with its culmination point in 9,19ff: that is where
the two “Israels” are explicitly identified: on the one hand Israel as the
“people chosen by God of old”, as the “objects of God’s mercy, destined
for glory” (9,23), who, however, are currently (mostly) excluded from
salvation (cf. 11,7: “the others, who are hardened”), and on the other
hand the believing part of Israel, the Jews in the Christian community
(9,24.27; cf. 11,5.7).
Paul demonstrates on the basis of the history of the ancestors and of
Moses that God always autonomously and sovereignly determines who
belongs to Israel (9,7-13.14-18). This is a daring and challenging approach.
In respect of the current division within Israel, Paul refers to the division
between Israel and non-Israel at Israel’s origins71. Israel was able to come
into existence because God directed events at two crucial moments in
the history of the ancestors. The first time was with Abraham (9,7-9). The
contention of 9,7a: “Not all descendants of Abraham are therefore (his)
71. The relation between 9,6a, 9,6b and 9,7 is important for the correct interpretation.
The proposition of 9,6a: “God’s word has not lapsed” is proved in 9,6b-29: a part of Israel
belongs to the Christian community. This argument itself rests on the proposition of 9,6b:
“Only part of Israel is Israel”. This division into two is then first explained on the basis of
the division in the genealogy of the ancestors: 9,7-13, which begins with the proposition of
9,7, of which “all” is the subject: “It is not because they are descendants of Abraham that
all (are) (his) children, but ‘Isaac is the one through whom your descendants will be
called’”. However effective this reference to the ancestors may have been for Jewish read-
ers, it will surely have escaped none of them that it is defective in one crucial respect. But
Paul places full focus on God’s sovereign election: he radically disassociates “people” and
“election” and also tries to convince his readers to do this. For the debate about 9,6-7, see
especially E.W. Stegemann, Alle von Israel, Israel und der Rest: Paradoxie als argumen-
tativ-rhetorische Strategie in Römer 9,6, most recently in Id., Der Römerbrief: Brennpunkte
der Rezeption, Zürich, 2012, 169-205, pp. 189ff; J. Khalil, Translating Rom 9,7a: For an
Accurate Understanding of a Difficult Verse, in Schnelle (ed.), The Letter to the Romans
(n. 22), 691-697; W. Reinbold, Zur Bedeutung des Begriffes “Israel” in Römer 9–11, in
Wilk – Wagner (eds.), Between Gospel and Election (n. 7), 401-416, pp. 408-414.
616 P. Farla
children” may form a literary parallel with 9,6b, but it is not a variant as
far as content is concerned; a new line of argumentation starts in 9,7a. The
contentions of 9,6b and 9,7a each deal with a different phase in the history
of salvation. Verse 9,6b draws a distinction within Israel, between a
believing and an unbelieving part; 9,7a distinguishes between Israel, the
people of the promise (the “seed of Abraham”, 2 Cor 11,22), and non-
Israel, the other descendants of the ancestors, the peoples. In the quotation
of 9,7b, “Isaac” is placed at the front for emphasis: only the descendants
of Isaac, the child of the promise (and not those of his other son Ishmael)
are designated Abraham’s descendants by God. This contention is sup-
ported by the general rule of 9,8: not children “according to the flesh”
(through the sole fact of descent) are the children of God, but only the
children “of the promise”, through God’s election, count as Abraham’s
descendants. God’s sovereign direction is even more evident in the case
of Isaac (9,10-13): even in the case of unborn twins, long before any
conclusions could be drawn about these two “equals” on the basis of their
personalities and conduct, God chose one of them, Jacob/Israel, and
rejected the other, Esau/Edom. Verse 9,11b-12 expressly interprets this
course of affairs, supported by a quotation in 9,13 (Mal 1,2-3), as some-
thing that belongs exclusively to God’s free decision: he calls and chooses
whom he wishes, without regard to “works”.
Paul offers an interim conclusion in 9,14-18. The history of Israel shows
that God acts free and sovereignly, and that Israel exists thanks to God’s
election, In order to underline the absolute validity of this insight, Paul
defends it against any human reservations, as if God’s actions were unjust.
He does this by referring to a third decisive moment in the genesis of
Israel, God’s direction at the Exodus, when God even used Pharaoh for
his own purposes. The conclusion of 9,14-18 culminates in two concisely
formulated general rules, 9,16, after the quotation from Ex 33,19, and
9,18, after the quotation from Ex 9,16: “God shows mercy to whom he
wants, he hardens the heart of whom he wants”.
On the basis of this insight from the past, Paul interprets the existence
of the Christian community in 9,19-29: it is a new and current proof, in
fact the ultimate proof, of the wondrous and inimitable way in which God
acts72. God favours Israel, but first of all God is Creator of the world, he
remains free and sovereign, and Israel cannot lay claim to its prerogatives.
But the form of Paul’s articulation of this conviction is remarkable after
the account of 9,6b-13.14-18: he does this on the basis of a discussion
72. If there is no reason to critically question God’s election of Israel, then there is no
reason either to do so now. See also M. Theobald, Kirche und Israel nach Röm 9–11, in
Id., Studien zum Römerbrief (WUNT, 136), Tübingen, 2001, 324-349, p. 333: “Wenn die
These Röm 9,6b von (der) gegenwärtigen Erfahrung des ‘Schismas’ in Israel selbst perspek-
tivisch geprägt ist, dann bedeutet das auch, dass Paulus diese Erfahrung im Vollzug der
Explikation der These an der Vätergeschichte in die Vergangenheit Israels zurückprojiziert
und diese von jener her theologisch entschlüsselt”.
with his Jewish Christian readers (cf. the beginning of the argumentatio in
3,27ff and 6,1ff). The question of 9,19 asks whether God’s sovereign gov-
ernment of the world leaves any scope for humans’ own responsibility.
Paul does not address the substance of the issue; the question, which is
connected with the general conclusion of 9,18, only serves again to point
to God’s sovereignty. Paul knows that his Jewish Christian readers are
troubled very particularly by the point that he now raises: God’s election
of the Gentiles, without Israel and the Law. He must succeed in persuad-
ing them that God is continuing his plan of salvation, begun in Israel, in
the Christian community73. With three counter-questions (9,20-21), Paul
puts them in their place as humans and creatures, vis-à-vis God as God
and Creator. These questions reflect a certain degree of indignation, as if
they were dealing with an insight that is actually quite obvious. Paul uses
the metaphors of the artist and his image, and of the potter and his product.
Thus on the one hand he describes God’s absolute sovereignty, and on the
other humans’ total disposability and subjection to God’s plan. History
proceeds according to God’s wishes. With the rebuke contained in the
questions of 9,20-21, Paul makes it clear to his readers that every misgiv-
ing that they may have in relation to what he is about to say is itself proof
of a lack of faith in God.
Then, in 9,22-24, Paul comes to the heart of the matter: now, in the
eschatological end time, God, in his absolute freedom and sovereignty, has
chosen to continue to realise his plan of salvation further through the
Christian community, which consists of both Jewish and Gentile Chris-
tians. Normally 9,22-23 is regarded as an anacoluthon, to be supplemented
by a question along the lines of: “What objection could be raised to this?”
But it is also possible to read 9,22-23 as a question in its own right, a
question that, following as it does the indignant reproach of 9,20-21, must
be interpreted as rhetorical, a question that has a challenging subtext:
“And what if this God (ὁ θεός) …, (23) precisely in order to ….?”). It is
a complex question. With “this God”, i.e. as he was described in 9,19-21,
and with the reference (reminiscent of 9,14-18) to God’s will to show his
retribution and his omnipotence, Paul first once again characterises God
as the absolute, sovereign and punishing God who desires to realise his
plan of salvation in the end time that is underway, and then he suggests
the possibility that it is precisely this God who, with great forbearance,
has tolerated “the objects of his retribution (σκεύη ὀργῆς), ready for
destruction” (part. perf. pass.), “precisely/solely for the purposes (καὶ
ἵνα)” of making known the riches of his glory to “the objects of his mercy
(σκεύη ἐλέους), whom he destined for glory” (indicative, aor. act.).
73. Paul does not mention the decisive difference between God’s elective action at the
beginning of Israel then, and within Israel now, in the time of the Christian church, but
Jewish readers of course immediately notice this troubling distinction (it also attracted the
attention of Theobald, Kirche und Israel [n. 72], p. 333).
618 P. Farla
According to the received interpretation, these metaphors – naturally

adjusted to the reality designated – stand for the unbelieving part of Israel
(“objects of retribution”) and the Christian community (“objects of
mercy”)74. The relative pronoun “those” (οὕς) that links 9,24 to 9,22.23
is often produced as the compelling argument for this interpretation:
“Those, too, he called, us, not only from the Jews, but also from the
Gentiles”. But this interpretation is entirely at odds with the logic of the
discourse of 9,6-29. This discourse describes the line along which God
realises his plan of salvation and whom he uses as instruments in doing
so, i.e. it describes the continuity in God’s plan up to and including the
Christian community (see the concluding Scriptural arguments 9,25-26.27-
29); the unbelieving part of Israel does not feature as a theme in this
discourse. In addition, the descriptions of the groups as “objects of retribu-
tion” and “objects of mercy” – just like the parallel pair “object for hon-
ourable or for dishonourable use” (ὃ εἰς τιμὴν σκεῦος and ὃ εἰς ἀτιμίαν)
in 9,21 – characterise reality created as such by God, and that by definition
includes the Gentiles and the Jews respectively. The phrase “God has put
up with” (ἤνεγκεν; aor.) indicates that the described period of God’s
patience has now passed forever, and that there is no salvation anymore
for them: God’s retribution is their lot. But this is certainly not the fate
of the Jews (see 11,13ff). And finally, in the Jewish tradition God’s
“forbearance” applies not to the Jews, but to the Gentiles75.
But what about 9,24? This verse has a very special rhetorical effect.
The relative pronoun “those” (οὕς) does not refer to the group mentioned
in 9,23 (“the objects of his mercy”), but to the group mentioned in 9,22
(“the objects of his retribution”). The question of 9,22-23, with 9,23
grammatically subordinate to 9,22, directly concerns God’s actions vis-à-
vis the first group (“the objects of his retribution”): Paul concludes with
amazement from a Jewish perspective, God has called those as well:
God’s plan of salvation is spectacular not because God has called people
“whom he destined for glory”, but because he makes use of people “who
were ready for destruction”, and because, moreover, he wants to show
“the riches of his glory” to the former group through the latter, of all
people (see 11,12 with its sequel in 11,13ff). In 9,24 it finally becomes
fully clear what the metaphors of 9,22-23 represent. If 9,24 is the answer
to the question of 9,22-23, and if both the question and the answer deal
with God’s actions towards the two mutually contrasted groups, then it is
certain that the two groups mentioned in 9,24 are identical to the two
74. Thus for instance Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (n. 6), II, p. 203; Schlier, Der
Römerbrief (n. 6), pp. 301.303; Theobald, Unterschiedliche Gottesbilder in Röm 9–11?
(n. 60), p. 145. By contrast, B.R. Gaventa, On the Calling-Into-Being of Israel: Romans
9,6-29, in Wilk – Wagner (eds.), Between Gospel and Election (n. 7), 255-269, p. 267,
believes that both groups mean both Jews and Gentiles.
75. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer (n. 6), II, p. 205, who points for instance to
2 Mac 6,14-15; 4 Ezra 7,44; sBar 59,6; Ws 12; 15,1.
groups described metaphorically in 9,22-23: “the objects of retribution”

stands for “the Gentiles”, “the objects of mercy” stands for “the Jews”.
The quotations in 9,25-29, which serve to offer the proofs for 9,22-24, also
speak of “the Gentiles” and “Israel”. God has “also” (from the Jewish
perspective) called the Gentiles, and this can be explained more explicitly,
again from a Jewish perspective, as: he has called “not just the Jews, but
also the Gentiles”. Enraptured and elated, Paul specifies and actualises the
“those” that refers to the Gentiles in general, by using the apposition
“us”, indicating that it also includes the situation of the mixed community
in Rome, and Paul consciously includes himself, a Jew, in this (“those,
too, God has called, us, not only from…”). As if by way of exclamation,
Paul concludes that the fantastic scenario – unimaginable and even scan-
dalous by Jewish standards – that he has audaciously sketched is in fact
their current Christian reality. But Paul has not yet mentioned the argu-
ments proper that he has to support this insight. They follow in 9,25-29 as
irrefutable contentions in the form of a number of Scriptural quotations,
two about the Gentiles, two about Israel. Those who were not God’s people,
have become God’s people (9,25), God’s sons (9,26), while Israel is called
only in part (9,27-29).
5. Rom 9,30-31: Exordium (2)

This interpretation of 9,6-29 in fact also answers the much debated
question76, whether 9,30-33 is the conclusion of the preceding discourse,
or the beginning of the following one: even though 10,1 constitutes a new
start, a new discourse begins in 9,30-33 as far as content is concerned77.
This is confirmed by the insight that the passage forms the exordium
(9,30-31) and narratio (9,32-33) of the discourse of 9,30–10,21: the con-
clusion of the preceding discourse becomes the definition of the problem
for the following one. God has not broken off his covenantal relationship
with Israel, but has now also chosen the Gentiles. But this insight only
partially – negatively – answers the question as to the origins of Israel’s
state of being cut off from salvation (9,1-3.4-5). The discourse does c larify
once again what the issue is that is at stake in 9,1-3.4-5: the election of
the Gentiles has caused a division within Israel, so that part of Israel is
now cut off from salvation. God has not rejected Israel: once Paul has
cleared up this horrible misunderstanding about his preaching, he addresses
the issue again in 9,30-31, this time focused specifically on what he thinks
76. F. Schleritt, Das Gesetz der Gerechtigkeit: Zur Auslegung von Römer 9,30-33, in
Wilk – Wagner (eds.), Between Gospel and Election (n. 7), 271-297 offers an excellent
interpretation of this passage.
77. According to Wilk, Rahmen und Aufbau von Römer 9–11 (n. 58), p. 231, a justi-
fiable decision to assign 9,30-33 either to the preceding or to the following discourse “ist
nur auf der Basis einer klaren Hierarchie der Gliederungsmerkmale zu fällen”.
620 P. Farla
is the core of the issue of “the unbelieving part of Israel”. In two strongly
parallel sentences, he paints a sharp contrast between the position of Israel,
cut off from salvation, and the faith of the Gentiles: the Gentiles, who did
not pursue justice, have acquired justice, and more particularly justice by
faith; but Israel, despite the fact that it pursued the law of justice, did not
attain the Law. In this contrast, “justice by faith” and “the Law” are iden-
tified with each other very conspicuously and therefore significantly. The
contention about Israel is paradoxical and provocative, because Israel has
possessed the Law since Moses. Paul not only says (unlike in 2,1–3,20)
that Israel has not attained justice through the Law, but he is obviously
interested in the underlying problem, the question why Israel is cut off
from salvation and did not attain justice through the Law, the fact that
Israel did not reach the purpose, significance and function of the Law: “the
(real meaning of the) Law” is “the justice of faith”.
6. Rom 9,32-33: Narratio (2)

This is followed by the question “why” Israel did not attain the mean-
ing of the Law (9,32a)78. The first answer is, concisely and elliptically:
“because (Israel pursued the Law) not by faith but by works!” (9,32b)79.
Paul then points to the past, to Israel’s refusal to accept Jesus Christ
(9,32c), using a mix of quotations from Is 28,16 and Is 8,14 which says
that Jesus Christ is a stumbling stone to those who do not believe, and
offers perspective to those who do (9,33). Israel’s decision to choose
“works” rather than faith is fixated to and identified as a specific point in
history in 9,32, which follows asyndetically: Israel chose the justice of the
Law when it rejected Jesus Christ80. God offered his salvation in Jesus
Christ for all who trust in him, but this offer did not please Israel.
7. Rom 10,1-4: Propositio (2)

If the propositio of 9,6a exonerated God, the propositio of 10,1-4
accuses Israel. As early on as the narratio of 9,32-33, Paul explained
Israel’s mistaken choice for the justice of the Law. The propositio – which
must not be reduced to the adage of 10,4 – describes precisely the thing
that Paul is accusing Israel of. It is very understandable that, after the
78. “Thema von Röm 10 ist die Frage ‘weshalb’ (9,32: διὰ τί) Israel Nein zum Evan-
gelium gesagt hat”, according to Theobald, Römerbrief (n. 1), p. 266; Id., Unterschiedli-
che Gottesbilder in Röm 9–11? (n. 60), p. 155. But 9,32a asks why Israel did not attain the
goal of the Law (9,31), and the fact that Israel rejected the gospel is the answer to this
question; 9–11 has not so far explicitly addressed the issue of Israel’s unbelief.
79. The exclamation mark is a “translation” of ὡς in “by works”.
80. Schleritt, Das Gesetz der Gerechtigkeit (n. 76), p. 292, hesitates to interpret
9,32c-33 as an argument belonging to 9,32b, because he determines the meaning of this
passage not on the basis of 9,32b as a whole, but of the concepts of “faith” and “works”.
delicacy with which he discussed Israel’s state of being cut off from salva-
tion in 9,1-3, he should now come with a serious accusation by way of
explanation – no doubt mindful of his own past (Gal 1,14; Phil 3,6) –, and
address his Jewish Christian readers to assure them how much he feels
connected with Israel, that he hopes and prays that Israel will be saved,
and how much he admires Israel for its religious zeal (10,1-2a). This is
followed by a reproachful “but”: their zeal is “without insight” (10,2b).
This lack of insight is described further in 10,3. “Because they have not
recognised (ἀγνοοῦντες) God’s justice, and have attempted to establish
(ζητοῦντες στῆσαι) their own (justice), they have not submitted them-
selves to the justice of God”. Because the two formally antithetic-chiastic
subordinate clauses with matching content, placed at the front (10,3ab),
recapitulate the content of the twofold answer of 9,32b, and provide argu-
ments for the proposition of 10,3c (“they have not submitted to the justice
of God”), ἀγνοοῦντες and ζητοῦντες στῆσαι both have an explicitly
negative connotation: Israel’s “zeal without insight” is a conscious,
culpable refusal to recognise the justice of God; they have, says 10,16, not
“obeyed” the gospel. The twofold verse 10,4 is also an argument con-
nected with 10,3: “Because the purpose of the Law is Christ, so that all
who have faith will be justified”. This twofold argument corresponds with
the arguments of 10,3ab; it expresses what Israel is disregarding when it
disregards God’s justice: that God is continuing the realisation of his plan
of salvation, begun with Israel, in Jesus Christ, that Christ, in a salvation-
historical sense, is the purpose and fulfilment of the Law; and it also
expresses what it means that Israel wants to establish its own justice: it
wants to retain the Law, it claims exclusivity of salvation, while God is
offering his salvation in Jesus Christ to anyone who has faith. The context
here determines the meaning of τέλος (“purpose” or “end”), especially
the correspondence between the exordium and the propositio. Paul is not
speaking here, as in 5–8, about the Law in a soteriological, but in a salva-
tion-historical sense. Τέλος here means “purpose” (see also, especially
3,21; and 3,31, with the associated argument of 4,1ff). In 10,3-4 Paul
acutely and precisely indicates why Israel has not submitted to the justice
of God: Israel regarded its election as an exclusive privilege and refused
to accept the universality of salvation in Jesus Christ81.
8. Rom 10,5-21: Argumentatio (2)

The argumentatio proves this propositio: that the purpose of the Law is
Christ, in whom God henceforth offers his salvation to anyone who
believes, that this exactly is the message that is preached by the apostles,
81. According to Wolter, Paulus (n. 61), p. 429, “Für Israels Fehler, hält Paulus, dass
es an seiner Besonderheit gegenüber den Völkern festhalten will bzw. – noch elementarer
formuliert: ‘dass es kein Christentum ist’”; with a quotation by E.P. Sanders.
622 P. Farla
but that Israel refused to accept this message. In 10,5-14 Paul first
demonstrates on the basis of the Law itself that the Law has reached its
purpose in the apostolic preaching. With Lev 18,5 he concludes once again
that the principle of the justice of the Law is “doing”, achievement (which
is in fact always deficient) (10,5). By contrast, he lets (personified) “justice
of faith” (10,6ff) explain, on the basis of a strongly adapted verse from
Deut 9,4; 30,12-14 (on God’s word for Israel) that Jesus Christ is present
among us: it is therefore not necessary to do the impossible, to go up to
heaven to get him, or down among the dead. Scripture (Ps 107,26) phrases
it correctly: the word is very near to you, it is in your mouth and in your
heart (10,6-8c). And this word, 10,8d explains, is “the word of the faith
that we (the apostles; cf. 10,14ff) preach”: it is the profession that Jesus
is Lord and that God has raised him from the dead (10,9-10). But what
Paul primarily wants to establish here is that this faith transcends all
human distinctions (10,11-13; see 10,4): faith in Jesus Christ cancels out
the distinction between Jew and Greek: “All who call on the name of the
Lord, will be saved”.
Paul explains in 10,14-21 why Israel refused to accept this universal
salvation in Christ. He begins by way of concluding 10,9-13 with four
rhetorical questions which are linked together as if in a chain argument
and which, in reverse order, mention the necessary subjective and objec-
tive conditions referred to before to come to faith. The climactic structure
and the adjoining quotation from Is 52,7 focus the emphasis on the impor-
tance of preaching by authorised preachers; Israel can only come to faith
if it accepts the preaching of the apostles (cf. 10,8). The question whether
Israel has met these conditions remains unanswered82. Paul first estab-
lishes in 10,16 that Israel (“not all”) did not heed the gospel, as was
predicted in Is 53,1, and then returns to the same question (10,17), before
finally explaining, once the conclusion has already been given, to what
extent Israel fell short of the requirements (10,18-21). In this composition,
the full emphasis is on the cause of Israel’s current position of being cut
off from salvation, and it permits Paul to present his accusation in the form
he prefers. He reformulates 10,14-15 to match the quotation from Isaiah:
“So faith is from what is heard, and what is heard comes from the word
of Christ” (10,17; see 10,8d). In this twofold form, the conditions are
focused on the preaching of Jesus Christ by the apostles (see 10,8d);
Christ, who, given the propositio (10,4) and the corresponding proof
(esp. 10,11-13) is preached primarily as salvation for anyone who believes.
Benevolently open to the possibility that there might be a valid excuse
82. Several authors, including Schlier, Der Römerbrief (n. 6), pp. 316-317; Wilckens,
Der Brief an die Römer (n. 6), II, p. 229; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (n. 6), p. 664,
interpret the quotation in 10,15b as a confirmation that the conditions to come to faith have
been met, but this in fact initially remains an open question.
for Israel’s rejection of the gospel, Paul plays Israel’s advocate, in order

to accuse it all the more sharply thereafter.
On the basis of 10,17, Paul suggests two possible excuses. First (10,18),
perhaps Israel did not hear the message? But it did, Paul says: as Scripture
says (Ps 19,5), the voice of the preachers reached the whole world. Second
(10,19a), perhaps Israel did not understand the message? – the message
of universal salvation in Christ83. Paul also rejects this possibility. Using
three quotations which, in his view, describe the current state of Christian
preaching, Paul demonstrates that God – who is the subject of the action
in all three quotations – had already foretold this course of events in the
Law and the Prophets: Israel knew what it was rejecting, it recoiled from
the consequences, from God’s universal offer of salvation in Christ. Even
through Moses (Deut 32,21b), God had already manifested that he would
taunt Israel – which had treated him as a “non-god” (Deut 32,21a) – with
a “non-people” (see 9,25-26); that, as a spurned lover who seeks to win
back his beloved, he would make Israel jealous of the Gentiles: the
Gentiles, characterised as a “non-people”, a people “without insight”
(cf. 1,21.31), would attain justice (cf. 9,25.30), whereas God’s people
would not (9,31). Paul even sharpens this argument further in 10,20 by
using a quotation from Is 65,1, introduced by the words “Isaiah is bold
enough to say” (cf. 15,15). It is precisely the Gentiles, who do not seek
God (cf. 9,22.25.30), who have accepted the Christian message. Finally,
in 10,21 (with a quotation from Is 65,2), Paul points out to his readers
what Isaiah lets God say to Israel: God never stops trying to win back
his people, but he has to deal with a disobedient and rebellious people.
Thus this argumentatio, too, is concluded with a number of Scriptural
quotations; they prove that Israel has deliberately resisted God’s plan of
salvation, retained the Law and refused to acknowledge Jesus Christ as
God’s salvation for all who believe (10,4.12-13). At the end of the dis-
course, the last quotation strikingly sketches the state of being cut off
from salvation in which Israel finds itself: God has been faithful to his
people with his offer of salvation in Jesus Christ, but Israel has not
accepted this offer.
83. For the problems around 10,19-21, see F. Avemarie, Israels rätselhafter Ungehor-
sam: Römer 10 als Anatomie eines von Gott provozierten Unglaubens, in Wilk – Wagner
(eds.), Between Gospel and Election (n. 7), 299-320; Wilk, Rahmen und Aufbau von Römer
9–11 (n. 58), p. 246; Reinbold, Zur Bedeutung des Begriffes “Israel” in Römer 9–11
(n. 71), pp. 405-407. In any case, the question whether Israel perhaps did not understand
the message (10,17) must be answered in the affirmative for grammatical reasons and given
the parallelism with 10,18: Israel did understand the message about Christ; but did not
“recognise” (10,3) it. “What it was that Israel ‘knows’, as the subsequent context suggests,
is that God could very well act in such a way that the preaching of Christ would result in
the inclusion of the Gentiles and in judgment upon Israel (…)”, according to Moo, The
Epistle to the Romans (n. 6), p. 668. The fact itself that Israel possessed the Scriptures with
the quoted texts in 10,19b-21 proves that Israel “knew” of the current course of events.
624 P. Farla
9. Rom 11,1-12.13-32.33-36
a) Rom 11,1-12: Peroratio (Recapitulatio)

The discourses of 9,6-29 and 9,30–10,21 have solved the problem of
9,1-3. Israel is cut off from salvation. And the reason is not that God has
broken off his relationship with Israel, the cause is Israel itself: it has
refused to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the purpose of the Law. This
brings Paul to the beginning of his recapitulatio, a concise but lively and
variegated summary of the main points of his discourse.
If the literary facts are taken seriously, it is remarkable that there has
been so much disagreement about the delimitation of the first sequence of
chapter 11 and of its function in the entire discourse. The passage does
not consist of 11,1-10, but 11,1-1284. On the one hand, given their parallel
structure, 11,1ff and 11,11-12 are closely linked: “What I am saying is
this”; a question that must be answered in the negative because it is a
foolish question; the resolute rejection “Out of the question”, and then,
as a corrective response, Paul’s view. On the other hand, 11,13 is clearly
a new beginning: Paul once again addresses his readers directly, and this
time, for the first time, he addresses a different group in the community,
the Christians of Gentile origin. The passage can be sharply distinguished
from the preceding discourse. The question of 11,1 is no logical continu-
ation of the contention in 10,19-21; after the discourse in 9,6-29, the idea
that Israel’s state of being cut off from salvation might mean a breach on
God’s part is out of the question according to Paul85. 11,1 cannot in fact
be anything other than a repetition of the propositio of 9,6a in the form of
a question and an answer. Few authors have hesitated to translate the
introduction λέγω οὖν as “I ask then …”86, “Ich frage nun …”87, “Sage
ich also …?”88, or similar. But this translation already betrays the misun-
derstanding. Paul begins a sentence with “I say/contend therefore…” on
precisely two occasions in his entire oeuvre: in 11,1 and 11,1189. This is
not therefore a question, but a contention, and the content of this conten-
tion in both cases is a conclusion that encompasses both the question
and the answer to the question (11,1ab.11ab). And in fact the answers
each time encompass the entire further explanation. Both as regards sub-
stance and terminology, 11,1-10.11-12 offers variations on questions
84. Similarly Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (n. 6), pp. 398-399.
85. According to Schlier, Der Römerbrief (n. 6), p. 321, in 11,1, Paul finally arrives
“zur Erörterung des Problems, das ihm seit 9,1 bewegt und das er, ohne es ausdrücklich
aufzuwerfen, eigentlich schon in 9,6 gelöst hat”.
86. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (n. 6), p. 396.
87. Schlier, Der Römerbrief (n. 6), p. 320; Wolter, Paulus (n. 61), p. 429. Haacker,
Das Thema von Römer 9–11 (n. 63), p. 67, translates: “Ich frage also …”.
88. Theobald, Unterschiedliche Gottesbilder in Röm 9–11? (n. 60), pp. 161.163, as the
translation of 11,11a (“Metareflexives Eröffnungssignal”).
89. Jewett, Romans (n. 4), p. 653, also observes this.
posed earlier, arguments given before, and insights already gained. All of
this points to the fact that this passage is the recapitulatio of the discourse
of 9–10, the first part of the peroratio.
The first, twofold, insight concerns the cause of Israel’s current state of
being cut off from salvation, how it must certainly not be explained
and how it must be explained: this corresponds with the definition of the
problem in 9,1-5 and 9,30-33 and the argument of 9,6-29 and 10,1-21.
Israel is cut off from salvation, but that does not mean that God’s word,
his covenant, has lapsed: that was the proposition which the discourse of
9,6-29 defended. Paul now formulates the same proposition in the form of
a question and answer. The question of 11,1a is a paraphrase of the prop-
ositio of 9,6a, adjusted to the quotation that follows in 11,2 (Ps 93,13):
“Did God abandon his people?” The question is phrased in response to
the same premise as that which underlies 9,6a. Paul found the argument
for his propositio in the Christian community – whose existence is purely
due to God’s grace (9,11-12.16.18) – as a community comprised of both
Jews and Gentiles (9,24): the Jewish Christians are the saved “remnant”
of Israel (9,27). In 11,1b-6 Paul in fact repeats this argument. Paul first
points to himself as a full-blooded Jew, and thus rhetorically effectively
gives the argument extra weight: he is the living proof that – he repeats
this – God did not reject his people. He then reminds his readers of yet
another Scriptural text, an event from the life of Elijah (11,2b-4), an inci-
dent with topical significance (11,5): the Jews in the Christian community
are the “remnant” of Israel, chosen through grace. He repeats this again
in order to add to it, by way of sharp contrast, the core motif of 9,12.31:
“no longer by “works”, or grace would no longer be grace”. He shows
the implications of this in 11,7-10. And in doing so he provides a clear
and emphatic summary of the core insight of 9,30–10,21: only the chosen
part of Israel has achieved its goal; the large majority of Israel has not
attained what it was striving for (9,31): they were – and this is their pun-
ishment for their lack of faith – “petrified” (passivum divinum) in their
disbelief. This term matches the reflection of 9,6b-18: God has mercy on
whom he wants, and he “hardens” whom he wants (9,18). The Scriptural
quotations of 11,8-10 (Law, Prophets, Psalms) not only indicate that this
“hardening” is in accordance with Scripture, but also show its conse-
quences up to the present day. The unbelieving part of Israel is blind and
deaf (cf. 10,2.21). Paul does not even hesitate to apply the punishment that
David asked from God for his enemies to the unbelieving part of Israel:
it stumbled precisely on account of its privileges, because it regards those
privileges as exclusive privileges of Israel.
However, there is a second conclusion in 11,11-12, surprisingly so,
because the discourse on the cause of Israel’s state of being cut off from
salvation was summarised in 11,1-10. But 10,19-21 produces a new motif:
God continues to stretch out his hands to Israel, and will “make it jealous”
of the Gentiles. This motif raises the issue of the function and purpose of
626 P. Farla
Israel’s disbelief within God’s plan of salvation, and this motif is expressly
thematised in 11,11: if Israel can be brought to its senses through jealousy
of the Gentiles, then its current state of being cut off from salvation is
obviously not permanent, then there is still a future for Israel. Just like
11,1ff, the conclusion of 11,11 has been given the form of a question and
answer, with πταίω (“stumble”) being a variant of προσκόπτω (9,32) and
παραζήλω (“make jealous”) taken from 10,19. “Did they” – the “others”
of 11,7c-10 – “perhaps stumble/fall so that they would come to their
downfall?” Paul also rigorously rejects this idea, and corrects it. It was
not God’s real intention that Israel should have stumbled over the stone
he placed there, but Israel’s disbelief does, in some miraculous way, fit
into God’s dynamic and paradoxical tactic of salvation. Paul highlights
this in 11,12 by giving the assurance that Israel will eventually be saved
and will fully play its role serving the salvation of the world. If “their
lapse” and “their failure”90 has led to “great gain for the world” and
“great gain for the Gentiles” (cf. 10,12), i.e. their salvation (cf. 9,23; or:
“reconciliation of the world”, 11,15), then this is even more true – accord-
ing to an argument a minore ad maius – for the radical opposite of their
“failure”, their disbelief: their “fulfilment/fullness” (πλήρωμα; cf. 11,15;
and 11,26: “all Israel will be saved”)91. But in making this statement Paul
is broaching a new issue: the discourse so far was about Israel’s current
state of being cut off from salvation, but now it turns to the matter of
Israel’s ultimate salvation. Verse 11,12 is a transitional verse: 11,12a.b
repeats the conclusion of 11,11b, which is concerned with the present;
11,12c looks towards Israel’s future92.
b) Rom 11,13-32: Peroratio (Amplificatio)

In his excursion on Israel’s ultimate fate, Paul addresses himself very
conspicuously to the other group in the community, the Gentile Christians,
and admonishes them: Israel’s destiny should be something they care
about, because their own election is and remains linked to the destiny of
Israel. God began the realisation of his plan of salvation for the world in
Israel, and, for the sake of his love for Israel, he will also bring it to fulfil-
ment through Israel, once he has once more received all of Israel in grace.
Thus the question as to Israel’s ultimate fate does occur in Rom 9–11, but
90. This translation of the two concepts rests on the parallelism between the two
constituents 11,12a and 11,12b.
91. The translation interprets πλήρωμα as contrasting with “misstep” and “failure”. As
11,12 speaks about the unbelieving part of Israel, it cannot be interpreted in any way that
is correlated with “the remnant” (11,5).
92. “V. 12 thematisiert (…) den eschatologischen Horizont, vor dem die bleibende
innere Ausrichtung der Präsenz des Heils bei den Heiden auf die nicht an Jesus glaubenden
Juden zu sehen ist”; Theobald, Unterschiedliche Gottesbilder in Röm 9–11? (n. 60),
p. 169.
only at the very end of the discourse, rhetorically in the peroratio, as

an excursion. These reflections originate in the insight formulated in
11,11-1293, they do not have any immediate connecting anymore to the
issue of 9,1-3.4-5, but view this subject from an entirely new perspective.
Nevertheless, for the Jewish Christians, 11,13-32 is a carefully considered
and persuasive last argument in the discourse. Paul must have had an
important reason to conclude his discourse with this admonishment. What
it was is evident from the admonishment itself: the Gentile Christians in
Rome had obviously adopted (or were at risk of adopting) an arrogant
and dismissive attitude towards Jews who did not have faith. This shows
once again to what extent the first eleven chapters of this letter, too, were
written in view of the specific situation in the community.
The passage, which is therefore both didactic and admonitory94, again
begins with a biographical note. Paul spoke very sympathetically to the
Jewish Christians about Israel as “his brothers, his own blood-relations”
(9,3), and about their “zeal for God” (10,2); now he attempts to gain
the Gentile Christians’ attention and goodwill by presenting himself as
the “apostle of the Gentiles”, as their apostle. Precisely as “apostle to the
Gentiles”, Paul is intent on “rousing to envy my own people and saving
some of them”. His effort, 11,15 says, is based on the conviction that
Israel will eventually be saved. This conviction was already expressed in
11,12 (from a human perspective; the three genitives “their” (αὐτῶν) are
gen. subj.), but now it has been reformulated in view of God’s actions:
“Because if their rejection (ἀποβολή) was the reconciliation of the world,
what else will their acceptance (πρόσλημψις) be but life from the dead”,
i.e. eschatological fulfilment. In this discourse on Israel’s future redemp-
tion by God, as opposed to its current (culpable) state of being cut off
from salvation, ἀποβολὴ αὐτῶν (gen. obj.) does have the connotation of
“rejection”: it is the opposite of πρόσλημψις αὐτῶν (gen. obj.), which
means “acceptance”, and corresponds with παράπτωμα and ἥττημα in
11,12; moreover, the following allegory of the olive tree speaks of Israel
without faith as being “broken off” (11,17.19.20), “fallen” (11,22), and
as branches that must be “grafted back in” (11,23.24), as “hostile to the
gospel” (11,28)95. When God will once again accept the unbelieving part
93. In 11,13-32 Paul in fact calls on the Gentile Christians to follow his example by
provoking Israel’s jealousy so that Israel will also come to faith; this is the certainty that
God granted him that Israel will eventually be saved. This interpretation does not require
the problematic structuring of 11,11-24 that Theobald, Unterschiedliche Gottesbilder in
Röm 9–11? (n. 60), pp. 161ff, has proposed. This division, in which 11,11-12 is regarded
as the “Fundament” or “Basis” of 11,13-24 (ibid., p. 163), is problematic not only because
of the reason he mentions himself (ibid., pp. 164-166), but also because 11,13 is not paral-
lel with 11,11, and the admonishment of the Gentiles not only includes 11,13-24, but all of
11,13-32, and enters into its decisive phase precisely in 11,25ff.
94. Theobald, Unterschiedliche Gottesbilder in Röm 9–11? (n. 60), p. 162.
95. Haacker, Das Thema von Römer 9–11 (n. 63), p. 68, Wolter, Paulus (n. 61),
p. 429 n. 38, and Theobald, Unterschiedliche Gottesbilder in Röm 9–11? (n. 60), pp. 164-
628 P. Farla
of Israel in grace, that will be the full realisation of this plan of salvation.
As “their” apostle, who carries out his work in the full confidence that
God will also accept the unbelieving part of Israel again in grace: that is
the way in which Paul presents himself to his Gentile Christian readers,
in order to subsequently admonish them to follow his example and hold
the unbelieving part of Israel in honour. If Paul looked to the premise of
the actual division of Israel when explaining Israel’s current situation, he
is now looking to the beginning, to God’s election of Israel, and towards
God’s ultimate purpose, when speaking of the eschatological future (see
11,26-27b.28-32).
The statement of 11,15 implies the belief that (the unbelieving part of)
Israel’s state of being cut off from salvation will come to an end, and that
the division of Israel into two sections will be eliminated. The two unex-
pected metaphors of 11,16 underline the absolute self-evidence of this
expectation: they point to the indivisible unity of Israel; all of Israel is
holy: God is faithful to Israel and will remain faithful. Paul speaks of the
“root and the branches”, but thus also evokes the image of the “tree”
Israel. In 11,17-24, Paul directly addresses the individual Gentile Christian
in the style of a diatribe, and with the paraenetic imperatives of 11,18.20.22
challenges his arrogant and negative attitude towards the unbelieving part
of Israel. The metaphor of the “root and the branches” (or “the tree”) is
extended allegorically; not only does the tree become a cultivated olive
tree, Paul also distinguishes three kinds of branches: the tree’s own natu-
ral branches (the Jewish Christians), the branches that were broken off (the
unbelieving part of Israel), and the branches, grafted in their place, of a
wild olive tree (the Gentile Christians). If the image stands for the unity
of Israel in 11,16, it obtains an entirely different function in 11,17-24,
which describes a specific situation, as the beginning of 11,17 (“If now…”)
shows, the current situation of the Christian community and the division
in Israel: in 11,16 the image gives reassurance that Israel will be reunited
in the future, the purpose of the allegorised image of 11,17-24 is to con-
vince the Gentile Christians that they are inseparably linked to Israel and
165, have contended that ἀποβολή should be translated as “Verlust” or “Zurücksetzung”

(Theobald), and, πρόσλημψις as “Gewinn”/ “Beförderung”/ “Zunahme” (Haacker).
Because the lexicographical information is anything but clear (see also Schlier, Der
Römerbrief [n. 6], pp. 329 n. 2 and 332 n. 7) the matter will have to be decided on the basis
of the context – but this means the interpretation of the discourse is crucial. Rom 9,1–11,12
intends to prove that Israel has been cut off from salvation through its own fault (9,3): it
has fallen (9,32b; 11,11), and this course of events was determined sovereignly by God,
who chooses and hardens. There is therefore no reason to attenuate the terms of 11,15; that
Israel’s “rejection” will only be temporary has already been expressed in 11,12. Contrasted
with ἀποβολή is πρόσλημψις, which, given the corresponding verb (see Rom 14,1.3; 15,1)
means “to accept (a person)”, and which already points towards Israel’s salvation by God
(11,26). Moreover, the translation “their loss” goes against the grain of the context by
introducing the image of a God for whom the existence of an unbelieving part of Israel
means that he has lost control over his history.
must remain so. In this instance, the metaphor of the root and the branches
represents the branches’ utter dependency on the root, the fact that the
branches can only live off the root of the tree (11,17b), and not vice versa
(11,18): salvation comes through Israel (cf. 9,4-5)96. The allegory of the
branches makes it clear to the Gentile Christian that he is only part of
the Christian community thanks to God’s grace, and at the expense of the
unbelieving part of Israel. Thanks to God’s election, the Gentile Christian
shares in the salvation of Israel. This is the insight that Paul is using to
admonish the Gentile Christians to adopt an entirely different attitude
towards the unbelieving part of Israel. Paul admits that he may himself
have given the reader cause to adopt an arrogant attitude with his view on
the mutual interdependence of Israel’s disbelief and the election of the
Gentiles (11,19), but he warns him not to think of the current situation as
unchangeable and final (11,21-22). The metaphor, already somewhat
strained (breaking off of cultivated branches, grafting of wild ones) is cut
to size even further in 11,23-24. In his goodness and power, God could,
according to faith or unbelief, easily place the cultivated branches back on
the tree where they belong naturally.
Paul, in his allegory about the current situation, after the positiveness
of 11,15-16, first admits (11,17: “If now …”) that actually Israel is
divided and that there is also an unbelieving Israel, but then firmly declares
that God can change the situation easily according to his plans, and that
the reunion of Israel would be even more reasonable than the election of
the Gentiles was97. And speaking again about the unity of Israel, Paul in
11,25-27 tells what God has revealed to him about his intentions with
Israel. The passage is closely connected with 11,17-24 through the word
“because”, even though it is entirely different in tone, and highlighted
more specifically with the introductory disclosure formula “I do not
want you not to know” and the address “brothers”. This is where Paul
introduces the decisive argument for his expectations concerning Israel;
he is taking his readers into his confidence and is making them share in
the ‘mystery’ revealed to him: “Part of Israel has been hardened, until the
fullness of the Gentiles has gone in” (11,25b). In 11,17-24, Paul expressed
the confident expectation that the unbelieving part of Israel will be saved:
the new insight that the ‘mystery’ has yielded is the absolute certainty that
his expectation will indeed be realised: the state of being cut off from
96. If the images of 11,16 and 11,17-24 are confused, and if one allows oneself to
allegorise further (even asking what the “trunk” of the tree represents even though it is not
mentioned in the text), then it is easy to become entangled in insoluble complications; see
Wolter, Paulus (n. 61), pp. 306-307. The cultivated olive tree with the richness of its root
and its two different branches stands for Judaism developed into Christianity.
97. The focus of the allegory, in its didactic function, is on the existence of the unbeliev-
ing Israel besides the believing Israel within the Christian community; the election of the
Gentiles is described in contrast to the unbelieving Israel: see the opening 11,17a and the
concluding explanation of 11,21-24 at the admonition of 11,20c.
630 P. Farla
salvation in which the unbelieving part of Israel finds itself will be ended
once the Gentiles have reached salvation. On the basis of this insighf,
Paul is able to draw the conclusion that confirms the premise of 11,15-16:
“And thus all Israel will be saved” (11,26a). Despite what is rather com-
monly assumed, 11,26a (“And thus all Israel will be saved”) no longer
belongs to what Paul wishes to present as the content of the ‘mystery’.
In 11,26a, Paul incorporates the insight granted to him in the ‘mystery’
(11,25cd) into his discourse. God has hardened a part of Israel so that the
Gentiles might be converted; once that goal has been reached, God will
once again accept also the unbelieving part of Israel in grace98. The Scrip-
tural quotation that follows in 11,26b-27 (Is 59,20-21; 27,9) is the proof
for the conclusion of 11,26a, the salvation of all of Israel, not for the
‘mystery’ – which as a prophetic proclamation of God’s future actions by
definition does not require or permit of any Scriptural evidence.
Paul has assured the Gentile Christians that Israel will ultimately also
be saved, he can conclude his didactic admonishment in 11,28-32. First,
in the twofold thesis of 11,28, he explains once more the fundamental
dichotomy in which the unbelieving part of Israel finds itself: Israel is cut
off from salvation on account of its rejection of the gospel, but Israel is
still God’s chosen people. In 11,29-31.32 Paul points to the deep meaning
and purpose of the paradoxical course of salvation history, of the marvel-
lous way in which the salvation of Israel and the salvation of the Gentiles
are intertwined. But the concluding proposition of 11,13-32 is also an
admonishment addressed to the Gentile Christians to adopt a benevolent
attitude towards Israel. And this admonishment of the Gentile Christians
serves as the ultimate proof for the Jewish Christians that Paul’s view of
the Law in no way derogates from his conviction that Israel is and remains
God’s chosen people, even though the greater part of Israel is currently
cut off from salvation.
c) Rom 11,33-36: Peroratio (Hymn of Praise)

Paul’s discourse ends with a high-minded and carefully constructed
hymn of praise of the inscrutable nature of God’s salvation history.
98. “And thus” (11,26) refers back to 11,25cd and means: if what 11,25cd says will
happen actually did happen. The revelation of the “mystery” 11,25cd is the final part of
the admonishment of 11,17ff, and addresses the end of the partial hardening of Israel; that
is why 11,26: “And thus all Israel will be saved” can be seen as forming an inclusio with
11,15-16. Cf. Schlier, Der Römerbrief (n. 6), p. 338: “And thus” is the formula that Paul
uses to integrate the “mystery” into the context.
V. Conclusion
It has become evident that an exegesis which views Romans as a letter

in which Paul expounds his main theological insights to the Christians
of Rome does no justice to the text, and even distorts it, raising more
questions than it answers. Such an exegesis is based on a number of
unfounded assumptions. 1. The assumption that the addressees are Gentile
Christians: the letter which engages in intense debate with Judaism, thus
acquires a “double character”: Paul is presenting his ideas to Gentile
Christians, but in the form of a defence of these ideas against Judaism.
2. The interpretation of 1,16-17 as the “theme” of the letter, which is then
ascribed as “the gospel”: the “theme” and the content of the rest of the
letter are interpreted as being linked, even though these two verses (which
are soteriologically and Christologically meagre), in fact correspond only
with 1,13–4,25 and not at all with 5–8 and 9–11. And 3. The thematic-
theological interest: this leads to determined ignoring of the text’s strongly
rhetorical nature: the text’s pragmatic effect within the specific commu-
nicative situation is almost entirely filtered out.
Paul did not give an outline of his theology, he wrote an entirely dif-
ferent letter to Rome. What kind of letter becomes clear when we read it
– just as all his other letters – from the perspective of classical rhetorical
oratory. Rom 1–11 is a carefully constructed argument addressed to Jew-
ish Christians. On the basis of the classical model, the structure and argu-
ment of each of the three (“complex and opaque”) parts (1–4; 5–8; 9–11)
can be identified very precisely, while it is also clear that the three (theo-
logically so disparate) parts are intimately consistent with each other and
adjusted to each other. Paul’s intention is to convince the Jewish Chris-
tians in Rome that it is as true for the Jews – with their Law – as it is for
non-Jews, that salvation can only be obtained through faith in Jesus
Christ, because nobody fulfils the Law (1,13–4,25). In the following two
parts, Paul attempts to answer their objections to this theology. 1. (a) The
Law has had its function in the pre-Christian era; because the Law has
been hijacked by Sin, the Law makes everyone who wants to live under
the Law, a slave of Sin; (b) the Christian is justified by faith and can be
certain of his salvation, but justification by faith does not discharge him
from living a sinless life: the redemption from Sin enables him to live
his life as a child of God; and this salvation is the more certain because
it is part of the eschatological fulfilment of all creation (5–8). 2. Israel
(the majority) has rejected Jesus Christ and is cut off from salvation, but,
nevertheless, Israel is the people of God: surely the conclusion must be
that God has broken off his covenantal relationship with Israel? (a) No,
says Paul, God always remains faithful to people, he now is continuing
his plan of salvation in the Christian community, which also includes
Jewish Christians; (b) Israel has cut itself off from salvation through
its own fault because it has not acknowledged Jesus Christ as the purpose
632 P. Farla
of the Law; (c) however, as God’s own people, Israel will be saved at the
end of time (9–11).
Paul wanted to go to Rome. But he also knew that there was contro-
versy among the Jewish Christians there about his preaching of a Law-less
Christianity. Perhaps in the hope of being able to finally set the mis
understandings straight, he wrote them an extensive, well-considered and
passionate theological letter, the fruit of years of reflection and debate on
the question. He was anxious to be able to prepare peacefully and quietly
(15,24.32-33) in Rome for his real purpose: his onward voyage to Spain.
Galderseweg 36 Piet Farla

NL – 4855 AH Galder
The Netherlands
pietfarla@casema.nl
Abstract. — The model of classical rhetorical oratory does not apply to Paul’s
letter to the Romans as a whole, but it does apply to Rom 1–11, at least to each
of the three parts of this section separately: 1–4; 5–8 and 9–11. Using this model
to analyse these parts gives us a clear idea of the occasion for and purpose of the
letter, and it throws surprising new light both on the structure and argument of the
eleven chapters as a whole, and on the function and meaning of the various parts
and of a number of details within this whole. Paul feels compelled to defend (1,16)
against Jewish Christians his preaching of a Christianity without the Law, and
without distinguishing any longer between Jew and Greek. In 1,13–4,25 he
attempts to convince them that, even though they have the Law, they are no
different from the Gentiles: they, too, have to rely on faith in Jesus Christ for their
salvation: 1,13-17: exordium; 1,18–3,20: narratio; 3,21-26: propositio; 3,27–
4,22: argumentatio; 4,23-25: conclusion. Jewish Christians had two major objec-
tions (3,2-4.5-8) to this theology of justification by faith, with its radical qualifica-
tion of the Law: 1. Does this theology not imply that God has broken off his
covenantal relationship with Israel, which is in effect reckoned to be unbelieving?
2. How justification by faith does relate with the Law as the norm of a sinless
life? Paul gives his view on the second issue in 5–8: the Christian certainty of
salvation rests on faith: it is not the Law, the accomplice of sin, but only faith that
has the power to set people free from sin: 5,1-5: exordium; 5,6-11: narratio;
5,12-21: propositio; 6–7: argumentatio; 8,1-17: recapitulatio; 8,18-30: amplifi-
catio (on the certainty of salvation for all of creation); 8,31-39: hymn of praise.
Paul explains the cause of Israel’s current state of being cut off from salvation in
9–11, first negatively: God has not broken off his relationship with Israel, then
positively: Israel has rejected the gospel: 9,1-3: exordium (1); 9,4-5: narratio (1);
9,6a: propositio (1); 9,6b-29: argumentatio (1); 9,30-31: exordium (2); 9,32-33:
narratio (2); 10,1-4: propositio (2); 10,5-21: argumentatio (2); 11,1-12: recapitu-
latio; 11,13-32: amplificatio (the prospect of Israel’s ultimate salvation); 11,33-36:
hymn of praise.
* Translated from the Dutch by Dr. Brian Heffernan

Christ Replaces The Law, But Israel Remains The People of God - Farla, Pier

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Christ Replaces The Law, But Israel Remains The People of God - Farla, Pier

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 93/4 (2017) 581-632. doi: 10.2143/ETL.93.4.

“Christ Replaces the Law, –

It remains an intriguing question what could have motivated Paul to

to do just that. We have limited ourselves in our argumentation6. The

1. The Communicative Situation

9. Theobald, Römerbrief (n. 1), p. 41.

appears to be what happens in 11,13. The introduction “Let me say then

Anyone who refers to his opinions or behaviour by saying that he is not

2. Rom 1,16-17: ‘Theme’ / propositio of the Letter?

The thanksgiving of 1,8-12 is followed in 1,13-17 by a discussion of

1. Rom 1,13-17: Exordium

As is evident also from the grammatical construction, 1,16-17 is not

2. Rom 1,18–3,20: Narratio

26. Cf. Acts 22,28.

a) Rom 1,18-32: Narratio (Beginning)

27. Similarly F. Vouga, Romains 1,18–3,20 comme narratio, in P. Bühler –

28. Jewett, Romans (n. 4), pp. 163.179.

“others”, the Gentiles. But in fact, Paul is condemning “all ungodliness

b) Rom 2,1-16.17-29: Narratio (Continuation)

c) Rom 3,1-8 Narratio (Continuation: Anticipatio)

knows he will lose his Jewish Christian readers if he is unable to answer

The passage is most clearly effective precisely as anticipatio within the

d) Rom 3,9-20: Narratio (Conclusion)

3. Rom 3,21-26: Propositio

4. Rom 3,27–4,22: Argumentatio

35. Rom 3,21-26 is not an “ausdrückliche Wiederaufnahme” (Theobald, Römerbrief

5. Rom 4,23-25: Peroratio (Application)

Rom 5–8 is regarded as a complex whole, and it is even disputed

Gnadengaben der Glaubensgerechtigkeit”37 or “The New Life in Christ”38

1. Rom 5,1-5: Exordium

2. Rom 5,6-11: Narratio

37. Schlier, Der Römerbrief (n. 6), p. 137.

3. Rom 5,12-21: Propositio

implicitly accepted as Christians (cf. 5,1-11): through Jesus Christ,

4. Rom (6,1-23); 7,1-6.7-25: Argumentatio

misunderstanding concerning 5,20-21 – the misunderstanding already

last trump card, which is oriented directly to the religious sensibility of

5. Rom 8,1-17.18-30.31-39

a) Rom 8,1-17: Peroratio / Recapitulatio

­ etaphor of slavery (6,15-23), uses his most poignant words to describe

b) Rom 8,18-30: Peroratio / Amplificatio

c) Rom 8,31-39: Peroratio / Concluding Hymn of Praise

The year 2010 saw the publication of an impressive collection of mostly

Two presuppositions recur constantly in attempts to interpret 9,1-5:

1. Rom 9,1-3: Exordium (1)

2. Rom 9,4-5: Narratio (1)

3. Rom 9,6a: Propositio (1)

4. Rom 9,6b-29: Argumentatio (1)

The argument for the proposition of 9,6a consists of a rather cryptic,

According to the received interpretation, these metaphors – naturally

groups described metaphorically in 9,22-23: “the objects of retribution”

5. Rom 9,30-31: Exordium (2)

6. Rom 9,32-33: Narratio (2)

7. Rom 10,1-4: Propositio (2)

8. Rom 10,5-21: Argumentatio (2)

for Israel’s rejection of the gospel, Paul plays Israel’s advocate, in order

9. Rom 11,1-12.13-32.33-36

a) Rom 11,1-12: Peroratio (Recapitulatio)

b) Rom 11,13-32: Peroratio (Amplificatio)

only at the very end of the discourse, rhetorically in the peroratio, as

165, have contended that ἀποβολή should be translated as “Verlust” or “Zurücksetzung”

c) Rom 11,33-36: Peroratio (Hymn of Praise)

It has become evident that an exegesis which views Romans as a letter

9. Theobald, Römerbrief (n. 1), p. 41.

28. Jewett, Romans (n. 4), pp. 163.179.

37. Schlier, Der Römerbrief (n. 6), p. 137.

etaphor of slavery (6,15-23), uses his most poignant words to describe

for Israel’s rejection of the gospel, Paul plays Israel’s advocate, in order

Galderseweg 36 Piet Farla