Читать книгу Romans - Craig S. Keener - Страница 8

Introduction (1:1–17)

The letter’s title matches the titles of other Pauline letters, naming the recipients (specified here in 1:7). The need for a title stems from the time that Christians later collected Paul’s letters; otherwise the title might have been borrowed directly from Paul’s probable statement of purpose in 1:16–17.1

Paul’s Greeting (1:1–7)

Just as today’s letters often open with “Dear” (and e-mails with “Hi”), ancient letters followed particular conventions. The writer could begin by identifying him- or her-self, then the addressee, and finally giving the conventional greeting. Although such introductions were typically simple,2 writers could expand any of these elements as needed.3 Because Paul here is writing to a congregation he has not visited, he may expand the first element (his identity) at greater length than usual. But introductions (whether of speeches, laws, books, or other works) typically introduced a work’s primary themes,4 and Paul hints at some of these even in this letter’s opening. (He becomes more specific, however, in 1:8–17, esp. 1:16–17.)

Paul5 begins by identifying himself as a slave of Christ, a called apostle, and one set apart for God’s good news. Although apostleship may be his distinctive gift (1:5; 11:13), he will return to many of these descriptions with regard to believers more generally: their slavery to God versus slavery to sin (6:6, 16–22; 7:6, 25; 8:15; 12:11; 14:18; 16:18), their God-initiated “calling” (1:6–7; 8:28, 30; 9:7, 12, 24–26), and their being “set apart” for God (1:7; 6:19, 22; 8:27; 11:16; 12:1, 13; 15:16, 25–26, 31; 16:2, 15). The “good news” (“gospel”) is one of his major themes in the letter and lies at the heart of his own mission (1:9, 15–16; 2:16; 10:15–16; 11:28; 15:16, 19–20; 16:25; see comment on 1:16).

Although free persons normally did not consider “slavery” an honorable status, slaves were not all of one kind. Some slaves of Caesar wielded more power than free aristocrats, and some aristocratic women even married into slavery (in Caesar’s household) to improve their status. Slavery to the supreme Lord Jesus was no dishonor; it resembled the ot situation of the prophets and some other godly leaders of Israel as “servants of God.”6 The nature of Paul’s slavery to Christ is connected with his being “set apart” (in God’s plan, even from the womb; cf. Gal 1:15) for the good news. God had revealed this purpose for Paul at his calling, when he was converted (cf. Gal 1:16; Acts 26:16).

Paul cannot introduce himself and his mission without talking about the God he serves. Sophisticated Greek writers sometimes circled back to their point, as Paul does here:7 he returns to his apostleship as a mission to the Gentiles in 1:5, but first he explicates the content of the good news he mentioned in 1:1. The good news Paul proclaims is just what the prophets announced (1:2; cf. 3:21; 16:26), hence Paul’s heavy use of Scripture in this letter focused on his gospel. (Roughly half of Paul’s extant quotations of Scripture appear in this letter.) In the Prophets proper, the “good news” is especially the promise that God would establish peace and blessing for his people (Isa 40:9; 52:7; 60:6; 61:1), and Paul proclaims that this ancient promise is now being fulfilled in Jesus (see comment on 1:16), a theme to which he will often return (see “promise” in 4:13, 14, 16, 20, 21; 9:4, 8, 9; 15:8).

What is the content of the good news foretold by the prophets? The prophets associated their good news of Israel’s restoration with the coming of the promised Davidic king and the hope of resurrection. In 1:3–4 Paul declares that his good news concerns God’s “Son.”8 As a descendant of David (1:3; cf. 15:12), Jesus could be rightful heir to Israel’s throne; but once a king was enthroned, he was adopted by God (2 Sam 7:14–16; Pss 2:6–7; 89:26–33). Jesus was not only descended from David (as some other people were), but attested as God’s Son by the Spirit, who raised him from the dead and hence exalted him as Lord.9 Of course, Jesus is not God’s “Son” only in the ordinary royal sense (cf. Rom 8:3, 29; Isa 9:6–7), but the good news that God has established10 a king, and hence his kingdom, sets Paul’s preaching of Jesus squarely in the context of the ot promises.11

Many Judeans regularly praised God for his power that would one day be expressed in raising the dead;12 Paul likewise treats resurrection as the ultimate display of God’s power (Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:43; Eph 1:19–20; Phil 3:10, 21). Jesus’s followers, however, recognize this resurrection as not merely a theoretical hope for the future, but a future reality already initiated in history: Paul speaks literally here of Jesus’s resurrection “from among the dead ones,” implying that Jesus’s resurrection is the first installment of the future promise of resurrection for the righteous (cf. Acts 4:2). Paul elsewhere associates God’s Holy Spirit13 with power (Rom 15:13, 19; 1 Cor 2:4; Eph 3:16; 1 Thess 1:5; cf. also Mic 3:8; Zech 4:6; Luke 1:35; 4:14; Acts 1:8; 10:38), and affirms that the same Spirit who raised Jesus will also raise all believers (Rom 8:11).14 Paul stresses Jesus’s resurrection as a prominent element of the good news (4:24–25; 6:4–5, 9; 7:4; 8:11, 34; 10:9).

Through Jesus Paul has received “grace” for his apostolic mission (1:5). Each believer received God’s generous, unmerited gifting or “grace,” empowering them for their own special role or purpose in serving his people (Rom 12:6; cf. 1 Cor 1:7; 12:4, 9, 28–31; Eph 4:7); Paul’s grace is expressed in this letter by serving them (12:3; 15:15). Paul’s mission is to bring Gentiles to the obedience of faith, hence his desire to share his message with Christ’s followers in Rome, who are among the Gentiles (1:5; cf. 1:13–15).15 What does Paul mean by “obedience of faith”? The Greek phrase could be understood in several ways, but Paul is concerned that believers obey God rather than sin (6:12, 16–17; cf. 5:19), and elsewhere speaks of their obedience (16:19) and his mission to bring Gentiles to obedience (15:18). Paul also emphasizes “faith” often in Romans (some forty times, plus twenty-one uses of the cognate verb). He is clear from the beginning that genuine faith in Christ (itself obedience to the gospel; cf. 6:17) should, if carried out, produce a righteous lifestyle (see ch. 6).16 Paul probably returns to this crucial point in 16:26. Disobedience brings reproach on Christ (cf. 2:24); God saves a people for his “name,” that is, for his glory or honor.17 (Roman society had a keen sense of honor and shame, and would appreciate the importance of God’s honor.)

“Saints” (in some translations of 1:7) means “those who have been set apart” (cf. 1:1). Scripture portrayed Israel as “beloved” (cf. 11:28), “called” (cf. 11:29), and as “set apart” for God (cf. 11:16).18 Paul readily applies all these titles to a majority Gentile congregation (cf. 1:13), since all who serve Israel’s rightful king (1:3–4) are grafted into Israel’s heritage (cf. 11:16–17). They, too, are special objects of God’s love (5:5, 8; 8:35, 39; and probably 15:30).19 It was customary to build rapport with one’s audience toward the beginning of one’s work, when possible,20 and clearly Paul shares this sensitivity.

Significantly, in 1:7 Paul adapts the conventional greeting of his day (as elsewhere in his and some other early Christian letters). Greek greetings were normally simply chairein (“greetings”);21 Paul and some other early Christian writers adapt this to charis (“grace”; divine “generosity”) and include the typical Judean (and Eastern) greeting “peace” (reflecting Hebrew shalom, which is analogous to the contemporary English greeting “God bless you”).22 Paul’s major adaptation, however, is more significant. Letters typically included prayers or wishes invoking deities on behalf of the recipients’ health or welfare. Paul here blesses the believers by invoking not only God the Father, but also the Lord Jesus Christ. Although post-Nicene readers might suppose that Paul envisions Jesus’s deity only where he uses the explicit title “God” (cf. perhaps 9:5), he actually assumes Jesus’s deity fairly often. In fact, for Paul, “Lord” can be a divine title no less than “God” is (cf. 1 Cor 8:5–6); Paul employs this title for Jesus, and sometimes the Father, roughly thirty-seven times in Romans.

Thanksgiving (1:8–15)

In what constitutes a single long sentence in Greek, Paul emphasizes his appreciation for the Roman believers. He explains that he would have eagerly visited them to serve them with his apostolic ministry, as he has been gifted to serve all the Gentiles, but that he has been detained so far (1:8–15). Toward the end of his letter he will indicate that he has been detained by spiritually needier destinations (15:19–22).

Paul starts by thanking God for them (1:8). Thanksgivings were common (though by no means pervasive) in ancient letters, and Paul nearly always thanks God for the churches to whom he writes (though this feature is conspicuously omitted in his opening rebuke to the Galatians).23 Paul not only thanks God for them, but regularly prays for them (1:9);24 calling a deity to “witness” underlined the veracity of one’s claim, since deities were expected to avenge false claims about them.25 Paul prays especially that he might visit them (1:10) so he can serve them the way God has gifted him to do (1:11).26 “In God’s will” (1:10) does not absolutely promise his coming, but acknowledges that, while he plans to come, only God knows whether future circumstances will fully permit it. This was a common enough caveat (cf. 1 Cor 4:19; 16:7),27 and Paul undoubtedly thinks also of dangers he may face (Rom 15:31–32).

Paul did not found the Roman church, so he writes more as a brother than as a father (contrast 1 Cor 4:15–16). Thus, he speaks unobtrusively of “some” Spirit-inspired gift (1:11) and even insists that he and they will be mutually “encouraged” by the other’s faith (1:12).28 Nevertheless, Paul knows that some are more gifted for “exhortation” or “encouragement” than others (12:8), and offers some such exhortations in this letter (12:1; 15:30; 16:17; all using a cognate of the verb for “encourage”). Certainly he has already set about to encourage their “faith,” a key theme in Romans (see comment on 1:17). His delay so far may have involved the temporary prohibition of Jews settling there (cf. Acts 18:2), but, as his audience will learn later, particularly involves the compelling priority of his mission to unevangelized regions (15:19–23).

Still, Paul’s desire to visit them and encourage their faith (1:11–12) flows, as apparently everything else in his life does, from his life’s mission and purpose to reach the nations (1:5, 13–15). Paul treats this mission as a divine obligation (Rom 1:14; cf. 1 Cor 9:16–17)29 to reach the entire range of “Gentiles” (1:13). These included both Greeks and “barbarians” (non-Greeks), both those whom Greeks considered wise and those they considered foolish.30 (Greeks usually divided humanity into Greek and “barbarian”; mentioning both together meant “everyone.”31 Romans and Jews sometimes adopted these conventional labels.)32 The dominant culture of the urban eastern Empire was Greek, and that culture also influenced the Greek-speaking eastern immigrant community in Rome (including most of its Jewish population) where the church had first taken root.

Good News of Salvation (1:16–17)

We must offer special, hence more detailed than usual, attention to 1:16–17. Ancient writers often (though not always) stated their themes and purpose in a proposition before their main argument,33 and most commentators of recent centuries believe that Paul does so here. Commentators differ over the central theme involved, though some proposals dominate only particular parts of the letter. Nevertheless, God’s righteousness (most explicitly through ch. 10), faith (most explicitly in chs. 1, 3–4, 10, and 14), and the Jewish-Gentile issue (most explicitly in chs. 9–11) seem to pervade it. Others offer the more general theme of the “gospel,” which integrates a number of these factors (and for which, in Romans, God’s righteousness is a key element).34 That all these themes reflect the language of prophetic promises to Israel (Ps 98:2–3; Isa 51:4–5; 52:10)35 reinforces Paul’s claim that Scripture is the source of his gospel (1:1–2).

The gospel is the object of faith, and its subject is God’s Son (1:9), Jesus Christ (15:19, 20; 16:25). Scholars propose various reasons why Paul claims to be “unashamed” of the gospel. Certainly, interest in honor and shame dominated ancient Mediterranean urban culture, including Rome, and Paul’s message involved folly and weakness to a status-conscious culture (1 Cor 1:18–23).36 The world’s hostility could provide temptation to be ashamed (cf. 2 Tim 1:8, 12, 16; 1 Pet 4:16), but God’s servants could trust that they would not be shamed eschatologically (Rom 5:5; 9:33; 10:11).37 “Unashamed” may also constitute litotes; Paul is positively eager to preach this message (cf. Phil 1:20; Heb 2:11; 11:16).38

God’s “power” for salvation might recall his “power” to create (1:20), act in history (9:17, 22), or provide miraculous attestation (15:19). But it especially recalls his power to raise the dead (1:4, including a central point of the gospel message; cf. Eph 1:19–20), hence to transform by providing new life (cf. Rom 15:13; 1 Cor 1:18). He may also think of the Spirit’s activity in the gospel to convince people of the truth of the message (1 Cor 2:4–5; 1 Thess 1:5).

In the context (Rom 1:5, 13–15), Paul certainly wants to emphasize that the gospel is for all peoples, Jew and Gentile alike.39 Yet there is also a sense in which the good news, rooted in promises to Israel, is “to the Jew first”; it will take Paul all of chapters 9–11 to resolve the tension between these emphases. Paul’s evangelistic prioritization of ethnic Israel fits Jesus’s teaching (Mark 7:27) and the portrayal of Paul’s own ministry in Acts (e.g., 13:5; 28:17), yet he will argue that God saves both Jew and Gentile by the same means.

Paul’s audience in Rome may influence him in speaking of the gospel going next to the “Greeks”:40 they are mostly Gentiles (1:13), which includes Greeks and barbarians (1:14), and of these two groups they are largely the former (1:16). The Roman congregations were mostly Greek speaking at this time (as the earliest Christian inscriptions and leadership lists show). Romans also often considered themselves “Greek” rather than “barbarian,” which was not a flattering designation. But Paul often employs the contrast between “Jew” and “Greek” (2:9–10; 3:9; 10:12), and not only in this letter (see 1 Cor 1:22, 24; 10:32; 12:13; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11; cf. Acts 14:1; 18:4; 19:10, 17; 20:21), as equivalent to “Jew” and “Gentile” (Rom 3:29; 9:24; 1 Cor 1:23). “Greek” provided a natural metonymy for the larger category of “Gentile.” Josephus often uses “Greeks” for all non-Jewish urban residents,41 and Jews had longstanding severe conflicts with Greeks, the dominant urban culture in the eastern Mediterranean.42

As the introductory “for” (gar) indicates, Paul now explains why the good news brings salvation to Gentiles as well as Jews: God’s way of implementing his righteousness is through faith (1:17). Scholars read this explanation, however, in different ways, regarding both “God’s righteousness” (dikaiosunē) and “faith” (pistis). Both are clearly key concepts: if we include their cognates, Paul employs each term over fifty times in Romans. Here I must digress to address dikaiosunē more fully.

Excursus: Dikaiosune¯ in Romans

In common Greek, dikaiosune¯ normally meant “justice.”43 In what sense would God’s “justice”44 or “righteousness” (Rom 1:17; 3:5, 21–22; 10:3) put people right with him (cf. 3:26)? Scripture often connects God’s righteousness with his faithfulness and/or covenant love (e.g., Pss 36:5–6, 10; 40:10; 88:11–12; 98:2–3; 103:17; 111:3–4; 119:40–41; 141:1; 143:1, 11–12; 145:7). In the Psalms, God’s righteousness causes him to act justly (e.g., Pss 31:1; 35:24) or mercifully (Pss 5:8; 71:2, 15–16, 19, 24; 88:12) in favor of his servant. When forgiven, the psalmist will praise God’s righteousness (Ps 51:14).45

In the Greek version of the OT, the cognate verb dikaioo¯ did not imply a legal fiction, but recognizing one as righteous,46 including in forensic contexts (cf. Gen 44:16; Isa 43:9, 26; Ezek 44:24): judges must not “acquit the guilty” (Exod 23:7), but must “justify,” i.e., pronounce righteous, the innocent (Deut 25:1).47 God himself would punish the guilty but “justify” and vindicate the righteous (1 Kgs 8:32; 2 Chr 6:23); he himself was “justified,” or “shown to be right,” when he pronounced just judgment, even against the psalmist (Ps 51:4, in Rom 3:4). Thus for God to “justify,” “acquit,” or “vindicate” someone who was a morally guilty person, as in Rom 4:5, might shock hearers.

Nevertheless, those immersed in Scripture could also understand God rendering judgment in favor of someone based on his mercy. For example, God pronounced judgment justly against Israel (Dan 9:7, 14); but they could entreat him to forgive them according to his “righteousness” (Dan 9:16). God might punish the guilty, yet ultimately plead their case, “justifying” them to see his “righteousness” (Mic 7:9). Israel hoped for God’s promise of vindication someday (Isa 45:25; 50:8; 58:8), including through the righteous servant who would bear their sins (Is 53:11; cf. Rom 4:25).48 God being “righteous” meant that he would honor the promise to Abraham, whom he found “faithful” (Neh 9:8).49

For Paul, God’s righteousness is incompatible with dependence on mere human righteousness (Rom 9:30—10:6; Phil 3:9). Divine righteousness is not a goal to be reached by human effort, but a relational premise that should dictate the new life of faithfulness to Christ. Often Romans uses the verb cognate (dikaioo¯) for God putting believers right with himself, reinforcing the possibility that this is how Paul uses the noun here.50 This verb can signify just vindication; in a forensic context it may entail “justification” (as many translations render some of its occurrences in Romans) or acquittal. Those who argue for legal acquittal rightly emphasize God’s generosity, or “grace,” as opposed to human achievement.

Nevertheless, Paul does not think only of “acquittal,” which is only one element of the term’s normal sense. Acquittal does not dominate the entire letter, which goes on to address conduct (Rom 6; 12:1—15:7);51 moreover, when God pronounces something done, one expects this to happen, not merely produce a legal fiction (Gen 1:3; 2 Cor 4:6).52 In Romans, righteousness is a transforming gift. It is a divine gift rather than human achievement (Rom 5:17, 21), but God’s gift also enables obedience (cf. 1:5; 2:8; 5:19; 15:18), i.e., right living (6:16–18; 8:2–4; 13:14). In theological terms, justification is inseparable from regeneration.

Although disputed, “from faith to faith” may simply mean that God’s righteousness revealed in the gospel is a matter of faith from start to finish.53 Romans often uses pistis (“faith”) and its verb cognate pisteuō (“believe”). Apart from disputed instances (e.g., 3:22), faith is normally in God or Christ (most obvious in cases where the verb is being used). Whatever else “faith” means for Paul, it is not a human work, whether physical or (as sometimes in Protestantism) mental in nature (Rom 3:27–28; 4:5; 9:32; Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5). It involves dependence on God’s righteousness. This means not a Kierkegaardian “leap into the dark” (reacting to the Kantian consignment of faith to the category of subjectivity), but embracing truth in the gospel (in contrast to the false ideologies of the world; cf. Rom 1:18–23, 28). We should note, however, that just as “righteousness” involves transformation, so the term pistis includes the sense of “faithfulness”—loyalty and allegiance—and not simply an intellectual acknowledgment. Genuine dependence on Christ invites genuine loyalty to him, not simply reciting a statement about him as if nothing is truly at stake.54

As in the rest of Romans, Paul now turns to Scripture to demonstrate a controversial point, using a familiar early Jewish and Christian citation formula.55 Paul here cites Hab 2:4, which concerns God preserving the righteous in the time of impending judgment. Some interpreters take “righteous one” here as Jesus (cf. Acts 3:14; 7:52), but none of the other sixteen uses of dikaios (“righteous”) in Pauline literature in context refer to Jesus (including in the quotation of this same passage in Gal 3:11).

Scholars also debate whose faith(fulness) is in view in this Habakkuk quotation. Although the dominant Greek version of Hab 2:4 says, “my [God’s] faith [pistis],” Paul undoubtedly knows that the Hebrew speaks of the faith of the righteous person; Paul simply omits the debatable pronoun. Scholars have taken him in one or both ways here; Paul does speak later of God’s faithfulness (pistis, 3:3). Yet it would have been easy for him to have followed the Greek rendering familiar to his audience, which he chooses not to do,56 and in Romans he far more often speaks of believers’ pistis (e.g., 1:8, 12), even when echoing the text here (4:5). Elsewhere (Gal 3:6, 11) Paul midrashically links the two biblical texts that mention both righteousness and faith, and the other text clearly refers to a believer’s (Abraham’s) faith (Gen 15:6). Thus Paul probably refers to the believer’s faith here.

Like some other Pharisaic interpreters,57 Paul presumably applies “live” to eternal life, the resurrection life of the coming age (2:7; 5:21; 6:22–23; 8:13; 10:5; 14:9), even though in a sense believers have already entered it (6:10–13; 8:2, 6). Thus Paul presumably here cites Habakkuk to affirm that God preserves from his wrath those who trust in him.

Made Right by Trusting Christ (1:18—5:11)

Modern outlines cannot do justice to Paul’s careful thinking in Romans, which often transitions seamlessly from one point in his argument to the next. It is not possible to sever 1:18–23 from 1:16–17, but we have followed the traditional division here. In 1:18—5:11, Paul argues at length that Jew and Gentile alike are made righteous only through depending on Christ.

Inexcusable Idolatry (1:18–23)

Instead of believing truth in the gospel, some corrupt even the truth they have in nature. While God’s saving righteousness is “revealed” in the gospel for those who trust it (1:16–17), God’s wrath is “revealed” against those who suppress the truth by unrighteousness (1:18–23).58 The truth they unrighteously suppress is the truth about God (1:25; cf. 2:8), which they suppress, ultimately, by idolatry (1:19–23).59

This denunciation offers a key transition in Paul’s larger argument that shows that both Gentiles and Jews need the gospel. Jewish people regarded idolatry (1:23) and sexual vice (1:24–25), especially homosexual behavior (1:26–27), as characteristically Gentile sins. But after Paul denounces such sins to his audience’s applause, he quickly turns to more universal sins (1:29–31), finally consigning his own people, knowledgeable of the law, to judgment as well (2:17–29; 3:9, 19–20). (Cf. the same tactic in Amos 1:3—2:8.) Although condemning Gentiles in 1:18–32, Paul employs for this condemnation biblical language regarding Israel, probably evoking such texts in the memories of his more biblically informed hearers and preparing for his wider argument in the next chapter.60

Although God’s wrath (1:18) has a future aspect (e.g., 2:5, 8; 9:22), it is revealed in the present here especially through God “handing over” sinners to the consequences of their own sinfulness (1:24, 26, 28; cf. Acts 7:42).61 As God’s righteousness appears in the truth of the gospel (1:16–17), their unrighteousness (1:18) appears in suppressing the truth of God’s character (1:19–23). Saving faith (1:16–17) is thus not a guess or wishful thinking, but embracing the genuine truth in contrast to lies that seem progressively more plausible to depraved humanity.

Whereas some philosophers believed that true knowledge would lead to right living, Paul believes that knowledge merely increases moral responsibility (“without excuse,” 1:20; cf. 2:1, 15). God revealed enough for Gentiles to be damned, though people who know the Scriptures are more damned than those who have only nature and conscience (2:14–18). God revealed the truth about God within people (1:19), an internal knowledge based on being made in God’s image (Gen 1:26–27). More generally, God revealed his power and divinity, as well as benevolence in providing creation, so those who fail to recognize his power and character, worshiping mere idols or human conceptions, are without excuse (1:20).

Even Gentile intellectuals could have followed Paul’s argument here. Apart from the more skeptical Epicureans, most Greek and Roman intellectuals recognized divine design in nature;62 many reckoned as absurd the alternatives, namely, that the universe resulted from chance or human activity.63 Various philosophers affirmed that the supreme deity was present in and known by his works.64 Many of these writers also affirmed, like Paul, that one could infer much about God’s character from creation. For example, some believed that God’s character transcended merely human religion,65 or that deities were benevolent and cared for people.66 Paul would not have endorsed all their inferences;67 many of these philosophers still accepted their culture’s belief in many deities. But many Stoic thinkers by Paul’s day ultimately believed in one divine designer behind everything (including the other gods).68

Thus, after arguing for the necessity of a cause,69 the late first-century Stoic philosopher Epictetus argues from the structure of objects that they reflect a designer and not mere chance:70 “Assuredly from the very structure of all made objects we are accustomed to prove that the work is certainly the product of some artificer, and has not been constructed at random.”71 Anyone who observes the facts of nature, yet denies the existence of a creator, he opines, is stupid.72 Epictetus believed that human beings, and especially their intellect, most complex of all, particularly revealed the designer.73 Many others (including Cicero and Seneca) concurred: humans,74 and especially their intellect,75 were inexplicable apart from design. Jewish thinkers in the Greek world had adapted such ideas for a purer monotheism centuries before Paul,76 making his missionary job much easier.77 Jewish intellectuals like Paul, however, believed that such reasonings simply confirmed what was obvious in Genesis.

Thus, humanity “knew” God, but because they refused to “glorify” him (1:21),78 they ended up exchanging his “glory” and image for that of mortal, earthly creations (1:23). They were God’s image (Gen 1:26–27), but by corrupting God’s image in worshiping things other than God they gave up and lost his glory (cf. Rom 3:23).79 God punished their failure to act according to the truth by delivering them to their moral insanity (1:21–22).80 Jewish people considered idolatry the climax of human evil.81 Even Greeks, whose deities looked human, disdained the Egyptian animal images also mentioned here.82

Sexual Sin (1:24–27)

Paul has narrated that humanity exchanged the truth about God for idolatry (1:19–23), which he here calls a “lie,” the opposite of truth (1:25). A direct consequence of this behavior was that God handed them over to defile their own bodies sexually (1:24), including in same-sex intercourse, which was “against nature” (1:26–27), i.e., (for a Jew) against the way God created things to be. In the primeval era of the “creation” (Rom 1:20), God revealed his character and made humanity in his image (Gen 1:26–27); yet they distorted God’s image by worshiping other images (Rom 1:23).83 Exchanging God’s truth for lie involved idolatry (1:23, 25), but also a perversion of right sexuality in God’s image to distorted sexuality (1:24, 26).

Once they had perverted God’s image directly, they distorted it also in themselves. God’s image in humanity included the complementarity of male and female (Gen 1:27),84 and the distortion of his image led to same-sex intercourse against “nature,” which for Paul meant against the way God had created humans to function. (That Paul has Genesis in mind is made likelier by the distinctive terms he employs for “male” and “female” in Rom 1:26–27, terms that appear together prominently in Genesis, though not exclusively; cf. Gen 1:27; 5:2; Mark 10:6.) Possibly the penalty “in themselves” (1:27) involved not only the physical consequences of their behavior but the further effacing of God’s character and image in them (cf. 1:19, 24; contrast 8:23). Greek myths portrayed their deities committing all kinds of immorality, including sexual immorality,85 behavior that Jewish apologists connected with Greek male lifestyles and often ridiculed.86

Fusing the Horizons: Homosexual Activity

Scholars diverge fairly widely in their views about how to interpret Paul in 1:26–27, although a majority recognizes that Paul condemns homosexual behavior generally. Interpreters differ still more widely over how (and whether) to apply Paul today. In view of this disparity, we need to understand the historical context of Paul’s argument.

Homosexual Activity in Antiquity

Homosexual activity was common in the ancient Mediterranean world.87 It was usually bisexual rather than exclusively homosexual.88 Most of those who courted or molested boys planned to eventually marry women and have children of their own. Although various Greek sources report its occurrence among Gauls, Persians (especially with eunuchs), and others, the dominant cultural influence for it was Greek. This practice pervaded Greek society and was even attributed to deities.89

Homosexual practices are attested in Rome from an early period, but Greek influence multiplied these practices in Roman society, especially among the leisured aristocracy. Romans had often denounced these practices as due to Greek influence, and some Roman thinkers continued to reject the practice (see further discussion below), but it was now widely entrenched within aristocratic Roman society. Paul is thus not simply playing to Roman Gentiles who opposed the practice because of their cultural backgrounds. Indeed, Paul writes in Greek to a majority audience of Greek speakers in Rome, probably most of them immigrants from, or recent descendants of those who had immigrated from, the east. Their shared antipathy to homosexual practice is rooted not primarily in traditional Roman values (although it undoubtedly appealed to them) but in Jewish beliefs also adopted by Gentile adherents to Judaism and the early Christian movement.

As in most cultures, particular features of a society are linked with other characteristics of that society. In the Greek (and to lesser extent, Roman) world fathers could insist, often for economic reasons, that unwanted babies be abandoned on trash heaps.90 Although the matter is debated, there is still reason to believe that Greeks abandoned female babies more often than male babies, given the disparity in genders and consequent disparity in age at marriage. On average, Greek men seem to have married around age thirty, marrying young women twelve years their junior. This meant that young men in that society looked for other sexual outlets before marriage: slaves, prostitutes, and (more affordably) each other. The particular sexual practices dominant varied from one Greek city-state to another, but in this period the old traditions of Athens were most influential.

Pederasty and Other Exploitation

The vast majority of homosexual affection in the ancient Mediterranean world was directed toward boys (pederasty) or young men.91 Greeks openly admired young men’s beauty,92 but it was held to decline with puberty and the attendant growth of facial hair and other specifically masculine characteristics. Some slaveholders, mocked by many of their contemporaries, tried to prevent masculinization by having hairs plucked or, worse, turning boys into eunuchs.93 Some remained objects of homosexual affection through their teens, and some, like Alcibiades, drew comments about their handsomeness much later. We do read of homosexual relations between fully mature men, but by far the predominant form of homosexual interest remained that of men toward prepubescent and adolescent males. The unequal status of the partners was compared to that of men with women (whose status had been notoriously low in classical Athens), with the dominant partner on top when intercourse occurred.

This interest often took the form of courting with gifts and interest, which many Greeks found entertaining. Although today any such behavior would be considered exploitive, Greeks counted only excesses, such as more blatant seduction or rape, as taking unfair advantage of a boy and inviting severe punishments. Even such crimes generated outrage only when committed against boys who were free; even aristocratic Romans by this period employed slave boys at banquets who, like female slaves and prostitutes, could be exploited sexually. It was preferred that they remain “effeminate,” a behavior counted undignified and mocked when practiced by free men. (Those whose masculinity was physically impaired, such as eunuchs, generally faced the same derision.) Men could also find sexual outlets with male prostitutes; whereas pimps could exploit slaves for this role without public protest, the voluntary involvement of free young men invited disrespect toward the latter.94 Teachers, conquerors, and emperors were all reputed to sexually exploit boys (as well as, when available, young women).

Views Regarding Homosexual Behavior in Antiquity

Some Gentiles criticized homosexual behavior, for various reasons. Some criticized it out of personal preference; some Romans considered it unmanly or un-Roman.95 Many Roman philosophers associated the pursuit of boys with excesses like gluttony and drunkenness. Some also criticized it as being against nature (a point we will address more thoroughly, given its relevance in 1:26–27).

More often, people regarded it as a personal preference or a common practice. Some even defended it as being preferable to heterosexual affection, which was said to be driven by animal passion rather than philosophic appreciation. Anal intercourse was common enough that men also used it at times with women (perhaps prostitutes), as attested on some of the many ancient vase paintings that would today be classified as pornographic.

Jewish people, however, unanimously rejected homosexual behavior. Some Diaspora Jews in contact with Greek culture considered it against nature.96 Contrary to what some have argued, Jewish people included homosexual behavior among Sodom’s sins. Most characteristically, Jewish people associated homosexual activity especially (and probably largely accurately) with Gentiles. Although Jewish sources report Jewish adulterers, johns, and murderers, Jewish homosexual practice was nearly unknown.97 The obvious contrast with ancient Greek culture suggests the prominent role played by socialization in sexual formation.

Interpreting Paul

Could Paul have envisioned the issue of gay marriage? This is not likely. Some time after Paul wrote Romans, it is reported that the young emperor Nero “married” both a boy (whom he had castrated) and another man (Suetonius Nero 28.1; 29; Tacitus Ann. 15.37). Even the reporters, however, offer these claims as examples of Nero’s moral madness; as polygamy was illegal and Nero married heterosexually as well, these other unions were not taken in the same way. Later rabbis mythically depict ancient Israel’s enemies as involved in such marriages (Sipra A.M. par. 8.193.1.7), but without relying on genuine historical information. Apart from rare exceptions like these (most of them meant to evoke horror), however, ancients thought of marriage as heterosexual unions designed especially to produce legitimate heirs, regardless of their views toward homosexual behavior. With a few exceptions, “marriage” by definition involved both genders (and an economic agreement between families).98 Those who engaged in homosexual romance, even in the rarer cases when it involved long-term sexual relationships into adulthood, would not have used the title “marriage” to describe it.

Most readers today would share Paul’s revulsion against the dominant forms of homosexual practice in his day: pederasty in both its voluntary and involuntary forms. Some scholars (especially Scroggs) argue that Paul opposed merely pederasty or other kinds of sexual exploitation. Critics of this proposal sometimes too readily dismiss the evidence for it: as we have observed, pederasty was in fact the dominant expression of homosexual activity in the ancient Mediterranean world.

But did Paul limit his criticism to simply those forms that remain most offensive in Western culture today? The dominant practice was not the only practice, and the word “pederast” was already available. More importantly, as most commentators (e.g., Jewett, Byrne) point out, he specifies lesbian as well as male homosexual behavior, and it is the same-sex element of the behavior that he explicitly targets.

The same criticism may be leveled against the view that Paul merely rejects homosexual behavior in the way that some philosophers did, as a failure to control one’s appetites (comparable to gluttony). Rather, Paul’s rejection of homosexual behavior belongs to his larger Jewish sexual ethic, which rejects all sexual behavior outside heterosexual marriage. His “against nature” argument echoes philosophic arguments that other Diaspora Jews had already applied to homosexual behavior in general. Readers today may agree or disagree with Paul, but some modern attempts, no matter how valiant, to make him more palatable to certain Western liberal values have failed to persuade a number of commentators, including this one.

At the same time, we must not exaggerate what Paul is saying. He uses the examples of idolatry and homosexual behavior because Jewish people recognized these as exclusively Gentile vices. This recognition plays into Paul’s strategy to expose all sin as deadly (1:28–32), hence all persons as sinners (3:23). Paul is not providing pastoral counsel here to believers struggling with homosexual temptation, and he is certainly not granting license to abuse those who practice homosexual behavior. (Nor would he grant license to denounce this vice while tolerating heterosexual behavior outside marriage, a condemnation that consumes considerably more space in his letters.) Given how common bisexual practice was, Paul undoubtedly worked closely with many believers who had come from this background (some of whom were still tempted by it; cf. the likeliest interpretation of arsenokoite¯s in 1 Cor 6:9–11). Paul’s message here would be more analogous to a preacher appealing to an audience on the basis of their shared values regarding homosexual behavior—then leading them to consider their own vices.

Various Vices (1:28–32)

For the third time (cf. 1:24, 26), in 1:28 Paul repeats the refrain that God “gave them over” to their own ways through their minds being corrupted (cf. 1:21–22). They did not “approve” (from dokimazō) God in their knowledge, so God gave them “unapproved” (adokimos) minds to do “unfitting” things.99 For Paul, humanity’s distortion of the truth about God’s character leads to their distortion of the purpose of human sexuality, and ultimately to every kind of vice. As he will point out later, though, retaining true knowledge about God’s standards by the law makes one responsible for sin, rather than saving one (2:20; 7:23–25; 8:5–8).

Paul then lists examples of the “unfitting” things produced by this depraved mind, what he will later call the perspective of the flesh (8:5–8). Ancient moralists commonly used vice lists,100 sometimes arranged with repetitions to rhetorically drive home the point. Paul’s is longer than average, though far briefer than some. His rhetorical repetition and variation makes the list all the more effective: “filled with” four basic evils; “full of” five sins; a summary of eight kinds of sinners; and deficiency in four positive traits (1:29–31).101 Whereas Jewish people could relegate idolatry and homosexual intercourse to the corrupted ideologies of Gentiles, the present sins also appear in lists of Jewish misbehavior: envy, strife, gossip, slander, arrogance, disobedience to parents, and so forth. By the end of his list, Paul has inductively convicted both Jews and Gentiles as being under sin (he might do so deductively in 3:9–19), paving the way for his argument in ch. 2.

Paul shows that humanity rightly stands under the sentence of death (1:32). For though they technically should know better (1:19–20; cf. 2:14–15), they do what they know to be worthy of death (the way of the fleshly worldview, which yields death, 8:6).102 Those who refused to approve God in their thinking (1:28) now approve others who share their own behavior (1:32). God’s “righteous standard” or “requirement,”103 however, demands capital punishment for all transgressors, whether idolaters or gossipers and (most relevant for Paul’s continuing argument in 2:17, 23; 3:27, albeit with different terminology) boasters.

1. For purpose statements as titles, see Porphyry Ar. Cat. 57.15–19. Because 1:16–17 is not explicit that it so functions, however, ancient commentators (in contrast to modern ones) do not seem to have identified it as such.

2. Weima 2000: 328; Aune 1987: 163. This is true even when orators write the letters (e.g., Seneca Controv. 2.pref. intro).

3. See Stowers 1986: 20–21, 66. Paul’s expansions reflect rhetorical interest (Anderson 1999: 113) and are unusual (Anderson 1999: 207 n. 45); for connections to the letter body, cf. Wuellner 1976: 335.

4. See e.g., Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436a, lines 33–39; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lys. 24; Seneca Controv. 1.pref.21; Quintilian Inst. 4.1.35. Outside speeches, see e.g., Polybius 3.1.3—3.5.9; 11.1.4–5; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Thuc. 19; Virgil Aen. 1.1–6; Aulus Gellius Noct. att. pref. 25.

5. Paul’s Roman name itself was most often a Roman cognomen usually belonging to Roman citizens and typically associated with high status (cf. Judge 1982: 36 n. 20). Roman Jews usually avoided using their full (three-part) Roman names, and most letters omit such full names anyway, but Romans would likely infer Paul’s citizen status (cf. Rapske 1994: 85–86; Lüdemann 1989: 241). Paul’s own interest, however, is in communicating his divinely ordained mission.

6. See discussion and sources on ancient slavery in e.g., Keener 2003b: 448–49, 748; see also Martin 1990 (positively, see esp. 47–49, 55–56); Buckland 1908; Barrow 1968. For “slaves of God” as a positive image in Judaism, see Hezser 2003: 418–20.

7. See Aune 2003: 347; but cf. BDF §464.

8. Reusing earlier poetry was common (Menander Rhetor 2.4.393, lines 9–12), and many argue forcefully that Paul draws here on a pre-Pauline tradition (Beasley-Murray 1980: 147–54; Dunn 1988: 1:5; Jewett 2007: 24–25, 97–108); their evidence allows this usage but need not require it (see Poythress 1976; Moo 1996: 45–46; Haacker 2003: 108–9; Anderson 1999: 207 n. 45). Paul might simply shift to grand epideictic style, appropriate to discussing the sublime or deities, when elaborating Christology. At the least it cannot be a “hymn,” since it lacks meter.

9. The contrast between “flesh” and “Spirit” here lays emphasis on the divine empowerment involved in the latter (see 8:4, 5, 6, 9, 13). It does not denigrate the fleshly relationship, but relativizes its importance (cf. 4:1; 9:3, 5), perhaps why Paul rarely emphasizes this aspect of messiahship relevant to his contemporaries (but cf. also Mark 12:35–37).

10. On horizō as “appointed” or “established” with reference to Jesus, see also Acts 10:42; 17:31.

11. Although not relevant exclusively to Rome, this central message of Jesus as Israel’s messianic ruler would reaffirm Roman believers who had apparently already suffered for that claim (Suetonius Claud. 25.4; see our introduction). It also contrasted with the “merely procedural” deifications of Roman emperors (Elliott 2008: 71–72).

12. In the second of the “Eighteen Benedictions” (cf. m. Roš Haš. 4:5); similarly in later Islam (Qur’an 42.9; 46.33; 57.2). Contrast pagan deities (e.g., Ovid Metam. 2.617–18).

13. “Spirit of holiness” may associate the Spirit with being set apart for God (1 Thess 4:7–8; cf. Dunn 1970: 105–6; Smith 2006: 98; Keener 1997: 8–10) but is also simply a good Semitic way of speaking of the “Holy Spirit” (for both concepts together, cf. e.g., 1QS 3.7; 4.21).

14. For the Spirit and resurrection, see also m. Sotah 9:15.

15. Some take “among the Gentiles” as indicating that they were predominantly Gentile. Literally, it might simply locate them in the Diaspora; one may infer their largely Gentile status, however, in 1:13–15.

16. Cf. also discussion in Schlatter 1995: 11; Jewett 2007: 110. For the nations’ promised obedience, cf. Gen 49:10; Isa 45:14; 49:23; 60:14. Paul’s vision of Gentiles’ incorporation as Abraham’s children (see ch. 4) contrasts with the empire’s subjugation of nations (see Lopez 2008).

17. Schreiner (1998: 23, 35–36) rightly emphasizes the centrality of God’s glory and honor in this letter. See e.g., Rom 1:21, 23; 2:24; 3:23; 4:20; 9:17, 23; 11:36; 14:6; 15:6–9.

18. Although the churches in Rome may not have been more unified at this time than Rome’s synagogues were, we should not read much into Paul’s lack of mention of “church” here (in contrast to Jewett 2007: 61; cf. Rom 16:5), any more than we should, say, in Phil 1:1.

19. Also of Paul’s (12:19; cf. 16:5, 8, 9, 12).

20. E.g., Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436b.17–40; Cicero Inv. 1.15.20; idem De or. 1.31.143; idem Fam. 13.66.1; Statius Silvae 2.preface; Quintilian Inst. 4.1.5.

21. E.g., Demosthenes Epitaph. 1.1; Chariton Chaer. 4.5.8; 8.4.5; Josephus Life 365–66; Acts 15:23; Jas 1:1; Deissmann 1978: 150–204 passim; Kim 1972: 10–20, esp. 11.

22. Jewish letters in Greek sometimes combined chairein with “peace” (2 Macc 1:1); a Hebrew letter could combine “mercy” and “peace” in a greeting (2 Bar. 78:2–3). Paul is not the only early Christian writer to combine “grace” and “peace” (1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 1:2; 2 John 3; Rev 1:4; 1 Clem. title; cf. Ign. Smyrn. 12.2).

23. If humanity in general can be charged with failing to thank God (1:21), the same charge can hardly be laid against Paul (6:17; 7:25; 16:4; and passim in his letters)! On thanksgivings, see Schubert 1939; esp. O’Brien 1977; cf. e.g., Fronto Ad M. Caes. 5.41 (56).

24. Letter writers often expressed prayers (or wishes) for their recipients; e.g., P. Giess. 17.3–4; P. Lond. 42.2–4; P. Oxy. 1296.4–5; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.2.2; 5.25 (40). “Unceasingly” may involve greater frequency than daily prayer times, but might be hyperbolic (a common figure, e.g., Rhet. Her. 4.33.44); “unceasing mention” seems to refer to times of feasts and sacrifices in 1 Macc 12:11.

25. For Jewish people calling God to witness, see e.g., Josephus Ant. 4.40, 46; T. Reu. 1:6; 6:9; among Gentiles, e.g., Homer Od. 1.273; 14.158; Xenophon Cyr. 4.6.10.

26. Letters often expressed a genuine desire to visit (Anderson 1999: 207); even more frequently, they expressed deep affection (Cicero Fam. 7.14.2; Pliny Ep. 3.3.1; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 1.3.1–5; 2.2.2; 3.9.1; 4.2.1) and longing (P. Oxy. 528.6–9; Cicero Fam. 1.9.1; 16.1.1; Att. 2.18; 12.3; Dio Chrysostom Ep. 3; Pliny the Younger Ep. 3.17.1–3; 6.4.2–5; 6.7.1–3; 7.5.1–2; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.4; 2.10.3; 2.14; 3.9.2; 3.19; 4.5.3; 4.9). One might also explain reasons for one’s delay (CPJ 2:219, §431).

27. A common caveat (e.g., Xenophon Hell. 2.4.17; Anab. 7.3.43; Epictetus Disc. 1.1.17; Josephus Ant. 2.333; 7.373; 20.267).

28. Reciprocity was a conventional expectation (Pliny Ep. 6.6.3; Statius Silvae 4.9; Herman 2003; Highet 2003; Harrison 2003: 1, 15, 40–43, 50–53), but Paul expresses it in terms expected for peers. For Paul, “spiritual” alludes to the Spirit (Fee 1994b: 28–31).

29. Ancient culture heavily emphasized obligation (cf. Rom 13:8; 15:1, 27), but the expression was not limited to money and was often used figuratively (Musonius Rufus 17, p. 110.2–3; Dio Chrysostom Or. 44.4; Pliny Ep. 7.19.10), including for a debt to a people (Cicero Quint. fratr. 1.1.9.28; Valerius Maximus 5.6. ext. 2).

30. On Greek disdain for barbarians’ lack of Greek education, see e.g., Diodorus Siculus 1.2.6; Iamblichus V.P. 8.44.

31. E.g., Plato Alcib. 2.141C; Dio Chrysostom Or. 1.14; 9.12; Diodorus Siculus 1.4.5–6; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 3.11.10.

32. E.g., Cicero Inv. 1.24.35; Seneca Dial. 5.2.1; Josephus J.W. 5.17; idem Ant. 1.107. Some texts add Romans as a third category (Juvenal Sat. 10.138; Quintilian Inst. 5.10.24; as Greeks in Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 7.70.5); most included Jews in the barbarian category (Strabo 16.2.38; Josephus J.W. 1.3; 4.45; but cf. Josephus Ant. 18.47).

33. E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lys. 17; Cicero Or. Brut. 40.137; idem Quinct. 10.36; Quintilian Inst. 4.4.1–8; Pliny the Elder Nat. 8.1.1; 18.1.1; Dio Chrysostom Or. 1.11; 38.5–6. Technically a “thesis” involved a hypothetical topic and a “hypothesis” a concrete one (Theon Progymn. 1.60 [cf. 2.91–104; 11.2–6, 240–43]; Hermogenes Progymn. 11, On Thesis 24–26; Anderson 2000: 63–65). Paul’s might resemble a philosophic thesis, though Stoics omitted these (Anderson 1999: 61, 241–42). Paul’s form may differ from conventional rhetorical expectations (cf. Elliott 1990: 62–63, 82–83, doubting that it is a thesis).

34. Moo 1996: 29, 32, 65; Jewett 2007: 135.

35. See especially Hays 1989: 36–38; idem 2005: 45, 94, 137, citing these texts, and noting the texts to which Paul appeals in Rom 9:27–33; 11:26–27; 15:7–13, 21.

36. Cf. similarly Apollinaris of Laodicea (Bray 1998: 29); John Chrysostom. Hom. Rom. 2.

37. Paul drew on Isa 28:16 lxx in two of these texts, and knew Isaiah’s broader expectation (Isa 45:17; 54:4; 65:13; 66:5; see more fully Hays 1989: 38–39). He may have also known Jesus’s saying in Mark 8:38 (cf. John 12:26).

38. E.g., Porter 1997: 579; cf. again John Chrysostom Hom. Rom. 2; on litotes, Rowe 1997: 128.

39. So also Origen Comm. Rom. on 1:16 (in Bray 1998: 30).

40. Paul may speak of the gospel going next to Greeks possibly because Greeks (broadly defined, since Alexander) were the next ones to receive it; “Greeks” constituted the primary mission field of Paul’s day, at least in his cultural sphere.

41. Rajak 1995: 1, 11–13; cf. Josephus Ant. 19.278. This is often true of Luke as well (e.g., Acts 14:1; 16:3).

42. For ethnic conflicts between Jews and Greeks, see Stanley 1996.

43. Certainly appropriate in a thesis statement such as Rom 1:17; “justice” came to be viewed as a standard category of reasoning for developing a thesis (Hermogenes Progymn. 11, On Thesis 26).

44. “Justice” may depict an aspect of God’s nature as do God’s wrath (1:18) and God’s power (1:20). Elliott (2008: 76–77) finds in God’s justice a critique of human injustice, focusing on the empire.

45. God answering in righteousness (Ps 143:1) need not include judging, since no mortal could meet God’s standard (Ps 143:2).

46. Gen 38:26; cf. Job 33:32; Sir 1:22; 23:11; 26:29; 31[34]:5; of God in Sir 18:2; used in a comparative sense in Jer 3:11; Ezek 16:51–52. Cf. 1QS 3.3; Gen. Rab. 65:6.

47. To “justify” was also to “render justice” on someone’s behalf (2 Sam 15:4); one should “justify,” “vindicate,” “defend the rights of” the widow (Isa 1:17) and the poor (Ps 82:3).

48. In the Greek version of Isa 53:11, it is the servant who is justified.

49. Some other Jews also depended on God’s “righteousness” to vindicate or save them (1QS 11.5, 9–14; cf. 1QH 4.29–37; 11.10–11; 1QM 11.3–4; Gen. Rab. 33:1; for a fuller range of biblical (and some early Jewish) background, see e.g., Stuhlmacher 2001: 13–24).

50. Cf. also Phil 3:9; Ambrosiaster Commentary on Paul’s Epistles (CSEL 81:37); John Chrysostom Hom. Rom. 2; Basil Humility 20 (Bray 1998: 31–32).

51. Schlatter 1995: 26–27.

52. This “transformative” righteousness view (vs. mere acquittal) is the one dominant in most of church history (Fitzmyer 1993: 118–19).

53. Cf. the construction in 2 Cor 2:16 (a rhetorical flourish, as in Menander Rhetor 2.3, 378.29–30; Ps 84:7; Jer 9:3). Alternatively, God’s righteousness may be revealed on the basis of faith in the gospel, generating more faith (cf. Rom 10:17; the construction in Gal 6:8). “From faith” might counter the assertion that it was “from works” (cf. 3:20; 4:2; 9:11, 32; 11:6); it also reflects Hab 2:4 lxx. Many understand it as from God’s faithfulness (3:3) to human faithfulness, yet one would expect Paul’s context to clarify such different uses more adequately.

54. Scholars debate whether “faith” here attaches to “live” or to “righteous”; normally in Romans Paul connects faith with righteousness (3:22, 26, 28, 30; 4:3, 5, 9, 11, 13; 5:1; 9:30; 10:4, 6, 10), though in any case all three terms are closely connected here.

55. Cf. e.g., 2 Chron 23:18; 1QS 5.15, 17; CD 5.1; 7.10; 11.18, 20. On Paul and ancient citation techniques, including adaptation of wording to fit the context, see especially Stanley 1992 passim.

56. Some think that Paul alludes to both the Greek and Hebrew versions, but his audience likely was unacquainted with the Hebrew version.

57. T. Hul. 10:16; Sipra A.M. par. 8.193.1.10; Sipre Deut. 336.1.1; ’Abot R. Nat. 40 A; y. Hag. 2:1, §9; cf. Ezek 33:14–16, 19; 4 Ezra 7:21; m. ’Abot 6:7; but contrast L.A.B. 11:9.

58. Salvation and wrath seem to be two sides of God’s righteousness (1:16–18); the latter responds to human unrighteousness (1:18). The gospel reveals the former (1:16) and presupposes the situation (depicted in 1:18–32) of the latter.

59. Recognized also by Ambrosiaster and Apollinaris of Laodicea (Bray 1998: 35).

60. E.g., the language of Ps 94:11 in Rom 1:21; exchanging God’s glory for idols (1:23) in Ps 106:20 (cf. Jer 2:11; possibly language from Deut 4:16–18); perhaps also moral hardening (cf. Rom 1:28; 11:7, 25) and the handing over to their sins (Rom 1:24; Ps 81:12).

61. The judgment of consequences of false belief appears elsewhere (cf. Isa 29:9–14; Jub. 21:22; Josephus J.W. 5.343; Epictetus Disc. 1.12.21–22; 3.11.1–3; Porphyry Marc. 22.348–360).

62. So Dio Chrysostom Or. 12.29, 34, 36–37; for examples, cf. Plutarch Isis 76, Mor. 382A; in Jewish sources, Let. Aris. 132.

63. A Pythagorean in Diodorus Siculus 12.20.2.

64. Epictetus Disc. 1.6.23–24; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.190, 192; cf. 2.167.

65. Ps.-Heraclitus Ep. 4, 9.

66. Socrates in Xenophon Mem. 4.3.12–13; for their benevolence, cf. also Seneca Ep. Lucil. 95.50.

67. Some decided that the divine nature must be spherical, since this was the perfect shape (Cicero Nat. d. 2.17.45–46)!

68. Cf. Diogenes Laertius 7.1.134; cf. earlier Heraclitus in Diogenes Laertius 9.1.1. Some earlier Stoics tended toward pantheism, but Stoicism generally distinguished between matter and the logical principle (the logos) which organized matter (I explore some of these ideas further in Keener 2003b: 341–47).

69. Epictetus Disc. 1.6.3–6.

70. Epictetus Disc. 1.6.7.

71. Epictetus Disc. 1.6.7 (LCL translation, 1:41).

72. Epictetus Disc. 1.16.8.

73. Epictetus Disc. 1.6.10; cf. Rom 1:19.

74. Cicero Nat. d. 2.54.133—58.146; Seneca Ben. 6.23.6–7; cf. Cicero Fin. 5.12.35–36; Let. Aris. 156–57.

75. E.g., Cicero Nat. d. 2.59.147—61.153; Porphyry Marc. 26.410–11. They viewed knowledge of a deity as innate in people (Seneca Ep. Lucil. 117.6; Dio Chrysostom Or. 12.27–28; Iamblichus Myst. 1.3). Some also adduced in favor of deities’ existence the universal pervasiveness of belief in them (Cicero Tusc. 1.13.30; cf. Maximus of Tyre Or. 11.5).

76. For example, the Jewish philosopher Philo borrows various philosophers’ arguments for God’s existence (Wolfson 1968: vol. 2, 73–93), including Plato’s argument from creation (p. 74) and material from Stoic sources (pp. 75–83).

77. He may especially draw on the Wisdom of Solomon, a widely circulated Jewish work in Greek (cf. Wis 13:1–9, including “without excuse” in 13:8); there the consequences of idolatry culminate in a vice list (Wis 14:12–31). Cf. also Jewish stories about Abram reasoning back to a first cause and resisting idolatry. For subsequent Christian approaches to “natural theology” here, see concisely Bray 1998: 34, 37–38; Reasoner 2005: 11–17.

78. For humanity abandoning gratitude toward God, see also Josephus Ant. 1.72. Ingratitude was among the most despised vices in Mediterranean antiquity (e.g., Xenophon Cyr. 1.2.6; Mem. 2.2.2–3; Cicero Att. 8.4; Heraclitus Hom. Prob. 4.4; Seneca Ben. 1.10.4; Ep. 81.1; ’Abot R. Nat. 46, §128 B).

79. Useful for Paul’s audience, Greeks and Romans also believed that humanity had declined from a primeval golden age (Hesiod Op. 110–201; Ovid Metam. 1.89–312), but Paul’s biblical allusions and polemic against idolatry infuse his narrative with the Jewish subtext of Genesis (without claiming detailed allusions to Adam’s fall here, as some do). The glory and image are restored in Christ (Rom 8:29–30).

80. The term mataios (“vain,” “futile”) in 1:21 was sometimes associated with idols (e.g., Acts 14:15; 1 Kgs 16:26 lxx; Jer 8:19; 10:3, 15; Ezek 8:10; Wis 13:1; Sib. Or. 3.29, 547–48, 555), though the language here echoes Ps 94:11.

81. E.g., Wis 14:27; t. Bek. 3:12; Mek. Pisha 5.40–41; Sipre Deut. 43.4.1; 54.3.2. Later rabbis said it was the final stage to which the evil impulse would lead one.

82. E.g., Lucian Imag. 11; Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 6.18–19; Let. Aris. 138; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.81, 128, 224.

83. “Beginning” included the entire primeval period, including the first people (e.g., Mark 10:6; L.A.B. 1:1).

84. This complementarity was especially sexual, designed for procreation (Gen 1:28).

85. E.g., Pliny Nat. 2.5.17; Lucian Prom. 17; Deor. conc. 7; Philops. 2.

86. Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.232–49, 275; cf. later Athenagoras 20–22; Theophilus 1.9; Tatian 33–34.

87. For discussions, see e.g., Dover 1978; Greenberg 1988. On Paul’s view, see contrary arguments in e.g., Scroggs 1983; Gagnon 2001.

88. The latter practice did exist, although it was sometimes stereotypically associated with misogyny.

89. Zeus, for example, seduced and raped not only women, but the boy Ganymede, whom he eventually took up to heaven (e.g., Homer Il. 20.232–35; Ovid Metam. 10.155–61); as the satirist Lucian wryly points out, his wife Hera apparently tolerated this boy on Olympus more than her earthly women rivals (Lucian Dial. d. 213–14 [8/5, Zeus and Hera]). Other deities also loved boys sexually (e.g., Apollodorus Library 1.3.3; Ovid Metam. 10.162–219); Josephus ridiculed such portrayals (Ag. Ap. 2.275).

90. The babies so abandoned could be eaten by vultures or dogs, but were often adopted and raised as slaves. Jews and Egyptians, however, rejected this practice of child abandonment.

91. On this point, Scroggs 1983: 29–43, is certainly correct.

92. Socrates was known for having spent much time with handsome young men enjoying their beauty without intercourse (although satirists like Lucian suggested that everyone really knew better; Lucian Ver. hist. 2.19; Vit. auct. 15).

93. Cf. e.g., Seneca Ep. 47.7; Dio Chrysostom Or. 77/78.36; Suetonius Dom. 7.1; Bradley 1987: 115; cf. Ps.-Lucian Am. 10.

94. See Höcker 2008: 59–60; Hartmann 2005: 469–70; cf. Aeschines Tim. 21, 51–53, 74, 137; Polybius 8.9.12; Dionysius Epid. 7.291; Lucian Alex. 5–6.

95. Still, it could be better than being accused of adultery with a free matron (Valerius Maximus 8.1. acquittals 12).

96. Philo Abraham 135–37; Spec. Laws 3.37–39; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.273–75; Ps.-Phoc. 190–92; T. Naph. 3:4–5; cf. the later recension of 2 En. 10:4. More generally, Lev 18:22; 20:13; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.199, 215; idem Ant. 3.275; Ps.-Phoc. 3; Sib. Or. 3.764; 4.34; 5.166, 387, 430.

97. On homosexual behavior as a Gentile sin, see e.g., Let. Aris. 152; Sib. Or. 3.185–86, 596–600; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 39:1. Later rabbis disclaimed even suspecting this behavior for Israelites (y. Qidd. 4:11, §6).

98. See Keener 2000d: 685.

99. Paul’s “unfitting” may reflect Stoic terminology, alluding to people acting against nature (1:26–27); but the particular examples of “unfitting things” here unfold in 1:29–31.

100. E.g., Ezek 18:6–8, 11–13; Philo Posterity 52; Sacrifices 32; Plato Laws 1.649D; Aristotle Eth. eud. 2.3.4, 1220b–21a; Cicero Pis. 27.66; idem Cat. 2.4.7; 2.5.10; 2.10.22, 25; Seneca Dial. 9.2.10–12.

101. Lists could either use repeated conjunctions (e.g., “and . . . and”; 1 Cor 6:9–10; 2 Cor 12:21; Acts 15:20) or no conjunctions (asyndeton), as here (cf. Gal 5:19–23).

102. Even from the era of the “beginning” (1:20) they knew (cf. Gen 3:3) that human death was the consequence of humanity’s sin (Rom 5:12, 14, 17, 21; 6:16, 21, 23; 7:5, 13). This was even more true for knowers of the law (cf. 2:26; 8:4). Jewish teachers also believed that God had given commandments to humanity before the law (Jub. 7:20–21; Ps.-Phoc. passim; what the later rabbis called Noahide commandments, e.g., Mek. Bah. 5.90–94; Sipre Deut. 343.4.1).

103. Dikaiōma. God’s righteous character is thus also revealed in his wrath (1:18), though especially in the gospel where he puts people in the right (1:17); the tension is resolved especially in 3:26.