By Living Waters

The following thesis proposal is what I first submitted with my application to the University of Durham. Since beginning my studies the project has morphed a bit. I’ll leave the original below as it stood and stands, though I’ll note here just a couple things regarding my current direction.

One of the major problems facing the study of Paul’s theology is his understanding of and approach to Old Testament Law. A legion of monographs have been published on the subject, and those in several different languages (primarily in German and English). This is simply to say that there are many opinions on the matter…and that for good reason. Even the apostle Peter noted that Paul had many difficult things in his correspondence (2 Pet 3:15-16). Indeed, Paul’s posture toward the law is difficult to discern.

Nevertheless, as I’ve continued to look at the Old Testament scriptures, as well as the literature of Second Temple Judaism, I’ve come across some things that I believe are tributaries to Paul’s understanding of and approach to the law. I’ve incorporated some of these thoughts in previous writings, especially in some attempts to counter the Muslim claim that Islam abrogates Christianity as Christianity abrogated Old Testament religion. Here I’ll make only a few brief remarks.

First, the majority voice in Second Temple Judaism is that the law is an indivisible whole, as well as that it is eternal. Paul holds neither position (at least in terms of the Torah delivered at Sinai). Rather, Paul argues for the temporality of the law based on the narrative chronology of Genesis-Exodus (see Gal 3 and Rom 4). Paul also does not hold that the law is indivisible. This can be seen, in conjunction with other things, in how he writes about uncircumcised gentiles who keep the law (Rom 2:25ff), as well as how he can speak of the irrelevancy of circumcision all the while emphasizing the absolute necessity of obeying the commands of God (1 Cor 7:19). As such, Paul stands in sharp distinction to other Jewish voices of his day.

Second, even while observing these features of Paul’s view of the law, we still need to see just where he might have gotten such a perspective. I believe that one major tributary to Paul’s understanding and approach to the law derives from what scholars have termed “the critique of the cultus” in the Old Testament. This critique is expressed at those times when certain facets of the law are devalued or disparaged (e.g., temple, sacrifices, circumcision, festival days, Sabbath, etc.) when other facets of the law are being disobeyed (e.g., prohibitions against immorality and idolatry, promotion of charity and justice). It is interesting to find Jesus making such distinctions in such passages as the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) and in his woes upon the scribes and pharisees (Matt 23). (Here I would suggest is one facet of what Paul terms “the law of Christ.”) I have found passages in Paul’s epistles wherein he picks up and employs this structural critique, particularly when he also argues that “no one will be justified by the works of the law.”

Thirdly, one must keep in mind that Paul sought to answer those who accused him of teaching a libertarian lawlessness. He denied such charges with the strongest of terms. Indeed, Paul feels free to quote from the law and set it forth morally imperative. And, most stunning of all, Paul insists in several places that Christians are to “fulfill the law” (a phrase hearkening back to what Jesus said about himself in the Sermon on the Mount — another facet of what Paul means by “the law of Christ”).

Finally, my suspicion is that all of these things, and several more that I’ll not mention at this time, relate intimately to how Paul adopts and adapts the prophetic critique of Israel. Indeed, Paul’s rhetoric in Romans (at least in several significant places) derives precisely from the prophetic critique of Israel. But many commentators and theologians believe that Paul disregarded the context of the original critiques, including the references to an obedient and faithful righteous minority. I suspect these theologians and commentators are quite mistaken and have contributed to the misperceptions of Paul as muddled, anti-Semitic, and otherwise embattled.

What if we consider more seriously how Paul adopts and adapts the prophetic critique of Israel? What if we consider well how the prophets cast Israel as the nations and the nations as Israel? What if we pay closer attention to how Paul qualifies his categorical statements–categorical statements and qualifications that derive from the rhetoric of prophetic critique? I believe that if we were to do this, then our grasp of how Paul understands and approaches the law will be liberated from a host of mistaken assumptions and misreadings.

Now, on to my original thesis (something that will play a small part in my current thesis project).

I cannot emphasize enough that the following thesis proposal is preliminary and tentative. With these qualifications in mind, please feel free to email any questions or comments you have to me.

Soon I hope to explain further why I believe this thesis proposal will aid us 1) to better understand the larger argument of Romans (and especially the opening chapters), and 2) to better see the coherence in Paul’s argumentation (in contrast to many recent proposals attributing a peculiar befuddlement to Paul).

Title: THE REVELATION AND RHETORIC OF WRATH
Text: ROMANS 1:16-32
Author: KEVIN JAMES BYWATER

SUMMARY

The two majority readings of Romans 1:18-32 are 1) that Paul here focuses upon the sins of the Gentiles, primarily or exclusively, and 2) that Paul here recounts the sins of all human beings, at least in so far as they are sins in all human hearts. Contrary to these conventional readings, I propose that throughout these verses Paul presents a generic rehearsal of Israel’s history of participation in the sins of the nations.

This thesis is illustrated through Paul’s employment of Habakkuk 2:4 (Rom 1:17), as well as his intertextual employment of such OT passages as Deuteronomy 4 (echoing Gen 1 as well), Psalm 106 (LXX 105; esp. v. 20), Jeremiah 2 (particularly v. 11), and Leviticus 18 and 20. Thematically, these passages from Deuteronomy, Psalms, Jeremiah and Leviticus (as well as Habakkuk) each present an attendant prohibition against, or a condemnation of, Israel’s participation in the sins of the nations.

While the conventional readings highlight the verbal similarities of this passage and Wisdom of Solomon, the differences between Paul and Wisdom are not often fully appreciated. For one example, Wisdom asserts that the Gentiles “should have known God,” though Paul asserts that the targets of his polemic actually “knew God.” In addition, knowledge, truth, and glory are privileges Paul attributes to the targets of his polemic, though he elsewhere attributes these privileges uniquely to Israel (e.g., Rom 2:20; 9:4).

Rather than seeing Paul arguing his case from natural theology in Romans 1:19-20, I suggest that instead of poiemasin being understood as “what has been made” (i.e., as a reference to the created order), it is better understood as “what has been done” (i.e., as a reference to the mighty deeds of God) (though there is no inherent dichotomy between the deeds of creation and the deeds of redemption). And instead of reading to dikaioma tou theou in Romans 1:32 as an allusion to natural law, I propose that Paul is alluding to the Torah.

These suggestions are not intended to exclude natural law or natural theology altogether, but to assert that the revelatory medium noted in these verses is other than the created order.

One significant fruit of this rereading of Romans 1:16-32 is a smoothing of the transition at 2:1 (“Therefore, you…”), a transition with which many commentators have struggled, both in terms of Paul’s logic, as well as regarding the identity of his interlocutor. If Paul’s target in 1:18-32 is historical Israel, then I suggest that we find Paul seeking to remove contemporary covenantal presumption at 2:1ff — something he does with increasing directness and explicitness in the opening chapters of the epistle as he removes all grounds for boasting apart from Christ.

Finally, in conjunction with the exegetical analysis I expect to discuss historical, systematic and philosophical concerns throughout the thesis. This is important due to the fact that my thesis is truly a contra mundum reading of this passage, given that 1:19-20 and 1:32 historically have been employed as “commonsense” proof texts for natural theology and natural law. Again, while I have no intention of arguing against such theories in themselves, I question whether they legitimately arise from the texts in question.

Just a couple brief comments are in order. I suspect that some people first reading this proposal will suppose that I am seeking to remove the most important proof texts for natural theology and natural law that are in biblical revelation. In response I must note that 1) it is my intention to do no such thing, but rather to attempt a careful reading of the text that is both faithful to Paul, other biblical authors, and broader biblical themes; 2) I believe that the contemporary Intelligent Design movement adequately and interestingly produces material in support of at least a minimal natural theology — and I believe their efforts largely are successful; 3) I suspect that we can retain an adequate, if not robust, natural law theory that is theologically grounded in the biblical presentation of the imago Dei (the image of God); 4) and, finally, I believe it would be a mistake to suppose that the validations of natural theology and natural law endeavors rests solely on Paul’s comments in Romans 1 and 2. This can be seen, I believe, by answering this question, “Were the endeavors of natural theology and natural law theories valid prior to Paul’s writing of Romans?” If they were, then I would suggest that what we find in Romans 1 and 2 is not necessary to those endeavors even now.