We’ve been taking our time unpacking Romans 1.16-17, which mark the thesis statement for the letter as a whole. So far we’ve unpacked the meaning of the two critical pieces of vocabulary in the text, dikaiosyne (’justice, righteousness’) and pistis (and related words, ‘faith(fulness)’), and Paul’s quote from Habakkuk 2.4, which we saw is an incontrovertibly anti-imperial text. Today we’ll see how those pieces fit into the bigger structure of Paul’s thesis statement.
(Please see the first of the three posts for the Experience and Encounter sections of the study.)
Text
[1.16] For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who is faithful, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. [17] For in it God’s justice is revealed through faith for faith, just as it is written: “The just one will live by faith.”
Explore
In considering everything we’ve looked at so far — in Paul’s greetings, his prayer expressing his hopes and dreams for his Roman readers, and his vocabulary and quotation from Habakkuk here in the thesis statement — we’re left with some unresolved questions that will help us put the pieces together:
- How does what Paul says about the gospel here connect to how he defined it in 1.1-7?
- What does this gospel ‘reveal’?
- Why does he feel the need to insist that he is not ashamed of it? (In other words, what about the gospel might be considered shameful within the cultural context in which Paul was writing?)
A Powerful Gospel
At the start of the series, we saw that before becoming the technical term for the Christian proclamation, ‘gospel’ was a military term describing good news and celebration of victory over one’s enemies. Already in the greetings at the start of his letter, Paul made six claims about this gospel: 1. its source (God); 2. its content (Jesus of Nazareth); 3. its place within the larger tradition (attested in the Scriptures); 4. its scope (universal); 5. its goal (the ‘obedience of faith’); and 6. its ultimate objective (for Jesus to be appropriately glorified). Here in 1.16 he adds a seventh claim, which we might call the gospel’s function. What is it? It is nothing other than “the power of God for salvation to everyone who is faithful.”
Power is an interesting concept, and one that is sneakily important all through the New Testament. One of the main ways the Gospels refer to Jesus’ miracles was is “deeds of power,” a term picked up for the miraculous in Acts. The coming of the Holy Spirit and the efficacy it gives the apostles’ ministry is also described in terms of power (e.g., “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes” (Acts 1.8)). Here in Romans 1, Paul has already described the resurrection of Jesus in terms of power (”declared to be Son of God with power … by resurrection from the dead” (1.5)).
All this stands in contrast to Rome’s claims to power. As Tonstad puts it:
Paul claims on behalf of his gospel what the Roman emperor and the imperial cult celebrate as the hallmark of the Roman system. That system, bursting at the seams with symbols of conquest and military power, a ‘national security state’ in all senses of the term, is a source of pride and is advertised in prideful ways with abandon. (Tonstad 73). *
Later in the letter, Paul will give this rival power structure a spiritual dimension, in keeping with the general premise of Jewish apocalypticism that human evil has spiritual roots (8.38; cf. Ephesians 6.2).
So we might say that one legitimate way we can read the whole New Testament is as the story of a power struggle in which the forces of evil at work in the world are seen to be winning but are ultimately undone by first the incarnation, and second (and especially) by the resurrection of Jesus. This framing makes the early Christians’ decision to refer to their message as a gospel — good news of military victory — make a lot of sense: It is the story of how God defeated the forces of evil. That this victory is won through the humble, self-sacrificial, and forgiving way of the cross rather than a brute show of strength puts it all in even starker contrast (Tonstad 73; Eberhart).
A Gospel of Salvation
The gospel demonstrates its power in saving the faithful. But what does this mean?
As we’ve seen time and time again already in this series, Paul has a habit of using language that is loaded with meaning from both Jewish and Roman imperial narratives. ‘Salvation’ (Greek: soteria) is another such term. Here it’s less a difference in the word itself — it refers to a personal and collective safety of soul, mind, and body — but in its source. Unsurprisingly, in Roman political discourse, it was the Empire, and specifically the Emperor, who provided salvation for the people. It was a ‘security state’ if there ever was one. Both Augustus and Nero, for example, were officially entitled “the saviour of the universe” (Tonstad 73; Eberhart). And, salvation was said to depend on the vaunted pax romana, the so-called ‘Roman peace’ that was brutally maintained by military force (Jewett (2013) 20). As Keesmaat and Walsh conclude, Paul wrote:
[i]n the face of an imperial gospel that proclaims that all salvation lies in Rome, and that identifies the emperor as both lord and savior, while bringing crosses, crippling taxes, agricultural exploitation, economic destruction, war, and violence wherever it goes (Keesmaat & Walsh 17)
Salvation was understood to have a markedly different source within Judaism. A quick survey produces the following representative examples: “I wait for your salvation, O YHWH” (Genesis 49.18); and “…my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation” (2 Samuel 22.3). Not only was salvation the purview of God, but the Scriptures also insist that it is not the purview of human politics and politicians: “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortals, in whom there is no salvation” (Psalm 146.3).
In a turn that should come as no surprise by now, by Paul’s time, Jewish ideas of salvation had taken on a strongly apocalyptic sensibility (Barrett 28; Schreiner 61). There was still a belief in God’s salvation of the faithful, but the harsh political realities of life under foreign oppression meant that it was oriented towards a future deliverance. And while it was still inherently tangible and political, it took on an added spiritual dimension, with politics understood to be itself representative of spiritual warfare and God vindicating those who did not see Israel’s liberation in their lifetime (Barrett 28).
Here Paul’s claim that the gospel works salvation for the faithful stands in both continuity and contrast to both of these narratives about salvation. It accepts the Roman idea that salvation is available in the here and now, but offers a markedly different source and means for bringing it about. And it accepts the apocalyptic Jewish idea that salvation comes from God alone, but in that characteristically Christian way, it twists it by insisting that the salvation available at the end of time has happened here in the middle of time.
An Apocalyptic Gospel
For all the many times we’ve discussed the role of apocalyptic thought in Paul’s conception of the gospel, here we have it spelled out. For apocalypsis in Greek simply means ‘revelation’, and it is found here (in verb form) in 1.17: “For in [the gospel] God’s justice is revealed [apocalyptetai].” As with any everyday word that takes on a heightened, technical meaning, it’s hard to know the extent to which we should read into its use here. But I think this is a case where it’s helpful. Paul is talking about the big secrets of the universe — the salvation of the faithful, the bringing together of Jews and Gentiles into one community, and perhaps the biggest secret of all: God’s justice in the face of oppression. These are the kinds of big questions Apocalyptic developed to handle (DeBoer 60; Moo 69; Schreiner; Eberhart; Tonstad 73).
The Gospel and God’s Justice
If the gospel is a revelation, what does it reveal? According to Paul, it reveals God’s justice (remembering that when we think of God’s justice we also have to think of God’s righteousness).^ And it does this by bringing about salvation for both Jews and Gentiles alike. And this is in a nutshell what Romans is all about: God is revealed to be fundamentally just because both Jews and Gentiles are brought into God’s saving activity through entering into a good-faith relationship with God (”from faith to faith”) (Witherington 52 Eberhart; Stott 63). While this revelation is as old as Abraham, it has been newly revealed and fulfilled in and through Jesus, who was killed by a conspiracy of religion and empire, but vindicated by God through his resurrection from the dead.
This is a challenge (whether indirect or direct is a matter of debate) to Roman imperial claims:
Paul’s declaration that the gospel of King Jesus reveals God’s [justice] must also be read as a deliberate laying down of a challenge to the imperial pretension. If justice is wanted, it will be found not in the evangelion [’gospel’] that announnces Caesar as Lord but in the evangelion of Jesus.” (Wright, Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire, 172; quoted in Kim 16)
The Question of Shame
About all of this, Paul declares he is “not ashamed” (1.16). But why exactly would he be? It’s worth thinking through before we leave these verses behind.
Before answering this we need to look at Roman society, and the ancient Mediterranean world more broadly, as what anthropologists call an ‘honour/shame’ culture. At its most basic level, in honour/shame cultures, the most relevant concern for behavioural monitoring is how actions will be perceived by the broader community; that is, not “Is this the right or wrong thing to do?” but “What will people think of me if I do it?” We’ve already seen hints of this when we looked at the meaning of faith within the context of Roman patronage relationships. In a society where one’s social standing and opportunities were determined by who you knew and what they thought of you, acting in such a way as to be perceived to be wealthy, powerful, and generous was of critical importance (Eberhart; Jewett (passim); Tonstad 72; cf. the discussion on the Parable of the Unjust Steward). This is why one of the primary duties of a client was to publicly praise their patron.
With this in mind, there is nothing ‘honourable’ about the gospel Paul preaches. Paul identifies himself as the slave of a religious teacher rejected by his own religious authorities who was executed as a failed revolutionary and enemy of the Roman state. Moreover, this pitiable figure was crucified, an execution method reserved for the most dishonourable criminals and which was commonly believed in Judaism to represent divine rejection and accursedness (Deuteronomy 21.23).
In light of the direction Paul’s argument takes, we might infer that some of the gospel’s early detractors on both sides of the Jewish-Gentile divide would claim that it is unjust: From the Jewish perspective, how could it be just for God to bring in Gentiles into their covenant grounded in Abraham’s lineage, and especially apart from their adherence to the Law that became part-in-parcel with that covenant during the Exodus? And from the Gentile perspective, how could it be just for God to have chosen one people with whom to covenant in the first place, and then condemn those who never had the benefit of the Law?
To all this Paul says, no. “I am not ashamed of the gospel” (1:16). This is counter-cultural in the extreme and turns Roman and Jewish conceptions of honour and shame on their heads (Eberhart; Jewett (2013 18); Tonstad 73l Schreiner 69f; Barrett 38).
Challenge
If this part of our study is all about challenging received narratives and power structures, then Paul does all the work for us. Robert Jewett, the primary scholar who has emphasized the honour-shame theme in Romans powerfully summarizes the matter:
Paul’s gospel shatters the unrighteous precedence given to the strong over the weak, the free and well-educated over slaves and the ill-educated, the Greek and Romans over the barbarians. If what the world considers dishonorable has power, it will prevail and achieve and new form of honor to those who have not earned it, an honor consistent with divine righteousness. All who place their faith in this gospel will be set right, that is, be placed in the right relation to the most significant arena in which honor is dispensed: divine judgment. Thus the triumph of divine righteousness through the gospel of Christ crucified and resurrected is achieved by transforming the system in which shame and honor are dispensed. (Jewett (2013) 19).
And again:
This gospel of divine righteousness overturns unjust systems of honor and shame, overcoming shameful status wherever it remains, and making us know that we are all God’s beloved children. (Jewett (2013) 21)
Expand
The goal of this step is to ensure that we leave our Bible reading with an interpretation that causes us to grow in faithfulness to the ways of God’s Kingdom. This means that it often highlights the differences between these ways and the status quo of human existence, at any time, in any place, and in any culture. The message of Paul’s thesis statement in Romans is all about this difference: It overthrows conventional ideas of honour and shame, breaks down conventional barriers between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’, and calls us all to a radically new life in allegiance to Jesus.
Summary & Conclusions
Paul’s message breaks down traditional ways of dividing humanity into insiders and outsiders, bringing everyone into relationship with God and each other on the same criterion: faithfulness to Jesus, whom God raised from the dead, demonstrating that God vindicates the faithful. This is an all-important message in a world dominated by oppression and violence of the rapacious and insatiable greed of powerful and wealthy. The answer, then as well as now, to injustice is more justice. The answer to violence is more peace. The answer to hatred is more love. It was countercultural in Habakkuk’s day. It was Paul’s day. And it’s counterculural now. But it’s the message of the gospel. And of it, we are not ashamed.
No, we are not ashamed of the gospel. “For it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who is faithful, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it God’s justice is revealed through faith for faith, just as it is written: “The just one will live by faith.”
* For full references, please see the series bibliography.
^ There has actually been a huge amount of scholarship, especially from Protestant interpreters, about how to translate this. To me it’s so obvious, and the other proposals so entirely rooted in the translators’ theological agendas, that the debate isn’t worth going into here. If you’re interested in learning about the different options, see Moo 70f.
Matthew Root 