Interpreting Romans 1 and 2

Factual Questions
1

I couldn’t figure out where to put this. In the end I decided my question is a factual one–I want to know what the smart people–biblical scholars–say about what’s going on in Romans 1 and 2 with regard to the question I’m about to ask.

Basically, my question is, is Paul writing to an audience whom he knew to be hypocritically teaching a set of moral codes while not practicing it themselves? (i.e. no idolatry, no lesbian sex, not stealing, and a bunch of other rules besides.) Or, alternatively, is he intending to make a point about human beings more generally, that in some way everyone who judges people for doing these things is, by judging, by that act guilty of it themselves?

The former is less surprising if we expect Paul to be writing moral advice to a sympathetic audience–but seems strange from a “do humans really work that way?” perspective. Hypocracy is nothing strange, but openly, for example, teaching people not to worship idols while also (apparently openly) doing it yourself–it’s difficult for me to imagine a whole community consisting of people as blatantly and explicitly hypocritical as that.

The latter is more surprising as a claim about the moral status of people who judge–but on the other hand is thematically in keeping with many other aspects of Christian thought (esp. Jesus’s views on judgment) and would seem rhetorically more effective. (By that I mean, if his audience are just blatant hypocrites, then what he writes should be expected not to affect them much, but if his audience thinks itself innocent while in fact Paul is aruging they’re very guilty, then what he writes would appear to have more sting.)

But even if the latter reading makes it more rhetorically effective and more thematically in keeping with other Chrstian teachings, still, the wording doesn’t lend itself to this interpretation as easily as one might hope–most (but notably, not all) translations don’t say “you guys steal” and “you guys are idolaters” etc but rather “do you guys steal?” and “do you guys engage in idolatry” etc, IOW, most translations put these in quesiton form. That would suggest he’s just saying “don’t judge unless you’re innocent yourself”–not particularly new or interesting and, especially, not particularly stinging at all. Yet the tone of the passage seems to indicate it’s supposed to be quite stinging.

Anyway, I don’t get it. I just want to know what the smart people say about this. (Not as in old-school commentators writing from some fairly literalistic denominational perspective or other. I’m talking about scholarship in a more contemporary sense.)

(Relevant passage: Romans 1-2 YLT - Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a - Bible Gateway)

2

My take on it is as follows:
The whole theme of Romans is to be a systematic description of the process of salvation. First from sins, then from the sinful nature and from the consequences of sin. Then to a position of victorious christian living under the influence of the Holy Spirit, looking forward to the culmination of God’s ultimate purposes for both Jew and Gentile. The last five chapters describe what the christian life looks like and how to relate to one another in a godly fashion with a right perspective and a godly attitude.
Well, at least that is it roughly.

Within this context the first two chapters have the following purpose
[ul]
[li]To show that our actions put us offside with God[/li][li]To show that it is a process that we are not fully in control of – a downward spiral if you like.[/li][li]To establish that this progressive invasion of sin in our lives is in fact the result of idolatry – of not placing God as first priority but worshiping created things.[/li][li]To demonstrate that the issue of sin is a serious one[/li][li]To establish that we are accountable to God for our actions (and attitudes.)[/li][/ul]

The point is that the way in which these things manifest in our lives is subtle. We are quick to recognise pride in others and see it for the ugliness that it is. we are never quick to recognise that same pride in our own lives – we tend to justify ourselves and argue mitigating circumstances. In this sense we are placing our own opinions above the truth. This, Paul argues is a form of idolatry. It is subtle, often unrecognised, and has consequences. Ditto for all the other vices (some 23 of them listed in 1:28-30).

In Romans 2 Paul picks of a few “bigger” more obvious sins to illustrate his point – stealing, adultery, worship of false gods.

So basically my answer to your question is neither.
[ul]
[li]It is not deliberate hypocrisy that is being addressed but a subtle form of blindness to ones own standing before God.[/li][li]It is not the act of judging others that makes us guilty. Rather it is an artefact of the sinful nature that propels us towards wrongdoing by virtue of the fact that we do not place God as highest priority. The judging of others is a consequence of our blindness.[/li][/ul]
There are probably plenty of other people around who can give a more scholarly exposition than this. But I hope this helps.

J.

3

The last part of chapter one is most likely describing everyone else around them, i.e., the typical Roman society. The traditional Protestant interpretation (according to Wikipedia) of chapter 2 is that Paul was once again condemning the Judaizers for trying to convert the Gentiles to Jewish law. The argument is that, if the Romans don’t get to skate by even if they don’t know the Gospel, then of course those who do know it do not have any excuse. These Jewish Christians, being away from home, don’t follow all the Jewish laws themselves, so they are hypocrites in asking the Gentile Christians to do so.

This is backed up by the later information in the chapter that discuss the big controversy between Paul and the Judaizers: circumcision. Who but the Judaizers would have been preaching that Christians need to be circumcised?

4

And therein lies the trap.

How easy is it to read something like this and assume it applies to everyone else.

This verse begins the downward spiral of sinful behaviour – the description finishes with:

These characteristics are common among professing Christians also. People commonly accuse Christians for their hypocrisy when they gossip, backbite, slander, show covetousness etc. And rightly so.

Paul’s point is that we are all guilty of these things. And we are often ready to point the finger when we ourselves do the same thing. The wrath of God is directed towards all unrighteousness and ungodliness – wherever it is found. You don’t get to assume that you are exempt.

5

IANABiblic Scholar and none of my mother’s books on the subject deal with Romans specifically, but my take on the questioning is that he’s just being Socratic - he may or may not have had reports of some of the “converts” taking the syncretic approach rather than actually converting, but also he could have bet every piece of clothing he owed that, human beings being human, any flock big enough will contain at least one adulterous sheep. Father José often takes a similar approach in his sermons during children’s Mass: “I don’t want you to answer, but do any of you ever complain when your parents give you an order? Do any of you fight with your siblings?” - Father José has five siblings, he knows perfectly well that any child who has siblings will fight with them, it’s more a question of whether it’s nuclear-war-level or a tongue stuck out and rapidly forgotten.