JETS 50/4 (December 2007)
Romans: A Commentary. By Robert Jewett. Hermeneia.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007,lxx + 1140 pp.
Pauline scholars have eagerly
anticipated Robert Jewett’s commentary on Romans for many years. His ten
articles, popular commentary (Romans [Cokesbury Basic Bible Commentary 22; Nashville: Graded Press, 1988]), and
semi-popular monograph on tolerance (Christian Tolerance: Paul’s
Message to the Modern Church [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982]) have whetted our appetites, as have his
many lively contributions to the Seminar on Paul at Society of Biblical
Literature meetings over the years. This commentary does not disappoint. In
keeping with current commentary trends, it is lengthy (over a thousand pages of
double-column type) but without bloat: there are remarkably few wasted words
(although I did note an obvious editorial doublet on p. 512). In keeping with
the Hermeneia series, the commentary is rich in primary source references,
densely documented, and focused on the rhetorical nature of the letter (one thinks
in this regard especially of Betz on Galatians). Especially noteworthy and
indicative of a maturity of judgment that only time can produce is the clear
and consistently applied “thesis” of the commentary. Jewett summarizes it in
these words on the first page: “Paul writes to gain support for a mission to
the barbarians in Spain, which requires that the gospel of impartial, divine
righteousness revealed in Christ be clarified to rid it of prejudicial elements
that are currently dividing the congregations in Rome.” Jewett promises that he
will use this rhetorical strategy as a lens to interpret “each verse and
paragraph” in the letter, a promise that he comes close to fulfilling. Jewett
argues that this kind of unifying purpose matches the nature of ancient
rhetoric and makes his approach preferable to the multiple “reasons for Romans”
that many commentators are content to work with.
Jewett’s focus on the
importance of the impending Spanish mission for the letter is not entirely new
(Dodd and others have suggested much the same; cf. 15:24), but he uses recent
research into the nature of Roman Spain to cast Paul’s request for Roman aid
for that mission in a new light. This research suggests that the Spain in
Paul’s day had few Jewish residents, that the inhabitants spoke mainly Latin
and indigenous languages, and that they continued to resist efforts to bring
Spain fully under the aegis of imperial Rome. Each of these factors posed
special problems for a Pauline missionary enterprise. Paul normally used the
synagogue as an initial base for evangelism. He proclaimed the gospel in Greek;
a mission to Spain would require, for the first time in history, “translation”
of the message. Paul needed help from the Roman Christians to mount an
evangelistic campaign in Spain that had any chance of succeeding. Yet Paul was
worried that any support that Roman Christians might give would be tainted by their
own tendencies toward “imperialistic behavior” toward one another. Jewett
follows the majority of recent Romans interpreters in thinking that the
tensions between the “weak” and the “strong” (14:1–15:13) were based mainly in
differences over the continuing importance of the Torah and that the situation
resulting from the expulsion of leading Jews and Jewish Christians by Claudius
in ad 49 exacerbated these tensions.
He estimates that the Roman Christian community was split into eight to ten
house and tenement churches (“tenement” because the social status of many Roman
Christians would have required that they meet in “slum” apartments). Whatever
the cause of the tensions in the community, the result was that the Christians
in Rome were caught up in the typical Roman competition for “honor,” a
competition that flew in the face of the unifying and impartial righteousness
of God revealed in Christ and that also burdened the gospel for the Spanish
“barbarians” with a load of Roman imperial baggage. So Paul writes with the
initial goal of unifying the Roman Christians around the countercultural gospel
of Christ and with the ultimate goal of securing appropriate support for the
Spanish mission.
I have identified two features
of Jewett’s overall interpretation of Romans that require comment before I move
on to other matters. First, a particular strength of Jewett’s commentary is its
focus on the social and cultural context of first-century Roman Christianity.
Many commentators on Romans (including this one) tend to neglect this social
setting, sometimes out of simple ignorance. Jewett, however, obviously knows
this first-century world very well and thinks that it is vital for
understanding what is going on in Romans. He may be right, but I have two
quibbles. First, Jewett tends to suggest that his view of Romans as rhetoric
directed to specific cultural circumstances stands in opposition to any view of
Romans as an “abstract theological document” (I quote from p. 46, but this is
not an isolated comment; its substance is repeated throughout the commentary).
However, Jewett is fighting against a nonexistent foe: I know of no serious
interpreter on Romans who would want to argue that Romans features “abstract”
theology. Yet most interpreters would (rightly, I think) insist that Romans is
thoroughly theological—and that its theology does not stand in contrast to the
letter’s specific rhetorical concern but is, in fact, the engine that drives that
rhetoric.
Second, I have to wonder
whether the pursuit of honor was as important as Jewett suggests it was. He may
be right about the importance of this matter in the culture as a whole, but
there are many places in the commentary where I have the sense that this issue
is being imposed on the text rather than read out of it. Of course, any serious
attempt at historical interpretation will involve a certain amount of
imaginative reading in light of the larger culture. However, I would like to
see a bit more textual support for Jewett’s particular construal. A second key
feature of Jewett’s approach that I identified above is the ultimate concern
about the Spanish mission. An obvious objection to this reading of the letter
is the very muted nature of the references to Spain. Paul’s intention to travel
to Spain is mentioned only twice in the letter (15:24, 28) and his desire to
secure support from the Romans is only hinted at in the form of the verb he uses
to describe his visit to Rome in 15:24. Jewett is aware of this problem and
answers it by arguing that the matter was a delicate one that could not easily
be broached in the letter and that Paul was leaving it to Phoebe, the carrier
of the letter (16:1–2) to elaborate (p. 89). Jewett also notes that these
references to Spain come in the letter’s “peroration” (his rhetorical
identification of 15:14–16:23) and that the peroration was the place where the
rhetor would bring the argument to a climax and incite the readers to action.
However, the imminent trip to Jerusalem receives more attention in the peroration
than Spain does. With all allowance for the constraints of diplomacy, then, it
remains surprising that Spain does not feature more prominently in the letter
if support for a mission there really were its ultimate goal.
A particularly valuable aspect
of this commentary is its extremely careful analysis of the literary structure
of Romans. Jewett views its macro-structure against the background of his
identification of the letter as an “ambassadorial letter” (mixed with other genres
as well), identifying five major parts: exordium (1:1–12); narratio (1:13–15); propositio (1:16–17); proof (in four
parts: 1:18–4:25; 5:1–8:39; 9:1–11:36; 12:1–15:13); peroration (15:14–16:16,
21–23). I will leave to experts on these matters the evaluation of this
structure, although I confess to being somewhat mystified about just what “proof
” in this genre might mean and how 12:1–15:13 might constitute part of that “proof.”
However, Jewett’s commentary is especially helpful in its careful literary analysis
of each paragraph of the letter. He identifies the various components of each paragraph
(often singling out pieces of tradition that he thinks Paul is quoting and adapting)
and singles out various literary devices that Paul has used to make his argument
compelling. If there is any criticism to be made on this score, it is simply
that this laudable focus on literary structure tends to take the place of a
clear analysis of the major purpose of paragraphs and their contribution to the
overall argument of the letter. The commentary is also notable for its very
careful analysis of textual variants, with a full citation of witnesses and
detailed discussion.
Reviews of books that are as
long and detailed as Jewett’s Romans must inevitably be quite subjective in what they talk about. I could use
many thousands of words outlining and critiquing Jewett’s interpretations of
particular verses and paragraphs. Instead I will comment on three general
matters that caught my attention. First, Jewett’s stance with respect to one of
the dominant directions in recent Pauline studies, the so-called “New
Perspective,” is interesting. Indeed, one of the remarkable aspects of the
commentary is Jewett’s general disregard of the movement per se. Whether this reflects a
somewhat characteristic “Germanic” approach to the movement—ignore it because
it is just an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon—or whether it reflects a studied decision
on Jewett’s part to minimize the movement by ignoring it is not entirely clear.
Of course, Jewett interacts with broadly “New Perspective” interpretations in
numerous places—mainly those found in Dunn’s commentary (N. T. Wright’s
commentary in the New Interpreter’s Bible is strangely missing from the bibliography). He sometimes agrees with these
views but, on the whole, I think it is fair to say, is critical of the New
Perspective. One manifestation of his distance from this movement is his
tendency to find nomos in many key passages referring not to Torah but to “law” in general. (He
sometimes argues this on the dubious basis of an anarthrous nomos.) Jewett here, and in his
interpretation of Paul’s critique of nomos in certain texts as involving
a “yearning for honor” by obeying it and forcing it on others (e.g. Rom 5:20
[pp. 387–88]; 7:5 [p. 436]), can be seen as the heir to the broad Bultmann/Käsemann
tradition of interpretation.
Second, Jewett’s treatment of
universalism in Romans is both worth noting andindicative of a larger ethodological concern. He rightly notes the
importance of the language of “each” and “all” in the letter, but then goes
farther than most do by insisting that the words have an extensive and
unbounded reference in key texts. Romans 3:24 implies that “all will now be
saved” (p. 281); “the expectation of universal salvation in [Rom 11:32] is
indisputable” (p. 712); and Rom 11:26 refers to “all members of the house of
Israel, who, without exception, [will] be saved” (p. 702). Jewett thinks that
exegetical integrity demands these conclusions; and, of course, each claim can
be debated at this level (I would disagree in each case). Yet what is more
troubling about Jewett’s approach is that he tends in these contexts to
acknowledge and dismiss without any argument the problems his conclusions might
create for “systematic theology.” However, these texts create problems not just
for systematic theology but for the coherence of Paul’s own teaching. Jewett’s
silence on the implications of his interpretation of texts in Romans for Paul’s
theology (let alone biblical or systematic theology) typifies the commentary
and is clearly a deliberate strategy designed to analyze Romans as a discrete
piece of rhetorical communication. I think he reacts too strongly at this point
to his perception that generations of theologians have misinterpreted Romans by
muggling into the letter their own agendas. However, in any case, Jewett’s
commentary is not the place to go for those who want to read Romans
theologically. Third, in keeping with his earlier work on Tolerance, Jewett emphasizes the message
of Christian inclusiveness in Romans. He rightly argues that Paul is deeply concerned
with this matter, as his exhortations to the “strong” and the “weak” reveal. This
message is surely one that our modern fragmented church needs to hear. However,
Jewett tends to ignore any possible boundaries in this inclusiveness. He does
not think that the issue (or issues) Paul tackles in 14:1–15:13 can be
construed as an adiaphoron, and at several points he distinguishes Paul’s view of “faith” from what
he thinks is a wrong-headed notion of
commitment to a particular belief system (e.g. p. 278).
Especially telling is his
decision to treat the warning about false teaching in 16:17– 20a as an
interpolation, thereby (conveniently) removing a text that establishes some “boundary
lines” for the community.
The incredible range of issues
and approaches that need to be incorporated into a modern academic commentary
means, sadly, that individual commentaries will seldom be able to “cover the
waterfront.” Each will have methodological strengths and weaknesses.
Jewett’s Romans is not strong in theological
analysis or integration with broader biblical themes, but this omission should
not detract from its strengths: careful textcritical and literary analysis,
impressively extensive reference to ancient sources, interaction with an
amazing breadth of scholarship on Romans, and, most of all, analysis of the
rhetorical and cultural components of the message of the letter.
Douglas J. Moo
