Customer Reviews

Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

On the front of this book in large, friendly letters, should be the words, `Don't Panic.' Anytime someone sees scholarly words like `socio' and `rhetorical,' especially when they are combined with a hyphen, I've found that they will normally go into a catatonic state that can only be broken by a beer or two.

All kidding aside, this is a great book about Romans. I appreciate Ben Witherington's writing style and so, for me, this was an easy book to slide into. Unlike many commentaries, Witherington presents his material in the same blocks of thought as the original writer rather than dissecting every single verse into individual components. That's not to say that he doesn't give information critical to individual verses. But, refreshingly, he does this in a manner which maintains the overall thought structure of the material.

Witherington's main proposition is that Romans was written to Gentile Christians who were having a hard time recognizing the value of their Jewish Christian brothers and sisters and thus causing disunity within the church in Rome. Witherington maintains that the book is written in a rhetorical format that was designed to prove a point - namely that the wonder of the new covenant is that it equally includes both Jew and Gentile.

His explanation of the place of Romans 9-11 in the total context of Romans is the best argument to date that I've seen. Also, his explanation of how the original listeners would have understood Romans 7 is quite intriguing and has many positive impacts upon the Christian life. Contrary to some of the other comments, it is critical for us to understand what the original listeners would have understood this letter to be saying (which may require an understanding of language and rhetoric) first, prior to applying the material. Though this is an oft-held hermenuetical principle, Witherington actually attempts to stick to it.

Like most of Witherington's other material, I still have not been convinced by him that a person is able to lose their salvation, which is a topic that comes up periodically in this commentary. However, it is not so imbued into the material that one cannot still attain great insights and gems of truth.

I would highly recommend this commentary to any student of Romans.

For a longer review, go to the blog listed in my nickname and click on the 'Readings' category.

Centuries ago Luther wrote in his preface to his translation of Romans that one can not understand this book unless he first understands what the words law, grace, righteousness, flesh and spirit mean. I'll give him that, but trying to make sense out of Romans using his definitions of these words is an effort in futility! One can only make it work if he isolates his readings to a few select verses, or at most, a chapter here and there; taken beyond that point, Paul will appear very confused indeed! Unfortunately, his dubious interpretations have been the foundation of much of Protestant theology.

Only recently have Protestant scholars decided to take a fresh look at Romans and break out of the mold of Luther and Augustine. To do just that (with the help of this book) is a glorious experience--one can actually understand the letters of Paul. You will see that they are in harmony with the rest of the New Testament, no longer is there the apparent contrast between the gospel of discipleship/holiness/works in the Gospels & non-Pauline letters and the gospel of "grace" found in Paul's letters.

Witherington does a masterful job of breaking down the last vestiges of the stranglehold of Augustine/Luther, but he does much more than that. His insights on ancient rhetoric are invaluable because Paul uses rhetorical devices over and over in this letter; to not understand them can (and has in the past) lead to seriously flawed conclusions about what Paul is saying here. Witherington's historical insights of the Jewish and Gentile understanding of key theological concepts during the apostolic age gave me a fresh look at the text. And as those who have read his other commentaries already know, his "Closer Look" sections are interesting and often helpful. He brings to the fore the work of other scholars and gives solid, exegetical reasons why or why not their work is useful to interpret the text at hand. I even found his many footnotes interesting (conveniently located at the bottom of each page)! As a whole the book is VERY readable considering the subject matter, even when extremely technical matters are discussed, he keeps your attention!

The only caveat I have with this book is when he goes off the deep end when discussing baptism and women in the church; here he departs from his usual logical reasoning and lets his Methodist biases show. However, this only accounts for maybe a half-dozen pages.

I have found commentaries from other authors, such as N.T. Wright useful, but not totally convincing. By the time you finish this commmentary, however, you will have a solid understanding of Romans without a lot of lingering doubts. Excellent commentary for the layman, scholar or preacher!

As Ben Witherington says in the Preface, this commentary does not pretend to be exhaustive or the definitive work on Romans. Nevertheless, it is a notable one in that most readers will gain a fresh view of Paul's most important letter, even readers who are already familiar with the intricacies of Romans. How so? W. demonstrates convincingly that Paul used known Greco-Roman rhetorical principles and techniques to specific ends. The whole letter, in its structure and development, is seen as an example of deliberative rhetoric, designed to persuade or dissuade, or "the rhetoric of advice and consent." W. contends that failure to recognize the rhetoric at play has led to many misinterpretations of the letter since early times. On some points he bravely takes on Augustine and Luther and, among the moderns, such prominent interpreters of Romans as Cranfield and Kasemann.

One may cite many features of the commentary, but a few should suffice here. W.'s theological comments and notes are not new, but necessary for his argument. Imputed righteousness is a "received concept" stemming from the Latin translation of Erasmus but is not what Paul meant. Interesting are various passages that call attention to the radical nature of Paul's thinking. So is the explanation of the rhetorical technique of personification - of sin, death, Law, even grace. Sometimes W. sparkles, as when he says the effect of the contrast between Adam and Christ in Romans 5 "is like a Rembrandt painting - the dark backdrop of Adam's sin serves to highlight the brightness and clarity of God's grace gift." Two consecutive chapters on Romans 7, Retelling Adam's Tale and Adam's Lost Race, in my view make up one of the best moments of the commentary. Paul never neglected the ethical side in his letters, nor does our good author, to which matter he devotes ample comment. A minor annoyance is that W's translation does not include verse numbers, although the comments constantly refer to specific verses. A more serious blemish occurs in one Bridging the Horizons section (p. 97), where W. speaks of some scholars' "posturing," "insecurities," "lack of ego strength," and "feelings of low self-worth" - disappointing remarks in a commentary of this worth. Yet the overall excellence of the commentary makes one overlook the faux pas.

Has W. then conclusively proven his case (shared with other scholars of similar bent)? No, for that would close the book on Romans. This letter has engaged interpreters for many hundreds of years and one would expect it will continue to do so, informed by more research and study, or even - why not? - surprising new perceptions. But what W. has written is remarkable. It's been a long time since I found a commentary so engrossing.

This was a very interesting commentary. He wrestles with the text in the body of the book, and concludes each section with thoughts toward how the text applies to our lives.

He says that Paul is responding to the fact that the Jewish believers are returning to Rome and how he is trying to get the Gentile believers to accept their Jewish brothers and sisters in the faith (Romans 15:7).

He has some interesting readings of the text that part company with some of the more recent (and retro) Calvinist interpretations. He rejects the notion that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us through faith. He also sees Romans 7:7-13 as Paul personifying the fall of Adam in the Garden of Eden, and he sees Romans 7:14-25 as the unsaved Jewish person (or unconverted person) struggling with their inability to live up to the good that they desire to do.

He also rejects the Calvinist reading of Romans 9, saying that it has nothing to do with election to salvation, but that it is dealing with how God has chosen individuals to play certain roles in salvation history (whether we're talking about protagonists like Jacob or antagonists like Esau and Pharoah).

He also interprets the 'all Israel' of Romans 11:25 as all the Jewish people alive at the time of Christ's return.

Though I might wonder about the interpretation of controverted texts such as Romans 8:29 and Romans 9:22, I thought that Ben's work was very solid, and he did a nice job of showing how this epistle works as a piece of Greco-Roman rhetoric. With the plethora of Calvinist commentaries on Romans that are available, it is refreshing to see another take. Get this commentary and use it along side the larger work of Douglas Moo and the equally impressive application commentary in the BST series by John R.W Stott.

As usual, Ben Witherington III provides lots of helpful background information on the Roman world. His clear style makes this commentary very accessible but he also includes plenty of solid scholarship. He leans toward the conservative/evangelical end of the spectrum, but does engage some of the difficult textual issues, sometimes coming to fresh and interesting conclusions. I would recommend this commentary to seminarians, pastors, or believers who want to dig a little deeper into Paul's "difficult to understand" letters.

The main downside to this commentary is that Witherington has sacrificed a user friendly format in favor of academic integrity in that he does not use verse numbers. This makes it ponderous to match his comments to the specific text he is referring to. He also frequently references technical rhetorical vocabulary, so someone not familiar with peroratio, rationatio, etc, should probably invest in another resource that will explain those terms.

Ben Witherington is one of the most prolific New Testament scholars writing today, and he brings a great volume of learning to the texts. In this book, a "socio-rhetorical" commentary, he takes a careful look at Paul's letter to the Romans, paying special attention to the social setting of Paul and his readers, and also analyzing carefully Paul's rhetorical structure and flow. These two emphases make this book a bit different than many commentaries, in that they bring out these two facets of the text, but I think this makes his book the stronger for it. This well-written commentary does justice to this very important and theological letter, discussing the many important issues of interpretation, all the while keeping Paul's "rhetorical strategy" in view. This helps, in my estimation, to help keep sight of the forest among the trees, by placing particular verses and passages within the larger narrative flow, to help see the relations between the passages and their role in supporting his main argument or countering possible objections. This, in turn, helps keep Paul's main idea always in view.

Witherington, with the help of doctoral student Darlene Hyatt, also adds "Bridging the Horizons" sections that illumine applications of texts and themes to our modern day, a very helpful addition. It is certainly not a comprehensive "application" section, but it demonstrates one possible direction one could go when looking at a particular text, and some of them prove quite insightful.

Overall, I think this is a great book on Romans. Witherington's Methodist leanings certainly show through, as do any commentators, but I think this provides a refreshing, non-Reformed and non-Lutheran take on this letter that is still very balanced and seems to take into account Paul's major points with ease. While not the only book one could or should read on Romans (I'm sure there is no such thing), this book is a worthy addition to a library and makes for very good reading.

I am not a Bible scholar or even an evangelical Protestant, and thus am not competent to evaluate the scholarship of Witherington's book. However, I have read it with interest and feel moved to make the following comments.

First, it seems to me that the scholarship tradition in which Witherington works is awfully scholastic, putting the interpretation of the Bible far beyond anything that the ordinary believer can partake in, requiring that an exegete be strongly grounded in the study of languages, ancient rhetoric and the minutiae of history. The implications of this view for Protestant theology are obvious and worrisome.

Secondly, this modern approach to the Bible makes the Scriptures toothless, by treating its texts as local, historically conditioned and concerned with a time and issues that are very far away from us and our modern lives and thus correspondingly hard to generalize when it comes to belief or practice. This is not what traditional exegetes took the Bible to be or to be read and it is difficult to see the Bible, read as Witherington reads it as very relevant to our modern situation, let alone the basis for Christian doctrine and practice. Witherington's chapters all end with a section called "Bridging the Horizons" (sic) that are supposed to discuss the implications of Romans for Christian praxis but, by and large, this is a thin gruel of ideas that are "radical" in their long-ago context but for us merely comfortable platitudes reflecting our our own contemporary view of things.

Finally, Witherington makes a good deal out of the supposed rhetorical structure of Romans, which he supposes that his exegetical opponents did not understand. This is hard to credit. Augustine was a trained rhetor and municipal professor of rhetoric at both Milan and Rome prior to his conversion. Calvin also received a humanistic education and had a thorough grounding in rhetoric. It is very likely that both of these men would have been thoroughly familiar with classic treatises of rhetoric, such as Quintillian's, Witherington's constant point of reference when discussing the supposed rhetorical structure of Romans. It is not credible that Augustine and Calvin would have been unable to recognize the rhetorical elements in Romans or have misunderstood their significance. I am more inclined to think that Witherington must be exagerrating the significance of these elements in Paul's epistles. At any rate, I would like to see some further discussion of this point.

Athough I find myself attracted to Witherington's reading of Romans,for the reasons given I am not entirely persuaded by what he has written. Since my scholarship in this area is limited, I would probably recommend this book to others despite my misgivings. Others more competent to judge, however, might well disagree.