[30] II.

The
Need for the
Righteousness ofGod (1:183:20)

Revelation

ofthe

This section of lhe epistie speaks of human guilt and divne judgment in
relation to Gentiles and Jews,
who are viewed
as representatives of
humanity and together define lhe nature of the cosmos. This is why the two
subsections
1:18-32 and 2:1
3:20 overiap. In
the
first
part
the spotiight undoubtedly falis on
the
Gentile
world,
bul
the total emphasis increasingly involves cnticism of religious humanity, specifically
represented by Judaism. Ths is lhe reason for our prescnt arrungement.
Bibllography: E.
Grafe.
Das Verhitnas der
pauiinischen
Schriften
zur
Sapienta Saiomonis, Fesischrift
C.
v. Weizsclc.r (1892) 251286; E. Webcr. Die Beziehungen von Rm 13 zurMissionspraxis dei Paulus (BFCT 9/2; 1905); A.
Daxer, Rmer 1,182,10 im Verhhnis zur sptjdischen Lehrauffassung (Diu., Rostock, 1914);
A. Oepke, Die Missionipredigi de: Aposveis Paulus(1920); K. Oltmanns, Das Verhltnis von Rm 1,18
3, 20 zu 3, 21ff. ThBI 8 (1929) 130-16; G. Kuhtmann, Theologia naturalis bri PhiIon und bem
Paulus (1930); M. Pohlenz, Paulus und die Stoa,ZNW 42 (1949) 69-104; W. L. Knoz, Some
Helienistic
Elemenis
in Primitive Chnxdanity (Schweich
Lectures, 1942;
1944); J. Jeremias, Zur Gedankenflhrung in den
paullnischen
Briefen, Srudia
Pauflna,146154; P. Dalbert, IJie Theologie der hellenisvisch-jdischen Missioniliteratur unver Ausschjuss von Philo
undiosephus (1954); G. Bornkainm, The Revelation ofGods Wrath (Romans 13), &zrly
Chris:ian Experience. 47-70; R. C. M. RuRjs, De ssrukter van de briefaan de Romeinen. Een
stilistische. voirmhisronsche en
then,aiische analyse
van
Roin 1,16-3.23 (1964); H.
M.
Schenke, Aporien imR.nerb,ief, TLZ 92
(1967)
88188. For Strobel, Unrersuchungen, and Hcrold, Zon. sec bibliography for 1:16-17.

The tension between cosmology and anthropology characterizes the whole

of PauIs theology. Thc typically Jewish distinction between Gentile and Jew, which is
evident especially in Eph 2: 11ff., sets forth the worldwide scope of his theology and
also indicates the nature of humanity in its exemplary possibilities and realities. This
section of the epistie deals with the totality of the cosmos and not just with an aggregate
of individuais; hence, it dealswith humanity as such and not just WIth representatives
of religlous groupings. This is the basic presupposition of the argment, but it also
stands
in
the
way
of a Iogically clear
reproduction
of
it. However, in the light of the mdisputable temperament of the apostie and
the doubtless considerable difficulties in dictating such a long epistie, may one expect
anything like systematic logic at ali? In particular, do not the many digressions and the
leaps in the train of thought show that what we have here is not a selfcontained treatise
but the deposit of many debates which, because of its conver33sational character, which
shines through everywhere, shouid be given the titie Dialogue with the Jews
(Jeremias,
Gedankenfhrung,
149)?
Particularly in this section of the epistie such questions relate to the
older thess (e.g., Michel) ttiat the vivid experience and preaching of Paul the
missionary is reflected here in a special way. There is some truth in this thesis,
but it probably applies lo aH the Pauline episiles. Ii is only the strength of this influence
that is problematic. The use of stylistic devices which had already been developed
by the diatnbe (cf. Bultmann, Sul,
passim), and especially
the
discussion
of
objections raised by real or fictitious opponents, can hardly be overlooked.
It is another matter, however, when the inner consistency in the structure

of [31] the epistie, which is directed toward a concrete goal, is destroyed by the
assertion that Paul has merely assembled fragments from earlier disputations and
sermons. In contrast to many speeches in Acts, these chapters do not so much offer
stylized examples or summaries of missionary proclamation as reflections which take
up the
motifs of
such
proclamation
(Kuss).
The epistie is clearly addressed lo a community whose firm status as Christians is foi in
doubt, and from whom a high degree of theological understanding is required in view of
the dogmatic concentration of this letter (cf. Oepke, Missionspredigt, 70, 82ff.; with
some exaggeration Jerveil, biwgo, 313). The accusations made by the apostie are not
directed against them and are not meant to stir them to repentance. A religio-historical
explanation of our text, which places it uitlmately within the context of apologetics and
polemics,
as
they
were
pursued by
the
Diaspora
synagogue
(Dupont, Gnosis, 21ff.), falis to perceive its true scope. The theme, argument, and
outcome of the whole letter point instead to the sphere of a umquely modified JewishChnstian apocalyptic. There is modification to the extent that the Jewish doctrlne of the
two aeons is
assumed as
known and
yet (contra Nygren; Sthlin, TDNT, V,
433) with good reason is not adopted explicitly. From apocalyptic one can grasp the
blackness of the picture which leaves hardiy any place for a consideration of authentic
religiosity, presents the general depravity of humanity without differentiation, and
demonstrates it by the most abhorrent perversions. Into this framework elements of a
different provenance and even of a missionary tendency might also fli easily. But
whereas, for example, in thc Jewish parts of the SibyllineOracles apocaiyptic serves the
propaganda which calis for repentance, the situation is the direct opposite in Paul. Paul
uses other traditions in Lhe service of his concern to depict the worid under the
wrath ofGod.
Oniy in Iight of this insight can one appropriateiy define Lhe theological reievance of
this portion of the Ietter and its relation to what foiiows. If one characterizes it
as preiiminary (Dodd), as the basis of the positive presentation (Michel), or
more dubiousiy as propaedeuiic (Oepke, Missionspredigt, 104), in any case one cannot
speak of its pre-evangelicai (Oepke, TDNT. III, 586f.) or even (Lietzmann on 2:26)
hypothetical character. In fact the presupposition of ali that is lo come
Is glnn here. Ria Ii Is nol a matar o( mslclug psychological conlact as Ia preaclMng.
a contam which
would
prepare lhe hearers
for lhe ffise messe
if
only
by emphaslzIng lhe contraI between what meu deserve and what God does
instead. EqusIly ii does nol merely
establish
that
Use wodd does nol passeis lherighteousness
which
Paul
proclaims (cansa Lagrange). In ali these
interpre34
Tia Nua na na REnLATI0N orna Rionnousw usa or
Goa
1:18-3:20
atices lhe overemphasis o., missionary modfs avenges itseIt Ia vlew ai lhe coatam of
his
section wIth Wlsdom ei Sabino.
12-14, mIsslonary moeifs cannot
becontested. flis praes lhe use oicommon tradition (Michel, Bibe!, 1448), um Use
direct
dependence ei lhe apostie (contra Gafe,
Verhaltnis; Norden, Agnostoslheos, lUa: Herold, Zorn, 1890. Nevertbeless, lhe tradili
on Is pia te use here fiem a different perspective.
This may be seen if, in anticipation of the exposition of the next section, the connection
of 1:18ff. with the theme in v. 16 is considered. Verses 17 and 18 are deliberate
antitheticalparaileis. The yQ, which introduces lhe basis, in v. 18 corresponds to the
threefold
repetition
in
vv.
16(,
and
is
not
therefore
a
mere transinonal particle (contra Lietzmann; Kuss). The need for lhe righteousness of

God
comes
to Iight simultaneously
with
its
actualization
(Eichholz, Paulus, 64f.; Zdiler, Juden, 146f.). For &7roxartETaL does not denote
the urgent announcement of lhe wrath of the Iast day (KhI), or of Gods wrath ensuing
from
now
on
(Zahn),
(321 or, without reference to time, the retnbution of God (Lietzmann; Lagrange), or his
nemesis (Dodd). The present tense has the sarne force as in v. 17. It relates
to sornething which is already present although foI yet recognized, lo something which
only now comes to Iight along with the gospel and in the realm of the gospel (though
cf. Ridderbos, Paul, 109f.). For in this salvation-histoncal context Paul is foI speaking
of
the
divine dvo before
Christ (contra Oepke, TDNT 111, 583; Bornkamm,
Revelation, 62f.; Herold, Zorn, 267ff., 335,who relates lhe revelation of the wrath
to lhe cross and therefore finds the basis of the revelation of righteousness in the
revelation of the wrath), as he does in 2:4 or Acts 14:16; 17:30. As in 5: 12ff.; 7:7ff.;
8:18f.; chs. 9-11, the nature of the world before Chnst and outside him is to stand under
the wrath of God, namely, in Iostness, bondage, and rejection (Sthlin, TDNI V, 431).
This is disclosed, foI by two different revelations, but in one and the sarne ad of
revelation.
Prior lo lhe gospel man does not really know what sin is even though he lives in it.
Similarly he does not know about the wrath lo which he has failen victim.
Wrath is not (correctiy Bornkamm, Revelation, 48) the content
of the gospel, nor (contra Gaugler Black; Roetzel, Judgemen:, 7W.) part
of the
divinenghteousness, nor its function (Herold, Zorn, 302,
329).
Justifying nghteousness and
condemning
righteousness
do
not
run parailel (contra KhI; Lietzmann). Yet the eschatological present implicitly
illuminates the past (cf. Schenke, Aporien, 888), which was previously concealed
(Bornkamm, Revelation, 61ff.). This is not the result nor is it the true point of the
gospel, but its reverse side. It is not merely something of which man now becomes
conscious from within but an event which encounters him from without and which is
therefore charactenzed as
eschatological
revelation.
Here also everything depends on stressing the character of divine nghteousness as
power. God has always exercised his claim to dominion over creation by meeting
thedisobedient with retribution. Asjustification, the gospel always means deliverance
from wrath, the justification of the ungodly, eschatological creatio ex nihlo, and
anticipation of the resurrection of the dead, as 4:17 clearly says. These verses are not
pedagogical
preparation for the
message
of salvation (contra Leenhardt),
but charactenze its
cosmic
breadth
and
depth.
Its
reality
and nccessity coincide. To bnng out
its
world-embracing
reality,
the apostie first proclaims
its
35
1:18-32 THE REVELArIoN OF
G0Ds WRATH ON THE GENTILEs
neccssity. He does this for Christians who no longer need propaedeutics or a missionary
point of contact. The righteousness of God in its universal character can be grasped only
when the world before and apart from Christ is seen under the wrath of God, although
missionary preaching should not and must not make Gods wrath its starting point. It is
no accident that vv. 16ff. precede this section. Here, then, the Gentiles are not addressed
directly on the subject of therealty which determines them.

[341 Verse 18 gives the theme of the scction, vv. 19-21 characterize the guilt of the
Gentiles, and vv. 22-32 portray Godsjudgment. The concept ofthe wrathofGod, which
is common in Paul, does not derive from Greek tradition but
from OTJewish apocalyptic. Hence it is not to be viewed as an emotion nor set within
the framework of a moral world view. Otherwise we should have to agree
with Ritschl (Rechrferrigung, II, 153f.) that what comes to expression here is an
anthropomorphic approach that obscures the love of God. Marcion already perceived it
this way, and excised Oto. Our starting point should be that the manifestation of this
wrath is descnbed in vv. 24ff. Then psychologizing tanguage about holy indignation
(Nygren; Gaugler; Murray; Fichtner, TDN7 V, 407f.;Feuillet, Connaissance, 66) is
impossible. Remaining in the foreground, however, is the characteristic which
psychology would like to avoid by establishing a purely immanent causal connection
between guilt and retnbution (Dodd; Hanson, Wrath, 69,81ff., 110; Macgregor,
Concept,
105ff.;
already
Wetter, Vergeltungsgedanke
21ff.; but cf. Barrett; 3. Knox). The thrice-repeated 3ta()bwxrJ a&ro shows
incontestably (cf. Mauser, Gouesbild, 148ff.) that in the apparently purely immanent
causal connection God himself is at work in a hidden way, so that his Qy1 does not
become
an
impersonal
nemesis
nor
even (contra Hanson,Wrath, 110)
a human condition. Unlike the Rabbinate (cf. Billerbeck), Paul does not even
bother with angeis of destruction in an attempt to kecp thc evil remote from God.
Kasemann 33-37