Ancient Rhetoric in Romans 1:18–3:20?

In his book, The Deliverance of God, Douglas Campbell argues that Romans 1:18–3:20 should be read as an ancient form of rhetoric, known as prosopopoeia or in modern-day terms, parody. This type of literary device was used in the writings of Plato to show the absurdity of an opponent’s argument.

If Campbell’s interpretation is correct, much (not all) of what Paul is saying in this section of Romans is not his view; it is primarily the view of his opponents taken to their logical and absurd conclusions.

This means that Paul’s forceful argument about God’s wrath coming on the wicked, including religious hypocrites (see 1:18; 2:1-11), is not what he thinks; rather it is how his opponents think.

Paul’s view—his gospel or good news—is that instead of God expressing his wrath toward sinners, God makes sinners righteous freely by his grace (3:24), he “justifies the ungodly” (4:5), and he demonstrates his love for sinners by Christ’s death (5:8). Paul’s gospel is not that sinners will receive the judgment they deserve; it is that God loves sinners and he offers them his gift of righteousness.

Here are a few of Campbell’s arguments worth considering:

• Romans 1:18–3:20 is the only place in Paul’s letters where he begins with an extensive elaboration of the human problem before he gets to the solution. In his other letters, he begins with or assumes the solution—the revelation of the good news of God’s Son. In other words, Paul usually argues from Christ to other things, but if the traditional view is correct, he is doing the opposite in Romans. However, that manner of argument undermines Paul’s typical approach. For example, we don’t realize that we are sinners on our own and then come to Christ; instead the revelation of Christ shows us that we are sinners and offers the solution. We must begin with Christ and then understand everything else in light of that revelation.
• Paul’s description of the Jews especially in Romans 2:17–24 seems to be deeply ironic and not views he could actually hold. Did he really think that Jews who rely on the law and boast in God commit adultery, steal, and rob temples?
• Isolated statements in this section contradict Paul’s gospel. For example, “God ‘will repay each person according to what they have done'” (2:6) cannot be true if “all are justified freely by his grace” (3:24). And “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” (2:13) contradicts Paul’s conclusion in this section: “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin” (3:20).
• For those who argue that Paul doesn’t clearly indicate that he is using a rhetorical device in this section of Romans, Paul goes in and out of different voices in 1 Corinthians without clearly explaining that he is using a rhetorical device.

Detecting rhetoric in ancient literature can be highly controversial and many scholars have interacted with Campbell’s proposal with both agreement and disagreement. (See the book Beyond Old and New Perspectives on Paul for scholarly interaction with Campbell’s ideas.) Whatever your opinion of Campbell’s proposal, it is valuable in drawing our attention to unique features of Romans 1:18–3:20 that are easily overlooked.

Les Bridgeman

After graduating from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I served as a high school Bible teacher in Asia. I enjoy traveling, writing, and playing the drums. My latest book focuses on Paul’s work as a tentmaker and what it means for today.