Social identity, the virtues, and the good life: a new approach to Romans 12:1-15:13

Abstract

Romans 12:1-15:13 comprises a recognizable unit in the letter. But existing attempts to describe its distinctiveness focus upon concepts of "ethics" and "paraenesis" which are problematic in a number of respects. This study proposes a new manner of characterizing this section of Romans that integrates social identity theory with notions of the good life and the virtues derived from Aristotle that have staged a powerful resurgence in recent ethical discourse. This integrated approach is then applied to Romans 12:1-15:13 in a general way. From this discussion it emerges that this part of the letter can be interpreted both as Paul's attempt to outline descriptors of the new identity his addressees experience as members of the Christ-movement, especially in relation to agape, and as a vision of the moral life very similar to the Aristotelian interest in the virtues as the means to promote human flourishing.

Many commentators and critics have proposed that Romans 12:1 begins a recognizable unit in the letter, which extends as far as 15:13. At 12:1 there is clearly a change of subject from the status of Israel, which has occupied Paul in Romans 9-11. In this section of the letter, moreover, Paul also shifts his focus in a manner commonly described as being from instruction to exhortation, from "indicative" to "imperative" (Moo: 744). There are numerous, more technical ways of describing this change of focus. A common view is that of a movement from "theology" to "ethics" (Dodd: 188) or from "doctrine" to "paraenesis." (Black: 150). It is, indeed, commonplace to describe 12:1-15:13 as "ethical" or "paraenetic" in character. According to Joseph Fitzmyer:

   Romans 12-15 forms a catechetical unit, a paraenetic
   development of the consequences of justification. This hortatory
   part of Romans is also an expression of God's uprightness,
   but now in terms of concrete conduct. The unit
   reflects the tendency in the early church to join paraenesis
   to a kerygmatic or doctrinal expose [637].

Critics often also see a division falling between Romans 12-13 and 14:1-15:13, sections which Ernst Kasemann, for example, describes respectively as "general exhortation" and "a clearly separate set of teaching directed to the Christians at Rome" (323). Fitzmyer (638) says that many of the topics in Romans 12-13 are generalities, "reflecting problems with which Paul had to cope in the past in other churches founded by him, perhaps problems even of the church of Corinth, from which he sends this letter to Rome," whereas the discussion in 14:1-15:13 reflects the situation in the Roman church of which Paul has become aware.

But the extent of the break between 12-13 and 14:1-15:13 can be exaggerated. Rather than a division between these two parts of the letter, some critics instead discern a movement from the general to the particular as the chapters advance. Thus Karl Donfried reasonably states that "One cannot fully appreciate Paul's intention in Romans 12-15 without seeing the movement and the heightening specificity, beginning with Romans 12:1 and moving through Romans 15:13" (108). This view is developed by James Miller, who sees a movement from Romans 12:1 to the call for mutual acceptance in Romans 15:7 (154-55). Others (Wilson and Yinger, for example) have expressed similar views.

These views pose a fundamental challenge to interpreters: what interpretative framework, what methodology, or what model is most appropriate for the investigation of Romans 12:1-15:137 An interpretation that takes up this challenge needs to address both the distinctive character of the whole passage and also to be sensitive to the differences between Romans 12-13 and 14:1-15:13. The thesis of this article is that existing approaches, which tend to characterize it as "ethics" or "paraenesis," are inadequate for the task and that a better solution lies in situating this material in the letter in relation to ancient philosophic understandings of "the good life," essentially meaning the condition of optimal human flourishing, and modern social psychological theory that focuses on social identity, meaning that part of an individual's identity that derives from belonging to a particular group. The present writer has recently applied this theory in detail to Galatians (Esler 1998) and Romans (Esler 2003). I will now set out problems with the use of "ethics" and "paraenesis" in relation to this passage and then proceed to these more promising perspectives.

The Problem with "Ethics"

The production of books and essays on the subject of "New Testament ethics" or on the "ethics" of various parts of the New Testament is a flourishing business, with monographs having been published by Leslie Houlden, Jack Sanders, Wolfgang Schrage, and Frank Matera, to name only a sample in English. There are similar writings in the Old Testament field, for example by John Barton. Sometimes the words "morality" or "moral" substitute for "ethics" and "ethical," as with works by Rudolf Schnackenburg, Wayne Meeks, and Richard Hays.