Individual and Community in Paul’s Letter to the Romans

Written by Ben Dunson Reviewed By Jeffrey W. Aernie

The present monograph constitutes a revision of Dunson's PhD thesis, completed at the University of Durham under the supervision of Professor Francis Watson. Dunson's specific thesis is that there is an essential connection between the individual and the community in Pauline theology. Dunson clearly recognizes the potentially contentious nature of the thesis, noting what he perceives to be a “seismic shift” (p. 1) in Pauline studies from a primary focus on the individual to one centered on the community. However, he rightly notes from the beginning of the volume that the perpetuation of a divide between the individual and the community in the study of Paul will likely result in a diminished portrait of Pauline theology.

Dunson traces the basic divide between the individual and the community in studies of Paul to the distinctions developed between the anthropological reading of Rudolf Bultmann and the cosmological reading of Ernst Käsemann. Dunson engages constructively with both scholars in demonstrating the inherent strengths and weaknesses of their respective interpretations. He helpfully outlines that Bultmann's anthropological reading is not entirely devoid of an emphasis on communal identity, but notes that Bultmann never seems to provide an adequate description of the convergence between the individual and the community in Paul's letters. Conversely, while Dunson is sympathetic to much of Käsemann's cosmological reading, he shows clearly that Käsemann frequently fails to highlight the position of the individual within his apocalyptic Christology. In many ways it appears that Käsemann has simply swung the pendulum too far, pitting his cosmological reading against Bultmann's anthropology as a way to further emphasize the transparently communal dimensions of Paul's theology. Dunson attempts to find equilibrium between these two positions, not by swinging the pendulum away from Käsemann, but rather by demonstrating that Paul's conception of the individual and the community are intricately intertwined.

In an effort to offer a perspective on the individual and community that is coterminous with Paul, Dunson presents a structured analysis of the function of these two concepts in the material attributed to the Stoic philosopher Epictetus. Dunson's survey of Epictetus is not intended in the first instance to provide a comparison with Paul in terms of the content of each other's material, but with regard to their context and scope. Indeed, the most important point that arises out of Dunson's material is that a contemporary of Paul was dealing with the interrelation of the individual and the community. Thus, despite potential questions concerning whether Epictetus is the most constructive dialogue partner in analysis of Paul, the most significant import of this section for Dunson's argument is that within the theoretical world of the first century CE it would not have been unexpected for someone to consider the relationship between these two formative concepts.

The methodological heart of Dunson's analysis is the formulation of his own typology of the individual in Paul. Through an extensive analysis of a number of texts from Romans, Dunson identifies eight types of Pauline individuals. The first half of the typology focuses primarily on the argument of Rom 2-4 and identifies the first four of Dunson's types: the characteristic individual (the Jewish judge of Rom 2-3), the generic individual, the binary individual (focusing on Jew-Gentile distinctions), and the exemplary individual (Abraham and David in Rom 4). The second half of Dunson's typology focuses on a wider section of Romans and attempts to deal more directly with those types of individuals that are evocative of the relationship between the individual and the community: the representative individual (Adam and Christ in Rom 5), the negative exemplary individual (the “I” in Rom 7), the somatic individual (those in the “body of Christ” in Rom 14), and the particular individual (the specific individuals mentioned in Rom 16). Dunson's arguments concerning each of the eight individuals in his typology are precise and well-nuanced. Even if one disagrees with certain exegetical decisions (e.g., the meaning of πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in Rom 3:23 or the identity of the ἐγώ in Romans 7), the cumulative force of Dunson's analysis makes it clear that the individual is indeed an essential figure in the rhetoric of Romans. Paul's understanding of the covenant community is constructed in constant conjunction with his understanding of the individual, not in opposition to it.

The most significant limitation of Dunson's argument is the lack of an extended discussion of the christological implications of his typology. Dunson helpfully demonstrates that Paul's discourse on eschatological judgment and justification are a description of the soteriological position of the individual coram Deo. To bridge the divide between the individual and the community, however, Paul's Christology is seemingly an essential starting point. Christ is the individual who restores the community as he stands coram Deo. I believe this notion is where Dunson is leaning in his analysis of the so-called representative individual (pp. 148-54), but I want to suggest that he take the argument one step further (a need Dunson himself recognizes; see p. 180n3). There is no isolated individual in Paul's theology and no community without individuals precisely because of Christ's act of identification and representation. It is in Christ that the anthropological and cosmological elements of Paul's theology are so thoroughly and essentially intertwined. This interconnection comes to light expressly in the Christological and pneumatological argument of Romans 8. There is no condemnation for those individuals who are in Christ Jesus because they are defined by the same Spirit-that which makes them a communal entity.

Notwithstanding my certain exegetical disagreements and a desire for further emphasis at a number of stages, Dunson persuasively develops the main thesis of his monograph. The individual and the community are inseparable realities in Pauline theology. The individual exists within the community, and the community is formed through the soteriological communion of individuals. Overall, Dunson's monograph represents a constructive contribution to Pauline theology and to the specific study of Romans.


Jeffrey W. Aernie

Jeffrey W. Aernie
Charles Sturt University
North Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia

Other Articles in this Issue

Children's story bibles are not Bibles and, it turns out, neither are they for children...

This article is written in love and admiration for pastors in North America...

As I write this the UK Parliament is considering Clause 1(1) of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill...

I shall begin with a well-known exegetical conundrum and then branch out to a much larger issue that none of us can afford to ignore...