The Letter to the Romans: Paul among the Ecologists by S. K. Tonstad (review)

Tonstad’s Earth Bible Commentary on Romans contends that Paul’s “Faith alone” theology “risks becoming a disembodied concept” unless it retains its connection with God’s faithfulness and its “incalculable ecological implications” (ix). The author uses a “widescreen reading” to argue that Paul’s theology is genuinely an eco-theology in that his appeal to the Romans by the mercies of God (Rom 12:2) is echoed by the cry for mercy from non-humans and the earth in the twenty-first century. According to Tonstand, God’s adjudication between “the weak” and “the strong” points to the problem in the Roman house churches (xii).

The commentary is subdivided in seventeen chapters. The first chapter places Paul among the ecologists in line with the patriarchs, priests and prophets (17–20). However, Tonstad argues that “Paul’s ecological credentials and aspirations cannot be measured by what he, Paul, is up to,” but by “what Jesus Christ, the one whose slave Paul professes to be, is up to,” which involves “compassion, awareness of the world, and sensitivity to the plight of others” (22).

In the second chapter the most famous readers of Romans are revisited: Origen (185–254), Augustine (354–430), Martin Luther (1483– 1546), John Wesley (1703–1791) and Karl Barth (1886–1968, p. 23). Among these, John Wesley has made a more significant contribution to ecological hermeneutics through his affirmation of the immateriality of the human soul (40). Tonstad reminds the reader that “non-human creatures are meant to be recipients of God’s mercy” through human action (41, 47).

The third chapter explores the addressees of Romans as part of the “human ecology of Romans” because “ecology has been described as ‘the science of relationship’” (49). On the one hand, the Roman population, which is estimated at 50 000 (50), is “distinctive . . . for bringing to light an extensive web of relationships exceeding what we found in other letters” (67). On the other hand, Romans 1:2–7 has “anchored ‘the Gospel of God’ to the promises given beforehand ‘through his prophets in the holy scriptures’” (67). Owing to God’s faithfulness to the totality of his creation, these promises have been fulfilled in Jesus (Rom 1:1–4) and they provide hope to the whole creation (67, 68).

The fourth chapter deals with three main reasons for writing Romans: (1) preparation for soliciting support for the Spanish mission, (2) mediation between the “weak” and the “strong” and (3) a defence for the message of God’s faithfulness against the divisive counter-missionaries (98). In addition, it affirms “the Old Testament conviction that God will not—and has not—put the believer to shame” (74). Tonstad views the counter-missionaries in Rome as the “troublemakers in ecological terms” to whom Paul opposes his apocalyptic, inclusive and exquisitely world-aware vision (8:18–30; 86).

The fifth chapter exposes the first of seven questions in Romans (2:1–29): “Do you imagine. O ‘virtuous’ person (ὦ ἄνθρωπε) that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgement of God?” (2:3). Tonstad argues that “Rom. 1.18–32 represents the views and diction of well-spoken troublemakers” while “Rom. 2.1–3 represents Paul’s determination to take them to task” (102), “denying the necessity of Gentiles’ circumcision (2.26)” (107). The ecological perspective of this section pertains to the fact that that which can be known about God has equally been made plain to the gentiles through creation, but they served creatures instead of the creator (1:18–32; 107, 114).

The sixth chapter provides details about the sinful condition of both Jews and gentiles in Rome (3:9; cf. Gal 3:22). For Tonstad, Rom 3:10–18 categorises the sin of the addressees in three types: “false thinking about God,” “debasement of language” and “resort to violence” (118). The propagandists of...