This paper was written for PhD seminar “New Testament Theology” (2024) at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

Introduction

Paul writes his letter to the Romans, because he plans to visit them on his way to Spain (Rom. 15:24). Since his work in the east is complete, Spain is now his next missionary frontier (Rom. 15:20). But he cannot travel to Rome immediately because he is currently en route to Jerusalem, where he is taking the “aid” provided by the churches in the region of Macedonia and Achaia (Rom. 15:25-26). If Paul’s life were plotted as a story, it is at this point that we would find him writing to the Romans. As to the actual occasion for writing, Paul does not clearly lay out a reason. And so commentators are left providing abductive arguments.¹

Moo sees the overall theme of Romans to be, simply, the gospel, and, in a general sense, I agree.² This does not minimize justification or other themes, but rather gives room for the “theological framework within which Paul expresses his key ideas” which Moo groups as “salvation history.”³ Given Paul’s decades of missionary zeal, I am inclined to see one of his main purposes for writing to the Romans as wanting to develop a new missionary partner/base as he transitions his ministry front to Spain.⁴ By looking at the narrative substructure that Paul is refencing throughout Romans, we can see that this narrative analysis helps strengthen the view that a missionary support-partner is one of Paul’s primary purposes for writing.⁵

Specifically, this paper will highlight Romans 5:12–21, which serves as a critical transition within the overall story-context that Paul was writing.⁶ To show this, I will use A. J. Greimas’s Actantial Model to map the larger story Paul is telling and to then show how Romans 5:12–21 functions as a transition.⁷

On Using Greimas’s Actantial Model

Using A. J. Greimas’s Actantial Model (AM) has both its cautions and benefits attached to it. With the AM, Greimas is seeking to show the connection between the deep fundamental nature of language and its expressions (e.g. narratives).⁸ Quite a few have been rightly critical of this.⁹ However, these criticisms go further afield than the scope of how Greimas will be deployed for this paper, since the AM’s use here is limited to a formal comparison tool among various literary expressions. Many of the criticisms about structuralist-type tools like the AM focus on the supposed connection between universal language patterns that underlie expressions like narratives.¹⁰ (As it will be used here as a tool to compare expressions, these criticisms are not directly relevant, and this paper is in line with Greenwood’s comments, and is attempting to follow Wright’s and Hays’s heuristic approaches). As sociologists Wang and Roberts note, Greimas’s approach is “sufficiently generic to allow each narrative to ‘drive’ not only the relations among actants within it but also the actantial positions that its characters may take from one moment to the next”¹¹ Narratologists today still often use Greimas as a way of understanding otherwise “enigmatic” stories.¹² N. T. Wright’s use is similar: To “force us to slow down and attend carefully at every stage what is in fact going on.”¹³ In this way, the AM acts as a hermeneutical tool.¹⁴ Commenting on Wright, Joel White calls this approach “a hermeneutical circle here that forces us to ask both questions at once while at the same time critically examining our methodology.”¹⁵ This paper will follow Wright’s and Hays’s use of Greimas, using it to abductively reinforce the view that one of Paul’s major reasons for writing Romans was to form a partnership as he migrated to Spain.

The Actantial Model

Greimas uses a six-part framework, or schema, based around “actants.” The actants are Sender, Object, Receiver, Helper, Subject, and Opponent. The schema/actants are illustrated in Figure 1 below.

The Sender uses the Subject to get the Object to the Receiver. Along the way, the Helper works to directly advance the Subject (and, thereby, indirectly advance the Sender), while the Opponent works against the Subject. N. T. Wright explains how this works with Little Red Riding Hood: Her mother (Sender) sends her (Subject) with food (Object) to her grandmother (Receiver). Along the way, the wolf (Opponent) seeks to eat her, while the huntsman (Helper) seeks to help her survive.¹⁶ As simplistic as this may seem at first, it is quite flexible and robust. Furthermore, it provides a kind of objective verification as to what a story means.¹⁷ Narratology researchers Muntaqim Al Anshory, Nirmala, and Latifah articulate it this way:

The subject is the main role in a story. The subject generally has the largest portion in the story because he has a function to direct the story. The object is the goal to be achieved or owned by the subject. Objects can be objects, values, or aspired states. The sender is the driver of the story. He who pushes the subject to be able to get the object.¹⁸

Greimas’s narrative schema (figure 1 above) shows a dynamic snapshot of a larger moment of a story. A single schema is not static; there is activity happening within it. But it describes the overall contours of a significant moment of a story. This is very similar to an act in a play or film. Most film and genre theorists posit a three-act structure, which is consistent with Greimas’s AM.¹⁹ Greimas uses the term “sequences” instead of acts.²⁰ He sees three main Sequences within a story. These are the Initial Sequence, the Topical Sequence, and the Final Sequence.²¹ The actants within the AM can shift their place in the schema according to the Sequence. Additionally, another advantage to using Greimas’s actant analysis is that it helps to chart the inherent scalability found within stories. This scalability can act as a kind of internal verification.

A Narrative Analysis

The Initial Sequence

Here we can show the biblical story in the three sequences, illustrated with Greimas’s schema.²² The Initial Sequence describes the setting and first movements of the story. It is meant to set-up the rest of the story and leave open the need for some necessary change before resolution can happen. In short, the Initial Sequence is this: God gave man authority to manage his kingdom (tend the garden). Along the way, man was assisted by God, in both the authority he had given him, but also his sustaining relationship with man. The end of all of this was for God’s glory. However, Satan worked against man, as an assault against the rule and reign of God by subverting his servant. Man was tempted and fell, which resulted in him being put out of the garden, no longer God’s manager. This pulls primarily from Gen 1–3, but the same story is

echoed throughout the rest of the OT.²³ The Initial Sequence is illustrated in Figure 2.

Looking at Romans 1:18–3:20, we see traces of this picture throughout. Once man rebelled from God and allowed Satan into the kingdom, God’s wrath was revealed (1:18). Man’s relation with God was no longer intact (3:9).

The Topical Sequence

Following this is the Topical Sequence, which is the main portion of the story. In a film or novel this would be roughly from the 25 percent mark to the 75 percent mark. Picking up after man’s failure in the Initial Sequence, God next sent Jesus to restore his kingdom. Along the way, he was aided by the Spirit, but he is opposed by both Satan and death (which is: the ultimate separation from God or the ultimate failure of the kingdom). In the end, Jesus does conquer death and Satan, and he does it through the cross and resurrection. The primary source material here are the four gospels. The Topical Sequence is illustrated in Figure 3.

We again see this playing out in Romans. As Paul leaves the theme of universal sin and the actions that got each of us here, he begins to discuss faith and hope. “Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. But what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified y faith apart from works of the law” (Rom 3:27-28).

The Final Sequence

The third and concluding sequence is called the Final Sequence. As we well know, the story is on-going, and so there is not a past-tense feel to it like the first two sequences. But the Bible provides plenty of indications of how this sequence will end. Following the Topical Sequence, Jesus, through his death and resurrection, has proven to have conquered death. Yet, that sequence ended with his ascending to heaven and promising that the next time he comes, he will come as judge, putting an end to the rebellion. And so the Final Sequence covers the time from after his ascension and until his return. Here, God again sends man, but this time (as opposed to the Initial Sequence) it is to build his kingdom in a world that is hostile toward him. Like the Initial Sequence, he is still opposed by Satan, but now his own rebelliousness and a hostile world fight against him. As an aid, God has sent man his Spirit to help accomplish the work.²⁴ The ellipsis to this story is how it will end, and the obvious answer is that God will be victorious; death and Satan will ultimately be conquered; and man will be restored to his right relationship with God. The Final Sequence is illustrated in Figure 4.

This now moves to the back half of Romans: 6–15. The redeemed are no longer captives

of sin but alive in God (chapter 6), released from the law (chapter 7), and are now living with a purpose and mission (chapter 8ff).

The Story of Romans

In Romans, Paul is not attempting to tell a narrative, but he is telling a story.²⁵ His story is not a new one, but rather is a comment on the biblical story, explaining how the transition from the Topical Sequence to Final Sequence happens.²⁶ Specifically, Paul is walking through the logic of how the Subject (see Fig. 1) can change from Jesus in the Topical Sequence to the Church in the Final Sequence. This is especially problematic in light of man’s original failure and our ongoing sin. So how does Paul see this transition? To begin, it is helpful to look at the whole of Romans.

After his greeting (Rom. 1:1-17), Paul introduces two important points: Sin is universal (Rom. 1:18–3:20), justification comes through faith (Rom. 3:21–4:25), and this faith is the same faith of Abraham which resulted in his justification (Rom. 4:1-25).²⁷ Marshall is very similar but adds a third point inside of Moo’s second: this faith is the same faith of Abraham (Rom. 4:1-25).²⁸ The first two are foundational points to understanding the gospel while the third provides continuity between what Paul was saying and what each Jew already knew (that Abraham was righteous before God, cf Gen. 15:6). Skipping chapter five for a moment and looking ahead to chapter six through fifteen, Marshall captions the remaining sections this way: New life for believers (Rom. 6), the importance of the law (Rom. 7), the holy spirit and future glory (Rom. 8), Israel and the Gentiles (Rom. 9–11), and living the new life (Rom. 12–15).²⁹ Schnabel broadens his groupings a little bit: 6:1–8:39 “explains the reality of justification in the life of the believer . . . [9:1–11:36] explains the reality of justification in the context of Israel’s role in salvation history . . . [12:1–15:13] describes the reality of justification in the community of believers.” ³⁰ Dunn summarizes in this way: ““It is helpful to see chaps. 6–8 and 9–11 as working out the conclusions of chap. 5.”³¹

Leaving chapter five out of this very brief overview allows us to see an obvious question: how does sinful man come to be justified? And connected to that is another question: How does sinful man get to experience the righteous life in God’s grace? On the one side: All are sinners. Paul is setting up the answer in his look back at Abraham. But on the other side, we are no longer part of Adam’s family, but we are now part of God’s family. What connects these?

Romans 5:12-21 as Transition

Coming into chapter five, Paul speaks of two groupings: the individual person who is justified (5:1-11) and the collective “universal ability of righteousness” (5:12-21).³² As Morris notes: “It is clear that [Paul] has concluded his basic account of justification and that he is now moving on to the consequences . . . Justification has results.”³³ Romans 5 is a turning point in his argument.³⁴ But why is that? Because of Jesus. Dunn writes that “this paragraph [5:12-21] is evidently intended as a conclusion to the whole opening section (1:18–5:21).”³⁵ In this paragraph, Paul is contrasting the old man (Adam) with the new man (Jesus). Justification by faith only makes sense in context of Jesus. The fact that we are all sinners (how Paul opens his letter) is only fixed by Jesus.

Bringing this back to the larger story Paul is telling: How is it possible to move from Jesus as the Subject of the AM to the Church as the Subject? Because of Jesus redeeming work. Romans 5:12-21 acts as a pivotal point in the story Paul is telling. Alister McGrath writes that “Narratives play a particularly significant role in articulating the coherence of our experience in the world,” and they can even “help us discern or construct meaning.”³⁶ In the case of Romans, Paul largely wrote exposition. But the story he was telling is imprinted all throughout. Many in the church today have been side-tracked on various meanings of Romans 5:12-21.³⁷ But what this narrative analysis reminds us is that the key focus here is Jesus. Everything turns on him.

Appendix: Outline of Romans

I. Theological Setting

1. Introduction (1:1-15)
2. The gospel is for everyone (1:16-17)
3. God’s wrath against all ungodliness (1:18-23)
   1. Consequences of sin (1:24-32)
   2. God is righteous in his judgment (2:1-5)
   3. God’s judgment will be fair (2:6-16)
   4. The law is a picture of an obedient heart, not a path to righteousness (2:17-29)
4. Jews do not have an inherent advantage in righteousness over non-Jews (3:9-20)
   1. Even with the law, we fall short apart from Jesus (3:21-26)
   2. The law is not in competition with faith, but serves it (3:27-31)
   3. Abraham example: Faith-based justification removes our ability to boast (4:1-12)
   4. The Law was never meant to operate outside of faith (4:13-24)

II. Living as Redeemed While Not Yet Fully Perfected

1. While through faith we have peace with God, our ongoing struggles strengthen our hope (5:1-5)

    

   1. Since God reconciled us while we were his enemies, we can certainly trust him to continue to keep us as his children (5:6-11)
2. The path of Adam leads to death; the path of Christ leads to life (5:12-19)
   1. Similar to how the Law is magnified by sin, so sin is magnified by grace (5:20-21)
   2. God’s grace is greater than (and for a greater purpose than) our sin, not merely a justification for it (6:1-4)
   3. Being alive in Christ means being free from (or “dead to”) sin (6:5-11)
   4. This reality affects how we live and how we think, that is, our sanctification (6:12-23)
3. Unlike our new lives in (service to) Christ, the Law does not transcend death (7:1-6)
   1. The Law is good, but our sin corrupts it (7:7-12)
   2. The Law illuminates our sins and desires (7:13-20)
   3. Even as a follower of Jesus, we still wrestle with sin and our desire for it (7:21-25)
   4. Despite of our wrestling with sin, we are freed to live pleasing lives, in the Spirit (8:1-11)
4. We belong to God and his Spirit in confirms that to us (8:12-17)
   1. We with the rest of creation long for God’s reign (8:18-23)
   2. The Spirit helps us through this in-between time (8:24-30)
   3. For all of these reasons, we can trust God’s love and power (8:31-39)

III. The Missionary Work Before Us

1. Paul’s desire for his people (Jews) to be saved and is sad that some will not be (9:1-5)
   1. This is not indicative of God’s failure, but of ours (9:6-18)
   2. As the creation, we have no right to judge the Creator for whom he chooses to save (9:19-24)
   3. These are not new ideas (9:25-29)
      1. Salvation comes through faith, not the Law (9:30–10:4)
      2. Salvation is available to any under the Law and any not under it (10:5-13)
2. Even though not all will believe, it is a noble work to proclaim the gospel (10:14-21)
   1. God’s saving of some (but not all) of his people is not a rejection of his people as a category (11:1-10)
   2. Adding non-Jews into the kingdom is not a zero-sum game (11:11-16)
   3. The grafted in branches (non-Jews) does signify a greater value of the new members (11:17-24)
   4. Somehow, Israel (collectively or individually?) will one day be saved (11:25-36)

IV. How We Live is Integral to Our Mission

1. We are to be “living sacrifices” exercising gifts for one another as one body (12:1-8)
   1. True members of the body will reflect the values and priorities of the Spirit (12:9-21)

       

      1. God instituted government, and so it is good (13:1-7)
2. Through godly love you will fulfill the law (13:8-14)
   1. Individual convictions about specific legal points are less important than our focus on Jesus (14:1-12)
   2. Pursue peace and mutual upbuilding among one another (14:13-23)
   3. As Jesus did, so do we: put the better of others first (15:1-7)

V. Da Capo:

1. It was always God’s plan to bring non-Jews into the fold (15:8-13)

    

2. Paul’s charge for the church to reach the non-Jews (15:9-21)

VI. Conclusion:

1. Paul’s plans to visit the church in Rome (15:22-33)
2. Personal greetings (16:1-16)
3. Parting advice and charge (16:17-27)

Selected Bibliography

Adams, Marilyn McCord, Robert Merrihew Adams, eds. The Problem of Evil. Oxford University Press, 1990.

Adorno, Theodor W. Aesthetic Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998.

Alter, Torin, Sven Walter, eds. Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge. Oxford University Press, 2006.

Aquinas, Thomas. On Evil. Edited by Brian Davies. Translated by Richard Regan. Oxford University Press, 2003.

Balfour, Dylan. “Second-personal theodicy: coming to know why God permits suffering by coming to know God himself.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 88 (2020).

Bechara, Antoine, and Antonio R. Damasio. “The Somatic Marker Hypothesis: A Neural Theory of Economic Decision.” Games and Economic Behavior, Special Issue on Neuroeconomics, 52 (2005).

Brooks, Larry. Story Engineering. Cincinnati, OH: Writer’s Digest Books, 2011.

———. Story Physics. Cincinnati, OH: Writer’s Digest Books, 2013.

Bruner, Jerome. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Harvard University Press, 1985.

Bullock, Olivia M., Shulman, Hillary C., Huskey, Richard. “Narratives are Persuasive Because They are Easier to Understand.” Frontiers in Communication 6 (2021).

Burley, Mikel. “Narrative philosophy of religion: apologetic and pluralistic orientations.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 88 (2020).

Crossan, John Dominic. The Dark Interval. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1988.

Dahlstrom, Michael F. “Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (4).

Dawson, Patrick and Peter McLean. “Miners’ Tales: Stories and the Storying Process for Understanding the Collective Sensemaking of Employees During Contested Change.” Group & Organization Management, 38 (2).

Denburg, Natalie L. and William M. Hedgcock. “Age-Associated Executive Dysfunction, the Prefrontal Cortex, and Complex Decision Making.” Aging and Decision Making. San Diego: Academic Press, 2015.

Downs, Julie S. “Prescriptive scientific narratives for communicating usable science.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (4).

Fischer, John Martin. “Struggling with Evil: Comments on Wandering in Darkness.” European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 4, no. 3 (Autumn 2012).

Franklin, Christopher E. “How Literature Educates the Emotions.” Philosophia Christi 25, no. 1 (2023).

Glaser, Manuela, Garsoffky, Bärbel, and Schwan, Stephan. “Narrative-based learning: Possible benefits and problems.” Communications 34, no. 4 (2009).

Gregory, Mark. “Story-building and narrative in social workers’ case-talk.” Child & Family Social Work, 28 (4).

Habermas, Gary R. and Michael R. Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2004.

Hasker, William. “Light in the Darkness? Reflections on Eleonore Stump’s Theodicy.” Faith and Philosophy 28, no. 4, October 2011.

Hick, John. Evil and the God of Love. Revised edition. San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publisher, 1977.

Howard-Snyder, Daniel, ed., The Evidential Argument from Evil (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1996).

Jääskeläinen, Iiro P., Klucharev, Vasily, Panidi, Ksenia, Shestakova, Anna N. “Neural Processing of Narratives.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 14 (2020).

Jonas, Silvia. Ineffability and its Metaphysics. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2016.

Kalderon, Mark Eli, ed. Fictionalism in Metaphysics. Oxford University Press, 2005.

Larrimore, Mark, ed. The Problem of Evil: A Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2001.

Leibniz, G.W. Theodicy. Edited by Austin Farrer. Chicago: Open Court, 1990.

Lewis, C. S. A Grief Observed. New York: HarperOne, 1961.

———. The Problem of Pain. New York: HarperOne, 1940.

———. On Stories. New York: HarperOne, 1982.

McBrayer, Justin P., Daniel Howard-Snyder, eds. The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, 2013.

McGrath, Alister E. Narrative Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2019.

McKee, Robert. Story. New York City: Regan Books, 1997.

Meister, Chad and James K. Dew Jr., eds. God and Evil. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2013.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament, second edition. Oxford University Press, 1968.

Müller, Silke M., Magnus Liebherr, Elisa Wegmann, and Matthias Brand. “Decision Making – A Neuropsychological Perspective.” Encyclopedia of Behavioral Neuroscience, 2nd edition. New York: Elsevier Science, 2021.

Pavese, Carlotta. “Knowledge How.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2022. Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman, eds. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives /fall2022/entries/knowledge-how/.

Phelan, James and Peter J. Rabinowitz, eds. A Companion to Narrative Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008.

Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1977.

———. Knowledge and Christian Belief. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2015.

Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. New York: Scholastic Press, 1997.

Schaeffer, Francis A. Art and the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Scheub, Harold. Story. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998.

Smith, Christian. Moral, Believing Animals. Oxford University Press, 2009.

Stanley, Jason, Timothy Williamson. “Knowing How” The Journal of Philosophy 98, no. 8 (2001).

Stump, Eleonore. Wander in Darkness. Oxford University Press, 2010.

Swinburn, Richard. Providence and the Problem of Evil. Oxford University Press, 1998.

Tolkien, J. R. R. Silmarillion, Christopher Tolkien, ed. London: Harper Collins Publishers, 2013.

Turner, Mark. The Literary Mind. Oxford University Press, 1996.

van Hulst, Merlijn and Haridimos Tsoukas. “Understanding extended narrative sensemaking.” Organization, 30 (4).

van Inwagen, Peter, ed. Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.

van Inwagen, Peter, Dean Zimmerman, eds., Persons: Human and Divine. Oxford University Press, 2007.

Wells, Gordon. The Meaning Makers. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2009.

Yorke, John. Into the Woods. New York City: Abrams Press, 2014.