“Coals of Fire” in Romans 12:19-20

By John N. Daya

[John N. Day is Senior Pastor, Bellewood Presbyterian Church, Bellevue, Washington.]

Since the startling events of September 11, 2001, Western Christians have been confronted with an increased awareness of enmity: whether targeted violence, religious persecution, or general opposition. How should Christians respond to such enmity? At the conclusion of that “masterful summary of Christian ethics”[1] rehearsed in Romans 12:9–21 comes the clarion call for kindness (vv. 19–20), kindness freely expressed under the assurance of divine vengeance.

Rather than being a haphazard collection of ethical injunctions, verses 9–21 evidence a highly stylized structure whose content is summed up in and subsumed under the introductory heading of ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος, “genuine love”—a love that includes abhorrence of what is evil and adherence to what is good (v. 9).[2] The verses that follow serve to explicate what that sincere or unhypocritical love looks like in several concrete examples. Within these examples the centrally located command to “bless” (v. 14) is given special emphasis, which evidently stems from Paul’s attempt to demonstrate that the dominant Christian virtue “reaches its climax in the love of enemies. Love is intended not only to permeate the relationship of Christians to one another but also to shape their attitudes towards those who even seek their ruin.”[3] This enemy-love finds its climactic image in “coals of fire” (v. 20), an image that has ignited and sustained a furor of debate across the centuries. What is the meaning and significance of the usage of this imagery here? Romans 12:17–21 reads:

Do not repay anyone evil for evil… .

Do not avenge yourselves, beloved;

but give place to [God’s] wrath,

for it is written: “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”

says the Lord;

but “if your enemy is hungry, feed him;

if he is thirsty, give him [something] to drink;

for in doing this you will heap coals of fire upon his

head.”

Do not be conquered by evil,

but conquer evil with good.[4]

Whereas the meaning of verse 19 is clear in its prohibition of personal revenge in the ethic of love and in light of the promise of divine vengeance, there is vigorous debate as to the meaning of verse 20, as it follows on the heels of verse 19 and relates to the rest of the context. Two of the three principal views on verse 20 were first presented by Chrysostom and Augustine. The former held that the “coals of fire” referred to some future divine punishment that awaits those who spurn the Christian’s deeds of love. If the enemy did not repent at such grace extended, he summoned on himself the sure judgment of God.[5] Augustine, however, held that these “coals of fire” referred to the burning pangs of shame that the enemy would experience on being shown kindness, and which would lead to repentance and reconciliation. In this Augustine is followed by a majority of modern commentators, if one allows a third view (discussed later) to be considered a subset of the second. Cranfield, one of their number, believes that this latter interpretation is clearly to be preferred, “for it is congruous with the context in Romans, while the former interpretation [Chrysostom’s] is quite incompatible with it.”[6] But if such a meaning is applied in this instance, it runs counter to the pattern of this image in Scripture.

The third view agrees with the second that “coals of fire” is a positive image; however, it is not to be understood as “a burning sense of shame.” Instead the image harks back to an actual Egyptian ritual of repentance, known from the demotic Tale of Khamuas (or Chaemwese). In this narrative the bringing of “a forked stick in the hand and a censer of fire on the head”[7] was used to demonstrate repentance to the party wronged—although it is significant to note that in the tale itself the repentance is more forced than heartfelt. Morenz was the first to draw the comparison between this tale and the reference in Proverbs and Romans to the “coals of fire.”[8]

However, the comparison is questionable for two reasons. First, there is no mention of the “forked stick” in Proverbs 25:22, which is the alleged parallel to the tale, even though in that tale the two elements are inextricable. Moreover, Proverbs 25:22 makes reference to “coals” in lieu of Khamuas’s “censer.” This is a significant distinction, if direct borrowing is assumed. Second, the composition of Khamuas dates to the middle Ptolemaic times—roughly 233-232 B.C. And although “the repentance ritual may antedate the literary document,”[9] it is far from certain that it does so by as many years as would place it in a Solomonic context (cf. Prov. 25:1).[10] Earlier support for an Egyptian provenance of Proverbs 25:21–23, however, may be sought from the second chapter of the Instruction of Amen-Em-Opet.[11]

He who does evil, the (very) river-bank abandons him,
And his floodwaters carry him off.
The north wind comes down that it may end his hour;
It is joined to the tempest;
The thunder is loud, and the crocodiles are wicked.
Thou heated man, how art thou (now)?
He is crying out, and his voice (reaches) to heaven.
O moon, establish his crime (against him)!
So steer that we may bring the wicked man across,
For we shall not act like him—
Lift him up, give him thy hand;
Leave him (in) the arms of the god;
Fill his belly with bread of thine,
So that he may be sated and may be ashamed.[12]

Granted, Proverbs 25:23, which directly follows on the troublesome verse 22, seems to be more at home in an Egyptian rather than a Palestinian context, for it states that “the north wind brings forth rain”—something true of Egypt but not of Palestine. However, although the passage from Amen-Em-Opet refers to such a wind and to feeding one’s enemy, the response of the enemy in the face of such kindness is “shame”[13] rather than a “stick and censer” or “coals of fire.”

Several facts support the first view that the “coals of fire” represent divine judgment and that Romans 12:20 is in large measure reinforcing the message of verse 19. These facts include the grammatical structure of the verses in their apparent parallelism, the context in which they are located, and the development of the imagery from the Old Testament. The imagery of “coals of fire” is invariably used in the Old Testament as a symbol of divine anger or judgment. For example mirroring the imagery of Proverbs 25:21–22, from which Paul quoted, Psalm 140:9–10 reads, “The heads of those who surround me may He cover them with the trouble of their lips. May (fiery) coals fall upon them; may He throw them into the fire, into watery pits—may they never rise!”[14] For the apostle Paul to utilize this potent image in a manner foreign to its common usage—and without any clear contextual indicators to that effect—seems unlikely.

This would also apply to Proverbs 25:21–22, whose near context—the additional proverbs of Solomon in 25:1–29:27—does not express a coherent argument. These verses therefore stand alone as their own discrete context: “If one who hates you is hungry, give him food to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. For you will heap fiery coals on his head, and Yahweh will reward you.”

Verse 21 outlines what was to be the general attitude and action of the Old Testament believer toward an enemy in need. If Solomon indeed utilized this imagery in common with its accustomed usage in the Old Testament, verse 22 would be seen as a word of comfort: that the enemy’s enmity would not go unpunished by the divine Judge, and that the believer’s kindness in the face of that enmity would not go unrewarded. In this, it is granted that the enemy remained hostile. That such an implicit remark is left out of the proverb is not unexpected, for proverbs by their very nature are characterized by conciseness.

Romans 12:19–20 has a certain symmetry, which suggests that the message of verse 20 is to be construed as complementary and essentially identical to that of verse 19. The commands in verses 9–21 are characteristically participial in form—stationed under and serving to explicate the summary heading of “genuine love” (ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος, v. 9). This prevailing structure[15] serves to bind verses 19–20 together under the primary participial command: “Do not avenge yourselves, beloved.” This primary command is counterweighted by the two parallel ἀλλά phrases of verses 19–20: “but give place to (God’s) wrath,”[16] and “but ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him [something] to drink.’ ” What the one expresses in a passive manner with regard to the renunciation of personal vengeance, the other expresses in an active manner with regard to the doing of good. In some measure these deeds of kindness are compared to making room for God’s wrath. Furthermore the primary command is substantiated by the two γάρ phrases:[17] “for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says the Lord,” and “ ‘for in doing this, you will heap coals of fire upon his head.’ ” This apparently intentional parallel structure suggests quite strongly that these “coals of fire” refer to the same divine and principally eschatological vengeance expressed in verse 19.[18]

In addition the immediate context argues for such an understanding. The principle of Christian nonretaliation enjoined by Paul in verse 19a is explicitly based on and motivated by “the deference to God’s impending vengeance”[19] in verse 19b. The issue Paul was addressing at this point in the chapter is “how to act when all attempts to avoid conflict with the enemies of God and of his Church have failed”[20] (vv. 17–18). In such circumstances the Christian is to continue to respond in love, entrusting justice to God, who has promised to repay the impenitent. In this way these verses are similar to what Paul had earlier addressed in 2:4–5: “Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart, you are storing up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.”

Thus implicit in the affirmation that the Lord will repay (12:19), heaping coals of fire on the head of the enemy (v. 20), is the fact of continued enmity.[21] This view is not to be construed as presenting a fundamentally negative view toward the Christian’s enemies, as in the caricature, “do good to your enemy so that his punishment will be all the more severe.”[22] Rather, it is a positive word of comfort for Christians in the face of stubborn and unrepentant enmity. In the context of verses 9–21, verses 19–20 function not only to reemphasize what is to be the ethic and characteristic activity of the Christian, but also to provide a consolation to the believer in the face of stubborn enmity and provide support for the justice of God in the face of injustice.[23] Christians are called to seek the benefit of those who hate them (v. 14), but believers are also to remember that grace repeatedly spurned has the assurance of divine vengeance (v. 19).[24]

Notes

1. David Alan Black, “The Pauline Love Command: Structure, Style, and Ethics in Romans 12:9–21, ” Filologia Neotestamentaria 2 (1989): 14.
2. This passage is framed by the call both to “hate evil, clinging to the good” (v. 9) and to “conquer evil with good” (v. 21). Black rightly observes that the overt repetition of these words “is a major device for defining 12:9–21 as a literary unit. Not only does it signal the beginning and end of the unit, but it binds the intervening material together, suggesting that what is embraced within the brackets belongs together” (ibid., 16).
3. Ibid., 18. Reflecting on the command of Christ to “love your enemies” and on the nature of obedience to that command in light of the elaboration found in Romans 12:9–21, Piper writes that such love is ready and willing to meet the physical needs of the enemy (v. 20); it likewise seeks the spiritual welfare of the enemy—ultimately his conversion, desiring that the enemy be blessed and not cursed (v. 14). And yet the evil from which the enmity stems is viewed as no less abhorrent (v. 9), for if there is no intense hatred (ἀποστυγοῦντες) of evil, then there will be no intense love for one’s enemy. Indeed, the good that love desires is primarily the removal of the cause of enmity, which is unbelief (John Piper, “Love Your Enemies”: Jesus’ Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and in the Early Christian Paraenesis [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979], 129–30). Thus in the right context and in the right way holy hatred and genuine goodness can join hands (vv. 19–20; cf. Ps. 35).
4. All translations are those of the author unless indicated otherwise.
5. Cranfield, himself no advocate of this understanding, yet admirably relates this position. Chrysostom “explains that Paul knew that even if the enemy were a wild beast he would scarcely go on being an enemy after accepting the gift of food, and that the Christian who has been injured would scarcely go on hankering after vengeance after he has given his enemy food and drink; and [he] goes on to say that to give one’s enemy food and drink with the intention of increasing his future punishment would be to be overcome of evil” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary [Edinburgh: Clark, 1979], 2:649).
6. Ibid.
7. Cf. F. Ll. Griffith, Stories of the High Priests of Memphis: The Sethon of Herodotus and the Demotic Tales of Khamuas (Oxford: Clarendon, 1900), 32, 38, 121, 135.
8. Siegfried Morenz, “Feurige Kohlen auf dem Haupt,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 78 (1953): col. 188.
9. William Klassen, “Coals of Fire: Sign of Repentance or Revenge?” New Testament Studies 9 (1962–1963): 343.
10. Although this verse indicates that the proverb in question was copied and recorded for posterity by Hezekiah’s men, this only brings one about two hundred years closer to the Egyptian ritual (thus still five hundred years away). Moreover, the proverb itself is Solomonic (tenth century B.C.) rather than Hezekianic (eighth century B.C.), which leaves the issue intact.
11. The Instruction of Amen-Em-Opet, dated somewhere between the twelfth and sixth centuries B.C., bears a certain relation to the near context of Proverbs 22:17–24:22. It is uncertain, however, whether Proverbs borrowed its common material from Amen-Em-Opet, whether Amen-Em-Opet borrowed from Proverbs, or whether they both drew from a common milieu of wisdom material.
12. James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 422. The relevance of this passage to Proverbs 25:21–22 (and its quotation in Rom. 12:20) is borne out in its advice regarding how one is to act toward an evil person or enemy (viz., treat him with kindness, leaving the matter ultimately to God) and that person’s consequent response to such kindness.
13. As such, this passage correlates well with view two above.
14. Cf. Psalm 18:9, 13 (2 Sam. 22:9, 13); 2 Esdras 16:53; and Psalm 11:6, emended to read פַּחֲי, “coals of” (cf. Symmachus’ ἄνθρακας), in lieu of the Masoretic text’s פַּחִים “snares.” As it stands, the Masoretic text of Psalm 11:6 contains an unparalleled metaphor for judgment, which evidently arose from an accidental transposition of the yod and mem in a consonantal text. Moreover, the adopted reading yields better line symmetry than that of the Masoretic text.
15. This pattern is broken in only two places, if one excludes the summary heading (v. 9a) and the concluding call (v. 21). These are verse 14 (εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς διώκοντας ὑμας, εὐλογεῖτε καὶ μὴ καταρᾶσθε) in which the repeated imperative is used to highlight this verse for its characteristic importance and as the fulcrum of the passage, and verses 19–20, in which the single participial command μή ἑαυτοὺς ἐκδικοῦντες, ἀγαπητοί (v. 19a) is supported and expanded by what follows in verses 19b–20.
16. “The reference to God’s wrath and leaving room for it is exceedingly important in interpreting this text. When we believers are mistreated, abused, and our rights are infringed upon, the desire for retaliation burns within us because we have been treated unjustly. We are not to give in, however, to the desire to get even. Rather, we are to place the fate of our enemies firmly in God’s hands, realizing that he will repay any injustice on the last day” (Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentaries on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998], 673).
17. Although the second γάρ is part of the quotation from Proverbs 25:21–22, it functions within that quotation as a word of comfort in support of the actions of kindness. And within the structure of Romans 12:19–20 and the development of its argument it functions in a similar way.
18. Piper, “Love Your Enemies,” 115. Also Krister Stendahl believes that it is unlikely that “the passage as it stands could reasonably be understood by its first readers in any other sense than as a word related to the vengeance of God” (“Hate, Non-Retaliation, and Love: 1 QS x, 17–20 and Rom. 12:19–21, ” Harvard Theological Review 55 [1962]: 352).
19. Stendahl, “Hate, Non-Retaliation, and Love,” 354.
20. Ibid.
21. Piper notes that “there is a very real sense in which the Christian’s love of his enemy is grounded in his certainty that God will take vengeance on those who persist in the state of enmity toward God’s people” (“Love Your Enemies,” 118 [italics his]). Cf. the example of Christ in 1 Peter 2:23, who suffered without retaliation, because He entrusted Himself to God the Father, who judges justly.
22. James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1988), 750.
23. As Schreiner summarizes, “The sure realization that God will vindicate us frees us to love others and to do good to them,” thus conquering evil with good (v. 21) (Romans, 675). Darrell L. Bock notes the following with regard to the love command in the Sermon on the Plain, from which much of the essence of Paul’s remarks was drawn: “The reason the disciple can love all humanity is that the disciple knows that God will deal justly with all one day. Even the woes of Luke 6:24–26 are grounded in God’s final act of justice. It is the sermon’s eschatology of hope and justice that lays the groundwork for the disciple’s love ethic” (Luke 1:1–9:50, Baker Exegetical Commentaries on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994], 567).
24. Also the state and the judicial system are to exercise divinely sanctioned vengeance, and Christians are to uphold that justice and to submit under God to those institutions that exact it (13:1–4).