homework

IVP Dictionary of Paul and Letters

Romans is both the least controversial of the major NT letters and the most important. Least controversial, at any rate, in the “who wrote what when to whom” questions which make it so difficult to gain a firm handle on most of the other NT writings. It is most important as being the first well-developed theological statement by a Christian theologian which has come down to us, and one which has had incalculable influence on the framing of Christian theology ever since—arguably the single most important work of Christian theology ever written. This double feature of Romans is important since it means that discussion of the letter can quickly leave behind such preliminary questions and can focus on its substantive theological content without too much distraction from nagging introductory unknowns.

1. Author, Date and Place of Origin

2. Recipients

3. Purposes

4. Literary Form and Coherence

5. The Issues at Stake

6. The Argument of the Letter

1. Author, Date and Place of Origin.

1.1. Author . There has never been any dispute of real significance over the authorship of Romans. It was written by Paul (Rom 1:1). More to the point is what the letter tells us about this Paul—particularly his sense of commissioning (see Conversion and Call) as an apostle and consequent commitment to preaching the gospel (Rom 1:1, 5, 12–17; 15:15–24). It is the fact that Paul the Jew, or preferably, Paul the Israelite (Rom 11:1), believed himself thus commissioned as apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 11:13), which gives the letter its distinctive character and cutting edge.

1.2. Date . As to date, the most significant fact is that Paul wrote his letter at a time when he thought he had completed a major phase of his work—his evangelization of the northeastern quadrant of the Mediterranean (Rom 15:19, 23; see Mission). The information that he was about to embark on a visit to Jerusalem (Rom 15:25) ties in with the larger picture in Acts of a final visit to Jerusalem at (what proved to be) the close of his work in Asia Minor and Greece (Acts 20). This certainly points to a date in the mid-50s (55–57), though a minority of scholars have argued implausibly for a date as early as 51/52 (see Chronology). The fact that in Romans 13:6–7 Paul felt it necessary to provide a theological rationale for paying taxes (see Civil Authority) may also reflect some unrest in Rome on questions of taxation early in Nero’s reign, that is, about the same period (56–58; Tacitus Ann. 13). The issue of precise date, however, is of minor significance beside the clear implication that the letter marks a climax in Paul’s missionary work.

1.3. Place of origin . The correlation of Romans 15:25 with Acts 20 also suggests the place of origin, since Acts 20:3 speaks of three months spent in Greece at the beginning of the final journey to Jerusalem. That suggests Corinth, Paul’s main headquarters in Greece, and fits with the information provided by chapter 16: Phoebe came from Cenchreae, one of Corinth’s ports (Rom 16:1–2); and Gaius and Erastus (Rom 16:23) probably lived in Corinth (1 Cor 1:14; NewDocs 4.160–61). More to the point, a period of three months centered in a single location would give Paul the time to reflect, compose and dictate what is certainly the most carefully thought through and constructed of his letters.

2. Recipients.

There is as little dispute over the “to whom” question. The reference to “Rome” in Romans 1:7 is omitted by some manuscripts, but such omission is best explained by subsequent generalizing usage of a letter intended originally for a more specific audience. The more important issue is who the Christians in Rome were, and why Paul, who had never visited Rome, should think it necessary to write to them.

2.1. “Jews First ...” The fact is that we simply do not know how Christianity began in Rome and who, strictly speaking, its founding apostles were. We do know, however, that there was a large Jewish community in Rome in the first century (estimated at between 40,000 and 50,000). We also know that there was an active Christian mission among “the circumcised” (Gal 2:9), and that even the Gentile mission must have found its most fruitful ground among the Gentile proselytes and God-fearers who attached themselves to many Diaspora synagogues (as indicated also by Acts, and Paul’s continuing identification with the synagogue implied by 2 Cor 11:24). Furthermore, we have the interesting information that many Jews were expelled from Rome in (probably) 49 because of disturbances “instigated by Chrestus” (Suetonius Claudius 25.4), where “Chrestus” is almost universally taken as a reference to Christ. And the number of slave names among those greeted in chapter 16 (at least fourteen out of twenty-four) suggests that not a few of those descended from the Jewish captives brought to Rome, particularly following Pompey’s subjugation of Palestine in 62 BC., came to believe in Jesus as Messiah (see Christ).

[p. 838]

The obvious implication, then, is that Christianity first took root in Rome within and among the many Jewish synagogues of Rome. This would explain both how Peter could plausibly be regarded as the founder of the church in Rome, and, more to the point, why Paul’s letter is so dominated by the motif “to Jew, but also to Gentile” (Rom 1:16; 2:9–10; 3:9, 29; 9:24; 10:12).

2.2. “... Also Gentiles .” That Gentiles were drawn in to the church at Rome sooner or later in the earliest years is clearly implied in the letter itself, particularly Romans 11:13–32 and 15:7–12 (see also Rom 1:6, 13; 15:15–16). That means being drawn in to share in an essentially Jewish patrimony, inevitably raising questions as to Jewish and Christian identity. This alone is sufficient to explain some of the characteristic elements and themes in the letter: for example, “who/what is a Jew?” (Rom 2:25–29); who are “the elect of God”? (Rom 1:7; 8:33; 9:6–13; 11:5–7, 28–32); and the climactic position of Romans 9–11 and Romans 15:8–12. Whether the disturbances within the Jewish community of 49 were simply between Jews who believed Jesus to be Messiah (“Chrestus”) and those who denied it, or between Jews who welcomed Gentiles and those (including Christian Jews) who did not, we cannot tell.

Moreover, if indeed many Christian Jews were among those expelled in 49 (cf. Acts 18:2), we may draw the further inference that the Roman churches were at that time shorn of much of their Jewish leadership and membership. Gentile leadership would have become more the norm. And when Christian Jews began to return to Rome as Claudius’s rescript began to lapse, some tensions between old and new may well have arisen. This is just the circumstance which seems to be reflected in the exhortations in Romans 14:1 and 15:1, 7.

2.3. The Social Context . Two other factors are important in filling in the background behind the letter, so far as that is possible. One is that the Jewish community was both influential in Rome and deeply despised, not to say hated, by the most influential voices of the Roman intelligentsia. This was partly because of its sheer size, partly because of the preferential treatment they had received from Julius Caesar and Augustus, and, probably more important, because of the numbers of Gentiles who were attracted to Judaism. These will also no doubt have been factors in the tensions between Jew and Gentile evident in the letter, and will help explain such emphases as Romans 1:16 and 12:14–13:7.

We also know that the Jewish community had no central authority in Rome (as was the case in Alexandria; see Diaspora). This indicates a more fragmented organization and, probably, a fair diversity among the different synagogues. Corresponding to this is the implication that the Christian community was equally lacking in organizational homogeneity (implied by the unusual fact that Paul does not speak of the “church,” singular, in Rome). As we know the names of ten or so synagogues, so we know of several house churches (five may be implied in Rom 16:5, 10–11, 14–15).

All this suggests that the Christian groups formed something of a spectrum (some more Jewish in composition, some more Gentile, most mixed), which overlapped substantially with the spectrum of synagogues (see Social Setting). Paul knew enough of the people and the circumstances (Rom 14:1–15:7; 16:3–15) to frame his teaching and paraenesis accordingly. Among other things he would be aware that his letter would be read not to one single huge gathering of Christians (apart from anything else, such a gathering would be too dangerous in an imperial capital nervous of unlicensed gatherings), but repeatedly to the various house churches, where different facets of his exposition would resonate with different force among the different congregations. This would help explain the combination of general teaching and specific exhortation which is a feature of the letter.

3. Purposes.

Among introductory questions related to Romans the most lively discussion in recent years has centered on Paul’s purpose(s) in writing it. Three in particular have been strongly canvassed.

3.1. A Missionary Purpose . This emerges especially from Romans 15:18–24, 28: Paul as “apostle to the Gentiles,” eager to bring in “the full number of Gentiles” (Rom 11:13–15, 25–26), writes to the capital of the Gentile empire (see Mission).

Some draw the inference that Paul was seeking to evangelize Rome itself (Rom 1:13–15). This cannot mean that he did not recognize a Christian presence already in Rome (contrast Rom 1:8; 15:14). It has been argued on the basis of Romans 15:20, however, that he saw the Roman churches as lacking an apostolic foundation and sought to fill the gap. But this is equally unlikely, since Paul regarded church founding as an apostolic work (1 Cor 9:1–2), and the slight embarrassment evident in Romans 1:11–12 is just what we would expect from Paul writing to churches in whose founding he himself had played no part.

More plausible is the thesis that Paul wrote to Rome with a view to the churches there providing a support base for his projected mission to Spain. This indeed is what Paul says explicitly (Rom 15:24, 28), and there [p. 839] is no cause to doubt it; the church in Philippi in particular had already served in such a role. In that case the letter would be Paul’s attempt to set out the gospel which he had preached so successfully so far and which he intended to preach in Spain (Rom 1:16–17). At the end of the first (or preceding) phase of his great missionary strategy (Rom 15:19, 23) he uses the opportunity to set out in complete terms the theology of the gospel on the basis of which he would be asking the Roman Christians for support.

3.2. An Apologetic Purpose . The implication of such passages as Romans 1:16; 3:8 and 9:1–2, not to mention the repeated recourse to diatribe style, is that Paul felt himself and his understanding of the gospel under attack and needing to be justified. Hence the obvious conclusion has been drawn that the letter functions as Paul’s apology for his gospel, and therefore also as a self-apologia, since his whole life’s-work was bound up with the gospel he preached (see Center).

The apology is directed to Rome; by means of the unusually expanded introduction of Romans 1:2–6, including what seems to be a common creedal formula in Romans 1:3–4 (see Creeds), Paul presents his “calling card” and his bona fides. Was this simply because he looked to the Roman Christians for support in the next phase of his mission (to Spain)? Or did he already have an inkling that the Christian groups in Rome, itself the imperial capital, were bound in due course to become increasingly influential in relation to Christian work elsewhere in the empire? Also plausible is the suggestion that Paul set out a full statement of his gospel as a dress rehearsal for his self-defense in Jerusalem, and thus hoped to recruit the Roman congregations to his support in any confrontation in Jerusalem. The likelihood of such a confrontation, and not simply with his “unbelieving” fellow Jews, was very much in his mind, as is clearly indicated in Romans 15:31. Whether he thought the Roman congregations could actually send support, or was simply asking for their prayers (a real support in Paul’s eyes) is left unclear by Romans 15:30.

3.3. A Pastoral Purpose . In recent years the section Romans 14:1–15:6 has assumed a central significance in attempts to clarify Romans’ purpose: that Paul was writing to heal potential or real divisions among the churches in Rome (see Pastor). This makes good sense of the exhortations of Romans 14:1 and 15:7, especially when set against the background sketched above (particularly 2.2 above). Such attempts have been weakened by too casual identifications of “the weak” and “the strong” (as simply Jews and simply Gentiles; see Strong and Weak) and by hypothesizing too clearly distinct groups and too sharp differentiations between Jews and Christians. The probability is rather, as indicated above (see 2.3), that there were Jewish synagogues attended by both God-fearing Gentiles and Christian Jews and Gentiles, and that there was a diverse spectrum of Christian groupings, some with more Gentiles (Gentiles more dominant, though not necessarily less attracted to the synagogue), and others with more Jews (Jews more dominant, though not necessarily more conservative toward Jewish traditions and customs).

This would certainly help explain the character of the letter as a whole, and of Romans 14:1–15:6 in relation to the rest, namely: that Paul set out to explain the “both Jew and Gentile” character of the gospel and of the promises to Israel, not exclusively, but also not least, to encourage his Roman auditors to work out in the experience of everyday what the gospel and these promises must mean in practice. Above all it would give proper significance to what is obviously a climactic expression and rounding-off conclusion of the letter’s main theme in Romans 15:7–13. In contrast, attempts to read Romans 12:1–15:13 simply as generalized, all-purpose paraenesis, lifted in part from Paul’s experiences with the Corinthian church, hardly explains the distinctiveness of Romans’ paraenesis (see Teaching/Paraenesis), or the passion with which Paul writes, or, indeed, once again, the climax of Romans 15:7–13.

In addition, assuming that Romans 16 is part of the original letter, it is evident that Paul had some close contacts with various members of the Roman churches and would therefore have a fair knowledge of the character of the Roman churches and of their circumstances. From chapter 16 we can also see that Paul was writing to introduce and commend Phoebe (Rom 16:1–2); but that would be a subsidiary purpose and of itself could hardly explain the whole letter.

3.4. The Purposes of Romans . The fact that each of the above reasons for Romans can find such clear support from within the letter itself points to the obvious conclusion: that Paul had not simply one but several purposes in view when he wrote. Indeed, such a conclusion is more or less required by the character of the letter itself; no single suggested reason on its own can explain the full sweep of the document. On the contrary, it was presumably because Paul had several purposes in view that he found it desirable to set out his understanding of the good news of Christ so fully, including its practical implications. As he stood at one of the most important transition points in his whole ministry he saw both the need and the desirability of such a fully worked-out statement—to indicate to others clearly what was the gospel he preached, [p. 840] why as a Jew he preached it, and how it should come to expression in daily life and community. It is the completeness of the statement, as required by the multiplicity of purposes served, which lifts the letter above the immediacy of the circumstances in which and for which it was written and gives it, if not a timeless quality, at least its timeless significance.

4. Literary Form and Coherence.

4.1. The Literary Form . A second area of debate in recent years has been over the literary character of the letter (see Letters, Letter Forms). Much of it has been inconclusive and a somewhat pointless dispute about suitability of categories drawn from other literary and rhetorical forms—“epideictic” (demonstrative), “deliberative” (persuasive), “ambassadorial,” to name but three (see Rhetoric; Rhetorical Criticism). But since these are hardly “pure types” themselves, and since different categories can be (and have been) applied to Romans, the point of the exercise becomes unclear. The fact is that whatever conventions Paul knew or used, the form he constructed is distinctive and unique in character and content. That being said, the inquiry into literary form and rhetorical parallels has contributed several points of significance to current understanding of Romans.

4.1.1. Introduction and Conclusion. One is greater clarification of the letter character of the document indicated by its beginning and end. The literary parallels show that Paul was quite aware of current conventions and that he was concerned to use a medium which would, at least initially, be familiar to his audience, however much he adapted it to his own ends. He writes, therefore, as the wise teacher, leading his audience through familiar forms to the real point of the letter. Equally important for the modern commentator, the literary parallels to the writing’s introduction and conclusion show not only how Paul conformed to convention but also where and how he departed from it. The more standard were these conventions, the more distinctive his additions and modifications would be seen to be by his auditors. In particular, the considerable elaboration (Rom 1:2–6) of the normal greeting (Rom 1:1, 7) would indicate clearly enough to a literate audience what the thrust of the letter was to be.

4.1.2. Epistolary Framework and Body. Another point to emerge from the study of literary form is the importance of the relation between the epistolary framework and the body of the letter. It is not simply a matter of recognizing that the framework is important for interpreting the whole (Romans is not merely a dogmatic treatise, beginning at Rom 1:17). As we have already noted, the insertion of Romans 1:2–6 into the normal greetings structure gives these verses the force of a prologue to the whole letter. So too the fact that Romans 1:16–17 serves both as the climax to the introduction and the thematic statement for what follows indicates a concern on Paul’s part to integrate the framework into the body of the letter. The same conclusion follows from Paul’s repetition of his travel plans (Rom 1:8–15; 15:14–33; see Itineraries), as indeed of his self-claims to the grace of God in Romans 1:2–6 and 15:14–15, that is, after as well as before the body of the letter. Thus he indicates that the intervening exposition is both an expression of that grace (cf. Rom 1:12) and the theological basis of the specific request for support with which he concludes the restatement of his travel plans (Rom 15:30–33).

4.1.3. Diatribe. The third point of significance to emerge from studying Romans as a rhetorical form is the renewed appreciation of the diatribe style used by Paul (dialogue with an imaginary interlocutor)—a feature at key phases in his argument (Rom 2:1–5, 17–29; 3:27–4:2; 9:19–21; 11:17–24). Characteristic of the diatribe is the attempt to criticize arrogance and correct pretension. Stowers in particular has pointed out that the typical function of the diatribe was not as polemic against an opponent but, in a philosophical school context, as a critical questioning of a fellow student intended to lead him to the truth. Thus awareness of contemporary rhetorical convention alerts the modern reader to the danger of reading passages like Romans 2 as the expression of out-and-out polemic against an “opponent” or as indicating a complete break between two monolithic entities (“Judaism” and “Christianity”). What the diatribe passages indicate, rather, is Paul engaged in a critical dialogue with his fellow Jews and fellow Christian Jews about the significance of the new “philosophical sect” within Judaism (Christianity) as to its relation with its parent Judaism and with the other Judaisms of the time.

4.2. Literary Coherence . The a priori likelihood that Paul used or adapted material or themes which he had used in earlier teaching (cf., e.g., Acts 19:8–10) has resulted in various suggestions that some of this previous material can be distinguished as coherent blocks: for example, chapters 5–8 as a distinct homily, or chapters 9–11 as preformed material incorporated here somewhat awkwardly. Such hypotheses can never be proved or disproved since there is no clear line of distinction between re-use of oral patterns never before written down and re-use of written material. All we need say is that the various sections of the argument of Romans cohere with sufficient closeness and, indeed, with such a high degree of integration, [p. 841] that such hypotheses add nothing to our understanding of the letter. The same degree of coherence and integration, however, tells decisively against more complex dissections of the text or elaborate theories of substantial redaction, which unfailingly create more problems than they solve or leave us with a simplistic and monochrome Paul.

The one major issue raised by textual criticism (see Textual Criticism) is whether Romans 16 belonged to the original text dictated by Paul. A strong minority opinion continues to hold that chapter 16 was a separate letter written to Ephesus. This is unlikely. In particular, a letter ending with Romans 15:33 and without a “grace” benediction (Rom 16:20) would be quite unlike Paul; Romans 16:1–23 has all the marks of an epistolary conclusion; and it is hardly implausible that Paul should know so many in Rome as the greetings indicate (the Jewish community was substantial, and the movements of Prisca and Aquila indicate that there was a fair amount of travel to and from Rome, as might be expected in relation to the imperial capital).

The presence of Romans 16:25–27 at different places in the manuscript tradition (also after Rom 14:23 and after Rom 15:33), however, suggests that shorter forms of the letter were circulated. The consensus is that under Marcionite influence (see Canon) the letter was abbreviated (to Rom 1:1–14:23), to which Romans 16:25–27 was then added to provide a fitting conclusion. Early copyists would also see less point in transcribing all the names of chapter 16 and probably circulated a more general version ending at Romans 15:33, to which Romans 16:25–27 was also added. It is equally understandable that the very fitting conclusion, Romans 16:25–27, should likewise become attached to the full version in successive copyings. At all events, there is a strong consensus that Romans 16:25–27 is a later addition to the letter.

5. The Issues at Stake.

5.1. The New Perspective on Paul . Traditionally Romans has been treated as a work of systematic theology, “a compendium of Christian doctrine” in Melanchthon’s words, a more or less timeless statement of what the gospel means (see Paul and His Interpreters). But the recent recognition that the letter is related to the particular emphases and circumstances of Paul’s mission (see 3 above) carries with it the corollary that the issues addressed in the letter must also have been conditioned in greater or less measure by the same emphases and circumstances. What is at stake in Romans is not the gospel in general or in the abstract, but the gospel in particular as embodied by Paul’s own life and work—a Jewish gospel for Gentiles, and the strains and tensions which stemmed from that basic conviction.

This perspective on the letter has been reinforced by the new perspective on Paul and on the Jewish context from which he emerged. Traditionally in Protestant exegesis Judaism has been seen as the foil to Christianity, as that which Christianity brought to an end or showed to be bankrupt, as that from which Paul was converted when he became a Christian. Read in that light the antitheses in Romans, particularly between sin and grace, death and life (see Life and Death), law and faith, though surprisingly less so between flesh and Spirit (see Holy Spirit), appeared as antitheses between Judaism and Christianity. “The Jew” became the classic type of religion gone wrong, of religion understood in terms of human achievement, rather than as the expression of gratitude for, and response to, the initiative of divine grace.

Now, however, more scattered protest against such stereotyping of “the Jew” and Judaism has reached a climax, particularly in English-speaking scholarship from the Christian side, in the work of E. P. Sanders. It is he who more effectively than anyone else in the English-speaking world has succeeded in getting across the message that early Judaism at its heart was a religion of grace: its starting point, God’s free choice of Israel and rescue from slavery; its system one which focused on repentance, atonement and forgiveness; its emphasis on Law keeping, the appropriate response of gratitude and faithfulness on the part of the elect people. From this new perspective the theological issues at stake in Romans take on a different hue. In that sense Sanders marks a new epoch in the study of Paul, and commentaries on Romans can be categorized as pre- and post-Sanders—at least to the extent that one can assess work on the theology of Romans by whether it takes serious account of the new perspective (even if to disagree with it).

5.2. The New Perspective on Romans . In light of the new perspective on Paul the issues at stake in Romans receive a fresh clarity. The various themes are already sounded in the substantial elaboration of the more common introduction (Rom 1:2–7): (1) the gospel of God; (2) continuous with the prophecies of the Holy Scriptures; (3) focusing on Jesus, both Son of David and Son of God (see Son of God); (4) with his resurrection marking out a new eschatological epoch (see Eschatology); (5) and his lordship (see Lord) validating its outreach, not least by Paul himself, to all the Gentiles; (6) among whom the Roman believers in particular are to be counted as numbered among the elect and beloved people of God. Hence the overarching [p. 842] emphasis on the gospel for Jew and Gentile already noted (see 2.1 - 2.2 above), is sounded both in the initial thematic statement (Rom 1:16) and in the climax of Romans 15:7–12. Hence also the repeated emphasis is on the gospel for all —“all who believe” (Rom 1:16; 3:22; 4:11; 10:4, 11–13), “all injustice” (Rom 1:18, 29), all under sin (Rom 3:9, 12, 19–20, 23; 5:12), “all the seed” (Rom 4:11, 16), “all Israel” (Rom 11:26). The issue is not so much the universality of human need and of the gospel’s sufficiency as whether and how the gospel, Jewish in origin and in character, reaches beyond the Jewish nation to include the nations beyond (“all” = Gentile as well as Jew, Rom 1:18–5:21). And conversely, the issue is whether the gospel now drawing in Gentiles in such numbers remains a Jewish gospel and is still the gospel for the Jews (“all” = Jew as well as Gentile, Rom 9–11).

Of course this is a particular expression of the larger theological claim about the universality of human sin and of the gospel’s provision, and it is wholly legitimate to validate such a larger theological claim from Romans. But it is important to recognize that the larger claim is derived from this particular expression, that is, both to recognize its historical specificity (including the continuing Jewish character of the Christian gospel), and to be alert to the possibility that individual elements in this particular expression are determined primarily by that context and thus are less amenable to generalization.

5.3. The Faithfulness of God . Within this overarching emphasis (Jew and Gentile) several other key themes in the letter fall into place. One is the issue of theodicy (“the gospel of God”). This is indicated at once in the centrality of “the righteousness of God” (particularly Rom 1:17; 3:5, 21–26; 4:1–25; 9:30–10:13; see Righteousness). The theme is through-and-through Jewish, its Pauline usage in direct continuity with the usage of the Psalms and Isaiah 40–66. The issue is twofold. (1) How the saving action to which God committed himself on behalf of Israel includes those outside Israel. The answer is given partly in terms of the correlated thematic word “faith”: that this always was the human medium through which God exercised his saving righteousness (so again particularly Rom 4:1–25 and 9:30–10:17, also 14:22–23). And partly in terms of the new, climactic phase in God’s purpose (the same purpose) marked by Christ’s ministry (particularly Rom 3:22–26 and again Rom 9:30–10:13).

(2) What the Jewish gospel for Gentiles says about the faithfulness of God to his original promises to Israel. This theme is obscured somewhat by the fact that the Jewish motif of divine faithfulness is translated into Greek in two different ways: God’s faithfulness (Rom 3:3; but perhaps also Rom 1:17 and 3:25) and God’s truth (particularly Rom 1:25; 3:7; 15:8). The issue is clearly articulated in Romans 3:1–8, but Paul is able to address it in detail only in Romans 9–11, where it is posed in the key question of whether the word of God has failed (Rom 9:6). The importance of Romans 15:7–13 (here Rom 15:8) as summing up Paul’s concerns and thus indicating what these concerns were in the letter is again underlined.

Somewhat surprisingly, christology does not seem to be part of the issue. It is fundamental to the gospel, of course (Rom 1:3–4), but the fulcrum expression of it in Romans 3:21–26 is brief, probably makes use of pre-formed material, and seems to be noncontroversial (hence the brevity). The christology as such seems to be common ground. The universal significance of Christ is the presupposition of Romans 5–8 rather than the theme. And though Christ is presented as the stumbling-stone in Romans 9:32–33, it is striking that in the final resolution to the problem of Israel’s unbelief a distinctively Christian (as distinct from Jewish) messianism is lacking (Rom 11:26; see Christ). Characteristic of the letter at this point is, once again, the climax of Romans 15:8: “Christ has become the servant of the circumcised for the sake of God’s truth (faithfulness).”

5.4. The Subtheme of the Law . The other theme which falls into place in the light of the new perspective is the role of the Law in Romans. The traditional view tended to see the Law as belonging wholly on the negative side of the antitheses posed by Paul—a hostile power, like sin and death (understandably in view of Rom 5:20 and 7:5), characterizing Judaism as legalistic, a religion of achievement, giving ground for human pride (cf. Rom 3:27–28; 9:11, 32; 11:6). The fact that Paul seems equally concerned to mount an apologetic in relation to the Law (Rom 3:31; 7:7–25; 8:3–4; 13:8–10) fitted ill with this understanding, but on the traditional view it was not easy to see any solution. The new perspective has shaken up the negative side of the equation, but for some (Sanders, Räisänen) the result has been only to increase the incoherence of Paul’s overall position.

However, within the new perspective both on Paul and on Romans (see 5.1 - 5.2 above), a more coherent solution is possible. For where the primary issue is the tensions caused by a Jewish gospel being offered to Gentiles, the problem of the Law is likely to relate to that issue. The Law is then most naturally seen as a principal hindrance which prevents Gentiles from accepting the gospel. And so we find in Romans. It is the Jewish claim to have the Law and thus to have a privileged position before God (Rom 2:12–29) which [p. 843] focuses the problem of Israel’s election (Rom 3:1). It is the Jewish boast in this privileged status as marked out by their obedience to the Law which Paul seeks to counter by his focus on faith (Rom 3:27–31; 4:1–25). It is the Law, not as evil, but as weak and used as a cat’s-paw by sin, which he attempts to defend (Rom 7:7–8:4). It is the Law typified by Jewish works and a focus of Jewish zeal (see Jealousy, Zeal) which Paul sees to have been ended by Christ, not “the Law of righteousness” (9:30–10:4); “the Law of sin and death,” not “the Law of the Spirit of life” (Rom 8:2–4). Properly understood in the new light of Christ, therefore, what the Law calls for is not the “works” (see Works of the Law) which mark off Jew from Gentile (particularly, though by no means exclusively, circumcision and food laws, Rom 2:25–29; 4:9–12; 9:10–13; 14:1–12), but love of neighbor (Rom 13:8–10; 14:13–15:6).

In a word, then, it is not the Law as expression of human achievement which Paul questions, but the Law as expression of Jewish privilege. The solution to “the problem of the Law” in Romans lies not in a “demonizing” of the Law; nor in throwing up one’s hands at Paul’s “contradictions”; nor in distinguishing ceremonial law from moral law, though Paul’s teaching can be worked out in these terms. Paul’s concern was more with a nationalizing of the Law than with its ritualizing. It was because the Law could be so identified with Israel, and that identification focused so much in distinctive Jewish rites (particularly circumcision and food laws), that Paul found it necessary to distinguish fulfillment of the Law’s requirements from doing such “works.” Evidently, in the tensions caused by his proclamation of a Jewish gospel to Gentiles, it was only by so arguing that he could defend both features of the gospel —both its Jewish character and its openness to all nations (see Universalism).

6. The Argument of the Letter.

We are now in a position to appreciate the thrust and movement of Paul’s thought in Romans. Since the main body of the letter is set out so systematically, a brief survey of it provides an invaluable synopsis of Paul’s theology as he stood at this climax to his missionary career.

6.1. Introduction (Rom 1:1–17 ). We have already noted how the expanded greetings (Rom 1:1–7) allow Paul to introduce his theme while still at the stage of friendly introductions (see 5.2 above). We also noted that the personal explanations which follow, with their typical features of thanksgiving and prayer (Rom 1:8–15; see Benediction, Blessing, Doxology, Thanksgiving), both root the letter as a whole firmly into the particular historical setting of its composition, and lead into the key thematic statement for what follows (Rom 1:16–17). Here the principal terms of the letter are clearly enunciated—the gospel as God’s power for salvation, all who believe, Jew first and Greek, the righteousness of God being revealed from faith to faith—together with the supporting OT text (Hab 2:4).

6.2. The Human Condition—Gentile and Jew (Rom 1:18–3:20 ). In a manner followed in subsequent centuries by countless restatements of the Christian gospel or monographs on theology, Paul finds it necessary to define the human condition to which the gospel provides an answer.

6.2.1. Human Beastliness (Rom 1:18–32). He begins by characterizing what classically has been described as human depravity (see Sin). That is now too heavy or distancing a formulation, particularly when we appreciate that he rounds off his indictment with a description which includes the everyday nastiness and petty selfishnesses of human pride and ruptured relationships (Rom 1:29–31). Such negative features mark the breakdown of human society, features which all people of goodwill would deplore (“what is not fitting,” Rom 1:28). The gospel starts by taking such things seriously (Rom 1:32).

Two other elements help explain the build-up to that climax. One is the strong echo of the Adam stories in Genesis 2–3 (Rom 1:19–23). The basic flaw in the make-up of human society is that the human creature has failed to live in accord with its creatureliness, has failed to acknowledge its dependence on God, has sought to usurp the role of the creator. The consequence has been the opposite—not a rise above human creatureliness, but a fall below humanity to a level of beastliness, marked by idolatry, unnatural sexual practices (see Homosexuality; Sexuality and the nastiness already mentioned. The other is the strong echo of characteristically Jewish polemic against Gentiles and particularly Gentile religion (Rom 1:24–27)—precisely as characterized by idolatry and debased sexuality (cf. Wis 11–15). Thus at once Paul highlights the tension between Jew and Gentile as central to his concerns.

6.2.2. Jews Too (Rom 2:1–29). Romans 2 has caused more difficulties than any other chapter for commentators, particularly because it seems to envisage final justification as depending on human deeds rather than on faith, and because its argument seems to depend on a far too sweeping indictment of Jews at large. The key is to note that the chapter is framed, on the one side, by a typically Jewish attack on Gentile lifestyle (Rom 1:18–32) and, on the other, by a protest that Jewish privilege has been undermined (Rom 3:1). What is in view in Romans 2, therefore, is almost [p. 844] certainly the very sense of Jewish privilege and distinctiveness which was so clearly echoed in Romans 1.

This is confirmed by the first appearance of the characteristic diatribe form in Romans 2:1–5. Paul thus engages not with any imaginary onlooker but precisely with the typical Jew who would commend the typically Jewish indictment of Romans 1. The echoes of such Jewish reasoning as we find in Psalms of Solomon 15:8 and Wisdom 15:1–6 (Rom 2:3–4), as well as the explicit quotation of the Jewish theologoumenon in Romans 2:6, confirm that Paul has in view a Jewish rationalization which could justify or excuse in itself what it condemned in others (Rom 2:1–11).

The picture becomes clearer in Romans 2:12–16 as Paul attempts to undermine the confidence of those who think that because they have the Law they are advantaged in the judgment over those without the Law. On the contrary, Jewish teaching is precisely that doing the Law is more important than merely hearing it; the argument is ad hominem. The pride and presumption of “the Jew,” by virtue of possessing the Law, becomes explicit in Romans 2:17–24. The intention of the forthright indictment of the typical Jewish interlocutor is not to condemn all Jews out of hand, but rather to argue that when the typical Jew breaks the Law in his presumption he undermines the whole basis of his privileged position. The point is brought to sharpest focus in circumcision, that which is so much the mark of “the Jew” that Jews as a whole can be called simply “the circumcision.” The failure to distinguish an outward, ethnic identity marker from the hidden work of the Spirit in the heart, and to play down the importance of the former in favor of the latter means that the typical Jew is in no better (indeed, maybe worse) standing before God than the Gentile (Rom 2:25–29).

6.2.3. Awkward Corollaries (Rom 3:1–8). Such an uninhibited attack on Jewish self-confidence in Israel’s privileged status before God raises problems which Paul cannot ignore—particularly in relation to Israel’s election, and thus also to God’s faithfulness to the people he chose. It is to be noted that Paul does not wish to query the fact of that election, but also that his one-sentence defense of God’s faithfulness looks beyond God’s role as Israel’s covenant partner to his role as creator and judge. Thus he hints that the resolution to the tensions of “Jew and Gentile” will be to set Israel’s covenant status before its God within the larger picture of the world’s status before its creator. But such lines of thought can only be hinted at here.

6.2.4. Conclusion: All Under Sin (Rom 3:9–20). The summary gathers all humanity under the same indictment. But the target is still primarily Jewish presumption that “the Jew” is exempt. Thus the catena of OT texts which follows (Rom 3:10–18; see Old Testament in Paul) consists mainly of passages which assume that those condemned are “them” and not “us.” Paul’s point is that such an assumption is itself an expression of the power of the sin it condemned. The trust in privileged position, the boast in the Law (circumcision especially) as marking out Jew from Gentile, is itself an expression of the fleshliness (in this case, ethnic identity) which distances humankind from God (Rom 3:19–20).

6.3. The Gospel Answer (Rom 3:21–5:21 ). Again, providing a pattern for countless sermons and monographs, Paul, having indicted humanity as a whole, turns to the answer given by the gospel.

6.3.1. Through Faith in Christ (Rom 3:21–26). In a remarkably brief section (compared with the length of the indictment) Paul points to the death of Christ as the answer. The logic is not spelled out in any detail (why faith in Christ should provide the answer) and seems to draw on an accepted Christian formulation. So the answer must have been an already established Christian conviction which Paul did not need to elaborate.

Significant, however, is the emphasis again on complete continuity with what had gone before (Rom 3:21; Christ’s death as a sacrifice, Rom 3:25). Presupposed therefore is the Jewish theology of sacrifice and of the need for an unblemished animal to act as a sin offering, with the probable implication that the animal’s death served to put away or cover the sin, or indeed to kill off (in a representative way) the sin-affected offerer (see Expiation/Propitiation/Mercy Seat). For a reason not given in the text, Christ’s death could be seen not just as such a sacrifice, but as a climactic sacrifice which was effective for all humankind past and present, Gentile as well as Jew, and thus by implication as a sacrifice which ended all further need for sacrifice and as such became the means by which all human relationship with God could be restored (see Justification).

6.3.2. To Jew and Gentile (Rom 3:27–31). Indicative of Paul’s concern is the way he immediately (Rom 3:27) picks up the theme of “the Jew’s” boasting indicted in Rom 2:17, 23. As already clearly implied, it is a boasting in Jewish privilege and prerogative which Paul condemns, a boasting which in effect regards God as “the God of Jews only” (Rom 3:29). The twin recognition that God is one (the Jewish credo), and that God accepts human beings on the basis of faith, shatters any such presumption. This universalism (Gentile as well as Jew) is what is now effective through the death of Jesus Christ (Rom 3:21–26). But [p. 845] since it is also (properly speaking) a Jewish universalism, it does not contradict the terms of the initial offer of that grace to Israel; that is, the gospel of Jesus Christ stands opposed to the Law characterized by the works of Jewish prerogative, but confirms the Law as calling for the obedience of faith (Rom 3:31).

6.3.3. Abraham as a Test Case (Rom 4:1–25). To sustain this central claim Paul takes up the challenge of the precedent provided by “father Abraham.” The test case was crucial, since Abraham was widely regarded within Judaism as the model of piety. Already it was being said that he had observed the Law in its as-yet-unwritten state (e.g., Gen 26:5; CD 3:2). In particular, he was regarded as a paradigm of faithfulness to the covenant, because he came through so strongly when he was tested in the matter of the offering of Isaac (e.g., Jdt 8:26; Sir 44:19–21). It was in the light of this faithfulness that Genesis 15:6 was understood: Abraham was counted righteous on the basis of this faithfulness (1 Macc 2:52; so Jas 2:22–23).

Paul’s response is to expound Genesis 15:6 afresh: “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.” This is one of very few extended expositions of a text from a first-century Jew (Philo excepted) and can thus be counted as a classic example of early Jewish midrash (see Old Testament in Paul). It proceeds simply by first announcing the text (Rom 4:3), then analyzing each of the key words in turn—“reckoned” (Rom 4:4–8) and “believed” (Rom 4:9–21)—and finally restating the text thus expounded (Rom 4:22) with its corollary (Rom 4:23–25).

“Reckoned,” Paul notes, must have a different meaning in describing a divine-human relationship from its use in a human contract—a claim somewhat fortuitously but appropriately confirmed by the verb’s appearance in Psalm 32:1–2. The exposition of “believed” is more tortuous, but builds on three points: the fact that Abraham’s believing was prior to and fully effective before he was circumcised (or subsequently “tested”) (Rom 4:9–12); the fact that it was faith in promise (Rom 4:13–17); and the fact that the promise was so impossible of fulfillment by any degree of Abraham’s contriving (or faithfulness; Rom 4:17–21). This believing could be only trust in God, confidence in God’s power alone, that and nothing more— faith, not faithfulness. The faith called for in the gospel is precisely the same faith in the life-giving power of God (Rom 4:23–25).

6.3.4. Conclusion: What This Means for Individual Believers (Rom 5:1–11) and for Humankind (Rom 5:12–21). Having made his case that the gospel of God’s acceptance is for all through faith, Paul rounds off this central section of his argument by spelling out the consequences. For individual believers it means peace with God (see Peace, Reconciliation), an experience of grace which will shape the character through suffering, and a secure basis of hope for the future (Rom 5:1–11). The initiative of God, its overwhelmingly gracious character, and the experience of that love already manifested in Christ’s death and in the gift of the Spirit (see Holy Spirit), is the firm rock on which the believer can face both present and future in complete confidence (the same confidence that Abraham had displayed in his paradigmatic believing).

Christ’s death thus marks a whole new beginning, not just for individuals, but for all humankind (Rom 5:12–21). The tragedy which began to unfold with Adam, as implied in Romans 1:19–23 (see 6.2.1 above) and Romans 3:23, has been answered by another story (see Adam and Christ). The disobedience of Adam was the ancient way of explaining how the harsh reality of sin and death entered the world and gained such domination over it. But now the obedience of Christ has opened the way and provided another model for human existence. Sin and death need not have the last word in human affairs.

These two men—Adam and Christ—sum up in themselves the two chief possibilities for humanity. That is also to say that they sum up the argument from Romans 1:18 onwards—from the condemnation of life “in Adam” and under the domination of sin and death, to the offer of life “in Christ” under the reign of grace. The whole opening section of the body of the letter (Rom 1:18–5:21) thus has an impressively rounded and global quality—from Adam to Christ as a comprehensive summary of human history. But the passage also brings to the fore the negative factors brought into play by Adam, sin and death, with the role of the Law as a further complicating factor (Rom 5:20–21), and what effect the gospel has on them requires further clarification.

6.4. The Problem of Sin, Death and the Law (Rom 6:1–8:39 ). Paul has essentially set out two principal alternatives for human existence and indicated that the individual believer can in effect transfer from one to the other in terms of basic motivation and character formation. The question at once arises, whether the transfer can be total. Paul’s answer is summed up in terms of an already/not-yet formula (see Eschatology). Something decisive has already happened (Rom 5:1–11), but so long as life lasts within the transitoriness and weakness of this bodily existence the outworking of that decisive act of God is not yet complete. That is to say, sin and death continue to exert an influence which believers cannot escape and to which they are in some measure (the measure of his human [p. 846] Adamness) still subject, but which they must continue to resist in the strength of the Spirit.

This is the basic line which Paul elaborates in the next three chapters—in relation first to sin, then to the Law, and finally to flesh and death. In each case he begins by stating clearly the new reality already made effective by God’s action in Christ, before going on to indicate how the new reality must be lived out in the “not-yet” conditions of the still sinful flesh—the indicative of God’s grace as the inspiration and enabling of human commitment and obedience.

6.4.1. The Problem of Sin (Rom 6:1–23). The claim that grace had more than accounted for sin gives rise to the ribald response: if sin results in grace, then the more sin the better. Paul’s answer is to point to the decisive cut-off point for sin and death in the death of Jesus. Sin and death could reach as far, but no farther: “the death he died, he died to sin once and for all” (Rom 6:10). For those who have identified themselves with Christ in his death (through baptism; see Dying and Rising), therefore, there can be no question of tolerating or cooperating with sin. The motivating center of their living is now directed toward and determined by the Christ on whom sin has no hold whatsoever.

Sin remains a reality, however, for believers have not yet shared fully in Christ’s resurrection; they still must experience the outworking of fleshly corruption and death. Sin thus still has a foothold in them, and its wiles and enticements must be resisted until that end. But in the temptation of the not yet, the already of Christ’s victory (see Triumph) is the basis and source of strength to resist and overcome, to live out their initial commitment in the renewed commitment of every day.

6.4.2. The Problem of the Law (Rom 7:1–25). Underlying the first critique of Paul’s gospel outlined in Romans 6:1 was a Jewish suspicion that Paul’s gospel meant abandoning the Law. It was precisely the Law which served as a bulwark against the power of sin, did it not? But Paul’s attack on Jewish presumption as focused in works of the Law could easily be heard by his fellow Jews (and modern commentators!) as an attack on the Law itself. It is this problem that Paul now addresses.

He begins, once again, by stating his position in bald terms. The (Jewish) Law is so much identified with the period before Christ that the new possibility of existence brought about by Christ is like a being freed from the Law. In terms of the earlier indictment (Rom 2–3), the Law has become the occasion for Jewish presumption, and thus the instrument of the very sin which it was intended to thwart. Thus the transfer from old to new, from Adam to Christ, from sin and death to grace, has become also a transfer from the legal code which defines Israel to the new life of the Spirit.

But surely such a treatment of the Law is tantamount to identifying the Law with sin. Paul’s answer is that the Law is not to blame. It—and the “flesh” (sarx i.e., human frailty and finitude)—have been manipulated by sin. The reality of the already/not-yet tension between what has begun with and in Christ and the salvation yet to be completed is reflected in a double split—both in the individual who yearns to do the will of God but yet remains in “the flesh,” and in the Law which expresses the will of God but is still the tool of sin and death.

6.4.3. The Problem of the Flesh and Death (Rom 8:1–39). The third restatement of the outworking of the gospel for the individual once again begins with strong emphasis on the divine indicative. What was impossible for the Law in the face of the power of sin and death and the weakness of human flesh, God has accomplished in Christ. Those who have received the Spirit of Christ thus have a completely other “base of operations” than simply the flesh. It is from this base that they must live and act. They must live out the reality of the sonship which they already experience through the Spirit and share with God’s Son (Rom 8:1–17).

This does not mean that the flesh has been left behind or that death has been avoided. On the contrary, the reality of the human condition means continuing weakness and, not least, suffering, a condition which will continue until the completion of the redemption process in the resurrection of the body. The present tension is uncomfortable, but it is one shared with the whole of creation, likewise caught in the overlap of the ages between what has been and what will be, between Adam and Christ. And it is made bearable by the fact of the Spirit already present, already active in and through that weakness, the ground of a sure hope (Rom 8:18–30).

The section is rounded off with a shout of glowing assurance, all equivocation and qualification put aside. Whatever the continuing power of sin and death, the continuing weakness of the flesh, and the continuing hostility of this age, God’s triumph is sure. God’s purpose in Christ has already secured the victory. Neither death itself nor any other power can separate believers from the love of God in Christ (Rom 8:31–39).

6.5. What of Israel? (Rom 9:1–11:36 ). The issue of Jew and Gentile which dominated the first two main sections of the letter (Rom 1:18–5:21) had been [p. 847] largely lost to sight in the last section (chap. 7 apart) as Paul focused on the outworkings of the gospel in both global (Adam/Christ) and personal terms. But the language used had again and again been drawn from that of Israel’s covenant promises. And the final assurance of God’s faithfulness to his “elect” begged the whole question of God’s faithfulness to his earlier covenant partner, Israel. As the problem of the Law indicated, a division of history into before and after Christ ran the danger of dumping Israel as a whole into the Adam phase. What then of God’s promises to Israel? How could the faithfulness of God to believers be asserted while his faithfulness to Israel was being thus discounted? This is the issue which Paul now addresses in one of the most tensely argued passages in all his writing.

6.5.1. Introduction (Rom 9:1–5). Paul begins by reasserting his personal concern for his own people and reminding his readers of Israel’s covenant privileges in which they were now participants—that is, in Israel’s covenant privileges.

6.5.2. The Call of God (Rom 9:6–29). He then proceeds to state his primary thesis: God’s word (to Israel) has not failed. The failure has been (by implication on Israel’s part) to recognize the character of Israel’s election and calling—that is, what constituted Israel as Israel. That election was a wholly gracious act of God without respect for physical descent or for the works which had come to be seen as marking out covenant identity.

The negative side of this view of election is that there is a “non-Israel”—those whose function is to highlight the gracious character of Israel’s election. This harsh, almost predestinarian view of history, is Paul’s attempt to explain what he sees to be the simple fact of a chosen people within a hostile world, that the overall picture has many darker hues. The main point of the discussion, as becomes steadily more apparent, however, is not to dictate a doctrine of predestination (see Election and Predestination) but to undermine Israel’s own doctrine of predestination. It is Jewish confidence that Gentiles are by definition “non-Israel” which he seeks to challenge. By citing Israel’s own Scriptures, as now also being fulfilled through his own mission, Paul is able to argue that whoever non-Israel might be, the chosen people include both Jews and Gentiles.

6.5.3. Israel’s Failure (Rom 9:30–10:21). Israel’s failure, then, has been to understand its calling and privileges in a too narrow and restrictive way—a law understood in terms of works rather than faith, a righteousness understood as exclusively theirs from which Gentiles were excluded. The coming of Christ has put an end to such misunderstanding. He is the prophesied “stone of stumbling” (see Stumbling Block) in whom all may believe. The faith which is the only possible response to the completely gracious character of God’s calling cannot be restricted within the confines of an exclusively Jewish Law. It now finds expression more fully in the word of preaching which is truly universal in scope, the call for faith in Jesus as Lord. This is the word which is now being preached, not least by Paul himself, and which is being accepted by Gentiles. Israel, failing to recognize that this universal outreach expresses the same gracious character of its own calling, is refusing to receive this gospel, and thus is fulfilling its own Scriptures.

6.5.4. The Mystery of God’s Faithfulness (Rom 11:1–32). The fact is that in the already/not-yet overlap period, Israel itself is as much split as the believer or the Law (Rom 7:7–25). There are some within Israel who have recognized the gracious character of Israel’s election and responded in terms of that grace, like the Gentile believers. But the bulk have failed to recognize that standing with God is a matter of grace from start to finish. Ironically, unbelieving Israel thus finds itself in the role of non-Israel, the negative role filled by Esau and Pharaoh in Romans 9:13 and 17.

And thus begins to become clear the mystery of the divine purpose of mercy and judgment. As it was necessary for Pharaoh to play his negative role in order for the graciousness of God’s redemption of Israel to be made clear, so it has been necessary for the bulk of Israel to refuse the gospel in order that the gracious character of the gospel for Gentiles as well as Jews might be made plain. Paul’s hope is that the sight of so many Gentiles entering into Israel’s covenant blessings will spur Israel to jealousy; that is why he pursues his own mission to the Gentiles with such dedication. If Israel’s failure has brought such blessing to Gentiles, what will be the blessing for the whole world when Israel as a whole accepts its own heritage in Christ (Rom 11:11–16)!

This in turn indicates that an equivalent warning to the Gentile believers is called for. The degree to which the blessings of Israel have passed to Gentiles gives no more cause for pride and presumption to the latter than Israel’s original election did to Jews. God has not discarded Israel and started afresh. Gentiles are incorporated into Israel and remain part of Israel only so long as they maintain the fundamental grace- faith character of the relationship (Rom 11:17–24; see Olive Tree).

The fact of the divine faithfulness is that God’s original calling of Israel remains constant, and constant in terms of grace and faith. The mystery of the divine [p. 848] faithfulness is that the pre-Christian Jew-and-not-Gentile expression of election and the current Gentile-and-not-Jew response to the gospel are both phases in the larger divine purpose. God’s purpose is that all Israel be saved. The perplexing disobedience shown in this phase of God’s purpose is but the preliminary, and in some sense the means to realizing the ultimate purpose of showing mercy to all.

6.5.5. A Concluding Hymn of Adoration (Rom 11:33–36). Fittingly, Paul rounds off this exposition of high theological ideal and hope with a hymn of praise to the one creator God, that is, of both Jew and Gentile.

6.6. The Practical Outworking of the Gospel (Rom 12:1–15:13 ). Having thus redefined the Israel of God it becomes necessary to spell out how this Israel should live. Israel defined simply in terms of the Jewish people knew at once the answer: the Law provided the guidelines for life lived within the covenant. But Paul’s earlier critique and redefinition of the role of the Law (Rom 2:1–3:31; 7:1–25) must have left his auditors wondering where to find the guidelines for Christian living.

6.6.1. The Basis for Responsible Living (Rom 12:1–2). Paul therefore begins by calling for a commitment in daily living which is the Christian’s equivalent to the discipline and order previously provided by the Jerusalem cult. Such committed openness to the Spirit of God allows the possibility of immediacy of knowledge of the divine will which the Scriptures themselves had always held out as the ideal.

6.6.2. The Community of Faith (Rom 12:3–8). In the new order the social equivalent of corporate Israel (Judaism) is the body of Christ (see Body of Christ). Life within ethnic Israel had involved the usual representative roles and functions of any national body. The body of Christ has its equivalent roles and functions, as determined and enabled by the Spirit. No member should think that he or she lacks a role or that there are only a few set roles to which all must aspire.

6.6.3. Love As the Norm for Social Relationships (Rom 12:9–21). As for the Christians’ mutual relationships and relationships with the wider world, the norm is given by love. Paul illustrates what this will mean in practice. Then, turning to the wider relationships with outsiders, he draws on the accumulated wisdom of Diaspora Judaism on how to live within strange and hostile societies. Here peaceable good-neighborliness must be the rule.

6.6.4. Live As Good Citizens (Rom 13:1–7). In particular, and particularly living as they do within the imperial capital, the Roman Christians should endeavor to be as fully law-abiding as possible—including the payment of taxes levied on them (see Civil Authority).

6.6.5. Love Your Neighbor (Rom 13:8–10). The whole exhortation is summed up in the love command. It will be no accident either that this was also recognized within the rest of Judaism as a summary of the Law, or that the Gospels recall Jesus as giving it similar prominence (Mk 12:31 etc). Here, in other words, Paul indicates his desire to show that the Law still provides guidelines for living and how it does so—that is, by hearing it in the light of Christ’s own teaching and ministry.

6.6.6. The Imminence of the End as Spur (Rom 13:11–14). Ever in the background of Paul’s thought was the confidence that the already/not-yet overlap period would not be long drawn out, in terms either of personal salvation (Rom 7:24; 8:23) or of Israel’s salvation (Rom 11:13–15). The same perspective should help provide a spur to live out of the new reality and motivation of being “in Christ” and not in terms of the self-indulgent, decaying flesh.

6.6.7. The Problem of Food Laws and Holy Days (Rom 14:1–15:6). The whole issue expounded in principle and practice in the preceding chapters comes to particular focus in an issue which was bound to create tensions in any mixed community of Jews and Gentiles. Wherever there were Jews who continued to identify themselves with the heritage of the Maccabees and the Judaism of the succeeding decades, observance of the food laws was bound to be a matter of personal and national integrity (cf., e.g., 1 Macc 2:62–63). The same would apply to Gentile proselytes or God-fearers who had found themselves religiously by identifying with the Judaism of the synagogue. Such Christians would find it hard to dispense with the Jewish food laws. Other Jews, like Paul, would have come to regard such works of the Law as too restrictive of the grace of God and would have abandoned them in greater or lesser degree. Many Gentiles converted under such preaching would see no reason to subscribe to these laws. In mixed communities, where table fellowship was a fundamental expression of community, the tensions set up by these differences would be considerable. Presumably Paul knew of such tensions from his personal contacts in Rome, particularly within churches in Rome now mainly Gentile in character to which Christian Jews were returning after the period of expulsion under Claudius. The issue, it should be noted, was a serious one, since bound up with it was the whole question of the identity of the new movement—as a sect within Judaism, or what? Hence the prominence given to it by Paul.

Paul in effect addresses the two main groupings in [p. 849] turn. To the “weak,” that is the more scrupulous, Law-abiding (mainly) Christian Jews who were defined as “weak” by the others who saw strength in their liberty from such scruples, Paul gives a simple warning: Do not make your own conscience the measure for others; recognize that God may be heard speaking differently to different people on such matters; you cannot condemn those whom Christ accepts (Rom 14:3–12; see Strong and Weak).

To the self-styled “strong,” whose views Paul shares, Paul’s advice is that they should hold strongly to conclusions reached in faith, but that they should be willing to limit their liberty (see Freedom) of practice if there was a real danger that their freer practice would cause genuine distress and harm to the faith of other members (Rom 14:13–23). The model for such behavior is Christ himself (Rom 15:1–6)—a confirmation that the teaching and example of Jesus provided the basic hermeneutic for this earliest Christian reinterpretation of the Law.

6.6.8. Concluding Summary (Rom 15:7–13). Paul neatly integrates this plea to mutual acceptance and tolerance into the overarching theme of the whole letter. Christ was a Jew, both to confirm God’s faithfulness to the Jews, and to open the door of grace and faith to the Gentiles, in fulfillment of God’s overall purpose as indicated in Scripture.

6.7. Conclusion (Rom 15:14–16:27 ). Paul rounds off his letter by reverting to the themes of the introduction. He describes in more detail his mission, indicating its continuity with the cultic ministry of the Jerusalem Temple and the successful conclusion of its eastern phase. Then he turns again to his plans for the future, indicating more clearly his reasons for wanting to visit his readers in Rome and the reasons for his delay. He ends by indicating his alarm at the possible outcome of his visit to deliver the collection in Jerusalem and asking for their prayers (Rom 15:14–33; see Collection for the Saints).

The final section is a note of commendation for Phoebe, deacon and patron of the church in Cenchreae, and a lengthy list of greetings to those he knows personally or by name in the Roman churches, among whom several women leaders are prominent. A final stereotyped warning about dangers of dissension and a few greetings from others brings this most important of Paul’s letters to a close (Rom 16:1–23).

See also CENTER OF PAUL’S THEOLOGY; ISRAEL; JUSTIFICATION; LAW; OLIVE TREE; PAUL AND HIS INTERPRETERS; PAUL IN ACTS AND LETTERS; RESTORATION OF ISRAEL; RIGHTEOUSNESS, RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD; ROME AND ROMAN CHRISTIANITY; WORKS OF THE LAW.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. Commentaries: C. K. Barrett, Romans (BNTC; 2d ed.; London: Black, 1991); C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975, 1979); J. D. G. Dunn, Romans (2 vols.; WBC 38; Dallas: Word, 1988); E. Käsemann, Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980); O. Kuss, Römerbrief (3 vols.; Regensburg: Pustet, 1957, 1959, 1978); O. Michel, An die Römer (KEK; 14th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978); D. Moo, Romans 1–8 (WEC; Chicago: Moody, 1991); H. Schlier, Römerbrief (HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder, 1977); U. Wilckens, An die Römer (3 vols.; EKK; Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1978, 1980, 1982); D. Zeller, An die Römer (RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 1985); J. Ziesler, Romans (TPINTC; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1989). Studies: W. S. Campbell, Paul’s Gospel in an Intercultural Context: Jew and Gentile in the Letter to the Romans (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1991); K. P. Donfried, ed., The Romans Debate. Revised and Expanded Edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991); J. D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1991); N. Elliott, The Rhetoric of Romans. Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism (JSNTSupp 45; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990); R. D. Kaylor, Paul’s Covenant Community: Jew and Gentile in Romans (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988); P. Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten (WUNT 2.18; 2d ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989); B. W. Longenecker, Eschatology and the Covenant. A Comparison of 4 Ezra and Romans 1–11 (JSNTSupp 57; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991); H. Räisänen, “Paul, God and Israel: Romans 9–11 in Recent Research,” in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism, ed. J. Neusner et al. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 178–206; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977); idem, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); S. K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (SBLDS 57; Chico: Scholars, 1981); F. B. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach (SNTSMS 56; Cambridge: University Press, 1986); A. J. M. Wedderburn, The Reasons for Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988); N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991).