Module Seventeen
Letter to the Romans
17.1. Introduction
The Letter to the Romans is the most influential New Testament writing in the history of Christianity. In addition to profoundly affecting Christian conceptions of God, Christ, salvation, Christian identity and the experience of divine grace, the letter has played a substantial role in shaping the trajectories of Christian thought. Two examples stand out:
First, Romans was instrumental in the conversion of Saint Augustine (354–430), whose theological ideas, such as the concept of original sin, affected not only the Middle Ages, but had a lasting impact on Western Christianity.
Second, and most profound, is the influence of Romans on the Protestant Reformation during the sixteenth century. Theologians like Martin Luther (1483–1546) and John Calvin (1509–1564) relied heavily on Romans for substantiating a new way of understanding Christianity which created a division between the Roman Catholic Church and the emerging Protestant churches. Both of these trajectories still play a dominant role in our understanding of Christian theology.
Romans is one of the most complex writings in the New Testament. While most of the letter (chap. 1–11) consists of a single sustained argument, it is filled with ambiguities, metaphor, and other rhetorical features that require on the one hand familiarity with the Jewish scriptures and traditions, and on the other an acquaintance with Roman political and cultural imagery. Despite its complexity, the letter aims at practicality. Unlike many of the other Pauline letters which tend to address specific issues, Romans has a reflective character that places the issues at hand within a historical-theological framework of God’s relationship with Israel. Its reflective character represents the culmination of Paul’s thinking about the significance of his Gentile mission in relation to the death and resurrection of Christ. Though it is sometimes called Paul’s last will and testament, and occasionally read as a compilation of Paul’s theology, these are inaccurate conceptions since several important theological themes and terms are omitted, such as the Eucharist (or Lord’s Supper), the term “church”, and the Parousia (or Christ’s second coming).
The importance of Rome in the ancient world also cannot be overstated. During the first-century CE, it was the epicentre of an empire that spanned the Mediterranean basin. With over a million inhabitants, the residents of the city consumed 60% of the Empire’s resources, importing over two-hundred thousand tons of grain annually. Its political importance and imposing size attracted migration from across the Empire which contributed to one of the most religiously and culturally diverse cities in antiquity.
Info Box 17.1: The City of the Sons of Gods
Politically, the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Empire can be attributed to the victory of Gaius Octavian (63 BCE–75 CE) over the forces of Mark Antony in the battle of Actium in 31 BCE. Octavian ceremonially handed power back to the Senate which, in turn, bestowed on him the title Augustus (meaning “venerable” “majestic”). As the new ruler of the Empire, Augustus called himself Princeps Senatus (“First Citizen” or “head of the Senate”) which preserved the socially recognized patron-client system and acknowledged his role as Divi filius (“son of a god”) and “Caesar” since he was the adopted son of the deified Julius Caesar. He also accepted the honorific titles of Imperator to reflect his leadership over the military, Pontifex Maximus (“high priest of the college of Pontifs”) which reflected his religious oversight, and the less used Pater Patriae (“Father of the Fatherland”) which was originally given to Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome. Some of these titles may be recognizable to students of Christian history since they were also used of Jesus and the Popes.
The residence of the city would have been surrounded by images of Emperor Augustus and his successors celebrating the power, prosperity and peace of Rome. The Empire changed forever in the wake of Augustus. He and his successors commissioned numerous building projects and infrastructure improvements, turning the city of brick into a city of marble. The architecture, which was largely influenced by the Greeks, was adopted centuries later when the Empire was Christianized.
When Paul wrote Romans, the Empire was ruled by Emperor Nero (54–68 CE). At the beginning of his reign, Nero was guided by his mother Agrippina and his teacher Seneca. During these years, Nero promised to re-establish the power of the Senate and restore the declining social values by ushering in a new golden age. The latter years of his reign proved different. He governed more independently which resulted in a legacy marked by tyranny, extravagance and corruption. One of those atrocities was the public burning of Christians whom he used as scapegoats for “the Great fire of Rome”—a fire that was attributed to Nero by his peers. Given Nero’s reputation, scholars have wrestled with Paul’s instructions in Rom 13:1–7 to obey the governing authorities.
17.2 Authorship and Place of Writing
There are no serious challenges to Paul’s sole authorship of Romans. In his opening greeting, Paul does not list any other co-authors, which is unique among Paul’s letters. Towards the end of the letter, however, we read, “I Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord” (16:22). This stark testimony might suggest to modern readers that Tertius, which in Latin means “third,” was the real author, but this is not the case. Scholars are agreed that Tertius is Paul’s amanuensis. As such, it would not have been unusual for him to send his greeting using the first-person pronoun “I.”
The letter contains several features that help us to identify who Paul was. First, he was a Jew. This might seem to be an obvious observation. However, since Christian readers throughout history have not always considered his ethnic identity, they have read Paul incorrectly as being anti-Jewish, which in some cases has led to anti-Semitism. Paul indicates his self-identification in Rom 11:1 by calling himself “an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.” We know from Phil 3:5 that Paul was trained as a Pharisee. His training probably took place in Jerusalem under a seasoned teacher, which would explain Paul’s advanced interpretive skills and fluency with Jewish beliefs, rituals and practices throughout Romans. Paul’s skill and breadth of knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures is extensive and often used to bolster his argumentation through the use of inference, and not what we would today understand as evidence.
Second, Romans reaffirms that Paul received Hellenistic training, which can be seen in the argumentative style of the letter. Paul seems to have been influenced by Stoic writers and more broadly the use of diatribe, which was a rhetorical technique common within Hellenistic training. If Paul was born in Tarsus, as Acts 23:3 attests, then his native language may have been Greek, which would have yielded familiarity with various philosophic schools and their rhetorical techniques.
Third, Romans may contribute to our picture of Paul’s conversion. Since many scholars place more historical weight on the autobiographical references to his conversion (esp. Gal 1:15–17 and 1 Cor 9:16–17; 15:8), rather than on the accounts in Acts (See Module 15), Romans is seen as providing fuller information about the effects of that conversion, which supports that Paul underwent an identity transformation. In Romans, Paul does not call his experience a “conversion,” but rather a “calling” that compelled him to take his gospel message to the Gentiles. His self-proclamation as the “apostle to the Gentiles” (Rom 1:13–15; 11:13) suggests that we should view Paul primarily as a missionary evangelist, even though he was a skilled theological rhetorician. Along with Paul’s self-designation, the broader context of the letter, bracketed by 1:1–16 and 15:14–16:27, strongly indicates that Paul’s missionary work among the Gentiles provides an important context for understanding the letter’s theological profundity.
And fourth, Paul’s new identity as a Jesus-follower created a tension between his Jewish heritage and his new mission to the Gentiles, which is an important consideration for interpreting Romans. Paul was not abandoning his Jewish heritage, or consciously starting a new religion. At the same time, Paul was not just re-configuring long-standing Jewish traditions. Paul was moving in a new direction and admitted as much. For Paul, Christ’s resurrection was the culmination and re-conceptualization of Jewish tradition and the scriptures. This radical re-thinking must have produced deep emotions since it led to fierce opposition from both his Jewish peers, who would have rejected a crucified Messiah, and from his fellow Jewish Jesus-followers who were much more rooted in the “works of the Law,” such as circumcision. Consequently, Paul’s authoritative role in the congregation of Antioch and Jerusalem, which tended to retain Jewish distinctives, was weakened. Even though Paul became more independent, he still remained connected to the mother church in Jerusalem, which is seen in his desire to raise money for it during his missionary travels (Rom 15:25).
The letter was probably written from Corinth at the end of Paul’s mission around the Aegean Sea. This common assessment is based on the linkage of Rom 15:25, where Paul writes that he is on his way to Jerusalem, and Acts 20:3, which states that Paul spent a considerable amount of time in Greece before going to Jerusalem. Corinth is usually singled out since it was a successful base for his missionary work. In addition, the mention of Phoebe—who was a deaconess in the church at Cenchreae (the eastern seaport of Corinth)—at the beginning of the greetings list in chapter 16 may further support this location.
17.3 Audience, Date, and Purpose
Most Pauline scholars today do not subscribe to the ancient tradition that the apostles Paul and Peter were the founders of the church in Rome during the early 40s CE. While Peter is still considered to have been the first bishop of the church in Rome, and still designated as the first Pope in the Roman Catholic tradition, there is no clear evidence from the letter to the Romans that either apostle was in Rome before it was written (Rom 15:22–23). In addition, Peter is nowhere mentioned among the many names included in the letter. Subsequent to Romans, the earliest writings from Roman Christians, 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas, likewise make no mention of Peter or Paul being the founders. The common hypothesis today is that the Christian message was brought to Roman synagogues by Jewish Jesus-followers in the early 40s CE, which predates Paul’s interactions there.
The best estimate for the composition of Romans is the mid 50s CE when, during the early reign of Nero, the political climate became more stable. This aligns with Paul’s view that the Roman regime should be obeyed (Rom 13:1–7). It also allows for established communities of Jesus-followers, which is implied in Rom 15:23.
The beginning of Nero’s reign marked the end of a tumultuous time in Rome under his predecessor Claudius, who created a distressed situation which Romans appears to address. A glimpse into this context is provided by the Roman historian, Suetonius, who writes that the emperor Claudius, in the year 49 CE, “expelled Jews from Rome because of their constant disturbances and riots propelled by ‘Chrestus’” (Life of Claudius, 25.4). The term “Chrestus” is usually understood as a misspelling or a phonetic rendition of the Latin “Christus.” This would mean that the inner-Jewish dispute was about the identification of the Christ (Messiah).
If this is the case, then Jewish Jesus-followers were probably engaged in fierce disputes with their Jewish counterparts who did not believe that Jesus was the Christ. The disputes probably began in the synagogue-like gatherings and spilled over into the public arena, which would have justified an official edict to expel all Jews from Rome. For the Roman authorities, it would not have mattered if a Jew was a Jesus-follower or not. What mattered was a person’s Jewish identity. Suetonius’ statement is supported by Acts 18:1–3 which recounts Paul’s residing, during his travels from Corinth (ca. 53 CE), with Priscilla and Aquila, a Jewish couple from “Italy” who had to leave “because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome.”
When Claudius died in 54 CE, the edict was rescinded and the Jews were allowed to return back to Rome. The Jewish Jesus-followers would have returned to a congregation that was now controlled by Gentile Jesus-followers, which is the dominant, though not exclusive, demographic that Paul assumes in his letter (e.g. 1:5–6, 13; 11:13–32; 15:7–12; 16:1–27). In his frequent addresses to the Gentiles, he seems to curb their sense of arrogance and privilege by pointing out that Israel has always figured prominently in God’s plan to save the world. Conversely, in his less frequent addresses to the Jews, he addresses their boastfulness by reminding them that Israel’s election was not an end in itself but was aimed at including the Gentiles. Since much of the letter is aimed at unifying both ethnic groups, considerable tension must have arisen when the Jewish Jesus-followers returned back to the city.
Paul’s frequent use of the Septuagint indicates that his Gentile audience may have been familiar with the Jewish scriptures. If that was the case, then they were likely closely associated with the Jewish congregations in Rome for quite some time before they became followers of Jesus. Some could have even been Jewish proselytes and/or God-fearers.
Additional information about the audience is found in Romans 16, which largely consists of a series of greetings to Paul’s co-workers. Paul’s reputation certainly preceded him. Of the 24 people personally greeted by Paul, 14 of them have names that were commonly known as “slave names,” which implies that Paul had many connections with this segment of the population. The names in chapter 16 reveal two more features about his audience. First, many on the list are representatives of house congregations, which suggests that there were multiple groups of Jesus-followers instead of one large congregation. Since he had not previously visited Rome, he probably did not know most of the Jesus-followers, which may explain why he addressed the letter “To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints” (1:7) instead of the customary “to the church in…” (e.g. 1 Cor 1:2; Phil 4:15). Second, the congregations of Jesus-followers do not appear to be unified as a single coherent group that knew each other well. It is best to picture these fledgling Christian groups as being fractured, even within congregations that were presumably made up of the same ethnic demographic.
Info Box 17.2: The Mysterious Omissions
Among the many variants in the Romans manuscript tradition, two are frequently mentioned. The first is the omission of “in Rome” at the beginning of the letter in 1:7 and 1:15. The second variant is the omission of most of chapter 16, which contains Paul’s greetings. Although the strongest manuscript tradition supports the inclusion of chapter 16, the omission in a few manuscripts has raised questions about where Romans originally ended. For example, in a manuscript called p46 (ca. 200 CE), the concluding doxology in 16:25–27 is appended to the end of chapter 15, which is then followed by the greetings in 16:1–23. Some scholars argue that the greeting section in 16:1–23 must have circulated separately at some point and was later added. Other manuscripts append 16:25–27 at the end of chapter 14. The flexible uses of 16:25–27 led some scribes to a condensed version of the conclusion, which can be found in the King James Version as 16:24 (“the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen”). It is a repetition of 16:20. Most English translations no longer include 16:24 because it is not well supported in the manuscript evidence. Consequently, v. 24 is simply missing. How might we explain these omissions? Scholars hypothesize that the core message of Romans was received by later Christians as a universal treatise instead of as a response to a specific group of Christians. As a result, specific indicators to a place and individuals in the letter were removed. The vast majority of manuscripts, however, do not contain these omissions.
17.4 Argument and Style
Argumentation
One of the most important considerations for students of Romans is to understand its primary argument. Not grasping the larger picture can easily lead to misunderstanding, confusion, and inevitable frustration, given the letter’s string of complex ideas that can easily appear incoherent. The flow of the larger units that make up the main argument—namely chapters 1–4, 5–8, and 9–11—can easily be disrupted and seem disjointed if a cohesive framework is ignored. It is clearly the longest argument in the New Testament. Unlike many of Paul’s other letters, the theology is integrated within the argumentation.
The argument of the letter, which aims primarily to resolve the ethnic divide among the Jesus-followers, is very lengthy, consisting of the first eleven chapters. The need to resolve the conflict must have weighed heavily on Paul’s mind for obvious reasons. In Paul’s thinking, since unity was rooted in the oneness of God and his Messiah, a division between the Jewish Jesus-followers and Gentile Jesus-followers would have resulted not only in a fragmented community in the short term, but would have led to its potential demise in the long term. For Paul, their reconciliation was central to his theology because it stemmed from his conception of God’s reconciliation of the world through Christ. So, how does Paul show that both Jewish and Gentile Jesus-followers should be reconciled to each other?
The thesis of Paul’s argument, which is often called his programmatic statement (and/or his gospel message), is presented in Rom 1:16–17, which reads, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, ‘The one who is righteous will live by faith.’” Later, Paul goes on to show that God’s righteousness is revealed in the fulfilment of his longstanding promise to Abraham that all nations will be unified on the basis of a common faith, which is enabled through the faithfulness of Jesus.
Building on this thesis, Paul begins by showing that neither ethnic group should consider itself as inherently righteous and should cease with its groundless arrogance. Both the Jews, who had access to the Torah, and the Gentiles, who had the “law written on their hearts” (Rom 2:15), have strayed from their obligations, are guilty of disobedience to God, and deserve his wrath. The Jews are singled out by Paul because they were given every opportunity to be God’s instrument for reconciling the nations and thereby fulfilling the promise to Abraham. To them, Paul says, the gospel came first. Israel was elected by God and given his Torah, but according Paul, its privilege was used for self-aggrandizement and revealed its disobedience all the more, which only resulted in boasting. The main response to the Gentile counterparts is that they too have no basis for arrogance since their salvation, or their “grafting onto the olive tree” (Rom 11:17–24), as Paul puts it, is dependent on Christ who is the reconstitution of Israel. They need to acknowledge their debt to Israel as the people group through whom God provided his Christ
Despite the failure of Israel, Paul argues that God was nevertheless faithful to his initial promise by providing his Messiah (Christ) who represented and reconstituted Israel. As God’s Christ, Jesus was faithful to the point of death and God vindicated him by raising him from the dead and sitting him at his right hand, designating him Son of God. Jesus did what national Israel was supposed to do, but he did it in a different way. His faithfulness, nevertheless, became the means through which salvation was possible. Everyone who places their faith in the faithfulness of Christ becomes united with him, sharing in his victory over the powers of sin and death and participating in a new identity, which Paul calls being “in Christ,” which will lead to their own resurrection. Since the centrality of Christ’s faithfulness and vindication is what unites the Jewish and Gentile Jesus-followers, their new identity demands that they put their differences aside and live as a unified people in preparation for the imminent return of Christ.
While Paul’s attempt to curb the ethnic tensions explains the main reason for the composition of Romans, especially the first eleven chapters, there may be two additional factors that were also in play. First, Paul may be attempting to gain financial support and sponsorship from the various Roman congregations so that he could be “sent on” from Rome to Spain (Rom 15:23–24). Paul appears to be interested in more than just meeting with the Roman Jesus-followers. He seems interested in establishing a base before he undertakes his westward mission. Since his audience does not know him personally, his lengthy and lofty letter may have served as a personal introduction intent on fostering deep respect and loyal support.
Second, when Paul writes Romans, he is on his way to Judea from Corinth with a collection that he has raised for the impoverished Jewish Jesus-followers in Jerusalem. Since he is unsure how the financial relief from the Gentile congregations will be received, some scholars have suggested that Romans is a practice-run at justifying the union of all Jesus-followers (Rom 15:30–31). The acceptance of a financial offering from the Gentiles would not have been as simple as it might seem. Paul was expecting a dilemma. If the Jerusalem congregation accepted it, they would have had to acquiesce to Paul’s acceptance of the Gentiles into the “church” without demanding their circumcision, which would have been a violation of their perception of inclusion. If the Jewish congregation rejected the collection, it would have demonstrated both a spiritual fragmentation of the new people of God and a rejection of Paul’s apostolic authority (Rom 15:27).
Writing Style
Romans is best described as a rhetorical plea that takes the form of a letter, which suggests that Paul is on the defensive. One of the main factors that seems to plague Paul, especially if he is seeking financial support for his future westward mission to Spain, is an anti-Torah reputation that peoceded him. While Paul clearly considers himself to be a Jew, his calling to Gentile mission would have required him to demonstrate his ethnic fidelity to the Jewish Jesus-followers. Paul’s style in persuading the Jewish Jesus-followers certainly does not exhaust the rhetorical sophistication in Romans, but it does give us a tangible example of Paul’s literary skill. In particular, we can point to three features in Paul’s style that was aimed at convincing the Jewish audience that he should be trusted.
First, Paul demonstrates his case by frequently appealing to the Jewish scriptures (particularly the Septuagint). With the possible exception of Hebrews and Revelation, Romans is saturated with scriptural concepts and content more than any other writing in the New Testament. The numerous biblical allusions and citations are intended to demonstrate that his gospel is confirmed by a common religious authority. In some places, the biblical reference are condensed and interconnected, such as in Rom 3:10–18, where Paul cites Psalms 14:1–3; 53:1–2; 5:9; 140:3; 10:7; Isa 59:7–8; and finally Psalm 36:1. As was customary among his peers, Paul’s references to scripture were meant to provide meaning, comparison, and legitimacy, not a reconstruction of what those texts meant in their original contexts.
Second, Paul uses a creative interpretation technique called midrash (from the Hebrew “to search”), which became increasingly widespread in Judaism after 70 CE in Judaism. Midrashic interpretation was commonly associated with searches in scripture that aimed to discover how faithful Jews should live and understand the will of God in ever-changing circumstances. The varied interpretations were based on the assumption that scripture, as God’s revelation, is always relevant and meaningful, and always provides answers to new questions. The interpretive results were highly varied and dialectical. Midrashic interpretations included allegory, paraphrases, omissions, additions, and expansions. Literal interpretation, as we might understand it today, was neither common nor the aim. Instead, the aim was the discovery of meanings that were thought to already be contained in scripture.
Info Box 17.3: Paul’s interpretation of Abraham
An example of Paul’s creativity can be seen in his legitimizing use of Abraham. In response to the common Jewish view that Abraham entered into a covenant relationship with God through the act of circumcision (Gen 17:10), Paul argues in Rom 4:9–12 that Abraham first entered into a covenant relationship with God through obedience and faith (Gen 15:6). While Paul does not discredit circumcision as a mark of Jewish identity, he argues that God first made Abraham righteous and the founder of the family of God on the basis of his faith, while he was still a Gentile. Circumcision, as a covenant marker, came after. This interpretive maneuver adjusts the foundational role of Abraham as the founder of a covenant people that consists of both Jews and Gentiles.
Third, Paul also utilizes his Hellenistic rhetorical training. He applies themes that are common within Hellenistic and Roman philosophy, such as his appeal to “natural law” in Rom 1:26 and to conscience in Rom 2:15. Relying on these established concepts, he frequently uses a Cynic-Stoic technique called diatribe which gives the letter a lively character that echoes Paul’s conversations with people from various segments of society. Diatribe sets up a dialogue with an imaginary conversation partner called an “interlocutor.” Consequently, it is not always clear whether Paul targets a specific person(s) in Rome or whether he is creating an anticipated hearer(s)/reader(s). This technique is performed by making a claim that is accompanied by anticipated objections in the form of rhetorical questions. For instance, in 3:1, Paul rhetorically asks, “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. For in the first place the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.” And in 6:1–2, he inquires, “What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it?”
His flexible use of diatribe results in an argument that unfolds in stages, but is not always sequential. For example, the questions posed in 3:1–9 appear to be answered in different sections of the letter. More specifically, the questions about Israel’s disobedience in 3:3 appear to be connected with chapters 9–11, the issue of moral relativism in 3:8 is taken up in chapter 6, and the role of the law introduced in 3:31 is discussed in 7:7–25.
Novice readers of Romans should also be aware of certain words and phrases that can link units of thought. The main ones include “but now” (e.g. 7:17), therefore” (e.g. 1:25; 8:12) “likewise” (e.g. 7:4) “for this reason” (e.g. 8:7), “what then?” (e.g. 6:15; 7:7), and the occasional use of “Amen” (e.g. 9:5, 11:36) which can signal changes or pauses for anticipated audible responses when the letter was read to an audience. While the identification of linking language should be part of every interpretive task, it is especially important for tracking the lengthy flow of Romans.
Info Box 17.4: The Importance of Women in Paul’s Ministry
Of the twenty-four personal names that Paul mentions in his final greeting at the end of the letter (Romans 16), ten are women (vv. 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 15). Three of these are especially noteworthy. The first is Phoebe who was not only the bearer of the letter to the Roman congregations, but is described as a benefactor and a deacon in her home congregation of Cenchreae (Rom 16:1–2). The second is Prisca (or Priscilla, see Acts 18:2) who is essential to Paul’s ministry since she, along with her husband, “risked her neck” for Paul and earned his gratitude. (Rom 16:3–4). And third is Junia who is described as being “prominent among the Apostles” (Rom 16:7). The Greek name Junia could be read as either a male or a female name. In the nineteenth century, many scholars assumed that since Junia was an apostle, this person must have been a man. As a result, it was often translated in the masculine form as Junias. However, most modern scholars have argued for the retention of the feminine form Junia, because the name never occurs in ancient sources in masculine form.
17.5 Themes
Theological themes abound more in Romans than any other writing in the New Testament. The ones selected here are intended simply to be an entry into the rich tapestry that Paul weaves. They can be dissected into more refined themes such as the relationship between Adam and Christ, the moral implications of being “in Christ,” the liberation from the Mosaic Law, and the implication of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life. All the themes are interrelated since they find their centrality in God’s revealed righteousness through the sending of his Messiah. For Paul, this is the culmination of God’s grace given to humanity throughout history.
Christ’s Death and Resurrection
The decisive event that shapes Paul’s theological thinking is the death and resurrection of Christ. This combined event is commemorated in the ritual of baptism, where initiates identify with Christ’s death and resurrection. Paul views the identification with Christ’s death, which conveys an end to the dominance of sin and death in the life of the believer, as a real change in the human condition. Likewise, identification with Christ’s resurrection, which effects a new way of life in anticipation of the future resurrection, affects a change in human identity. The change does not merely alter perspective about life, but life itself (Rom 6:3–11). For Paul, the believer is transformed from being “in Adam” to being “in Christ,” which is a common phrase that he uses to designate Jesus-followers who are now united across ethnic lines in anticipation of Christ’s return and the fulfillment of the union with him in resurrection. Paul’s main line of argument for a new human identity is based on an inference stemming from the death and resurrection of Jesus. Since he only conveys the new state of affairs of the believer, and does not explain how the believer’s identity is changed, scholars have commonly proposed one of two models that aim to reconstruct the assumed process in Paul’s thought.
The first model, often called “the judicial model,” views Paul’s conception of the human predicament in legal terms whereby God is the lawmaker and judge of the world (i.e. Jews and Gentiles). Since everyone is guilty of having violated God’s laws, and has thus sinned (Rom 3:23), the just sentence is death (Rom 6:23). Sin, in this view, is the act of disobedience to God. While God spares humanity, he cannot spare the guilt which still deserves punishment. In his graciousness, God provides a solution by providing the perfect atoning representative in the crucifixion of Jesus who is punished in humanity’s place. When Jesus pays the “wages of sin” by being the perfect sacrifice, God’s wrath is abated and justice prevails. Since Jesus was obedient to the point of death, and not guilty of sin, God vindicated him by raising him from the dead (Rom 3:23–24; 4:24–25). The outcome for those who follow Christ and trust that he died for them is “justification,” which means that they are considered righteous and not guilty before God.
The second model, often called “the participation model,” likewise views sin as a human problem that is resolved by Christ’s death and resurrection, but it views sin differently. The word sin is not something that a person does, as a transgression against God’s law. Instead, the singular use of sin, as distinguished from the plural use of sins as transgressions, refers to an entity that has dominion over humanity. More specifically, sin, together with death, is described as ruling over people (Rom 5:13, 5:21; 6:12). As a power, people can be enslaved to it, die to it, and even be freed from it (Rom 6:6, 11, 17, and 18). In this sense, sin is a cosmic power or evil force, personified as the enemy of God that tries to win people to its side. The human problem, then, is not that people transgress God’s law, but that they are enslaved and in need of freedom. The liberation which Christ brings, empowers his followers to live a life that is no longer under the reign of sin and death.
Reconstructing Paul’s thought is challenging since he tends to assume a judicial model in chapters 1–4 and the participatory model in chapters 6–8. The two models appear to overlap, resulting in a combined framework whereby one model expands on the other. For example, in Rom 3:23, everyone has sinned because everyone has disobeyed God’s laws. This is the judicial model. But why has everyone sinned? Why do people sin even though they wish to do otherwise? Because, as Romans 3:9 says, everyone is enslaved to the power of sin. Why is everyone enslaved to sin? Because Adam disobeyed God (judicial model) and through that disobedience, the power of sin came into the world (Romans 5:12; participatory model). How the rest of humanity has inherited Adam’s sin is not specifically explained, but this question became important in the formulation of the doctrine of Original Sin in Western Christianity.
Info Box 17.5: What Did Humanity Inherit from Adam?
The answer to this significant theological question depends on how the last four words of Rom 5:12 are translated. The verse in the NRSV reads, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned (Greek: eph ho pantes hamarton).” In late antiquity, the last four Greek words were translated into the Latin as in quo omnes peccaverunt (“in whom [i.e. in Adam] all men have sinned”) which supported the view that Adam’s guilt was inherited by all his descendants. This idea was connected with the doctrine of “original sin” which became (and continues to be) a widespread belief in Western Christianity. In Eastern Christianity, the Greek rendering “because” instead of “in whom” was retained, which conveys the view that death, as the “wages of sin” (Rom 6:23), is inherited by Adam’s descendants, and not the guilt of Adam’s first sin. Another way of viewing the effect of the fall of Adam is that humanity inherited mortality instead of sinfulness, which is merely a consequence of mortality. If humanity is under the sway of both physical and spiritual death, then Christ, who has overcome death, restores our original non-mortal humanness.
The Righteousness of God
As mentioned above in our discussion of Paul’s argument, the main thesis in Romans is that the good news of God’s righteousness, to which the scriptures have testified, has now been fully revealed “through faith for faith” (Rom 1:17). This is the heart of Paul’s message for unifying Jews and Gentiles in Christ. The phrase “through faith for faith” (which can also be translated “from faith to faith”) is difficult to understand because the Greek term for “faith” (pistis) is highly nuanced. It can mean “belief,” “trust,” and even “faithfulness.” The prepositions “through” (or “from”) and “for” (or “to”) add to the interpretive challenge. In light of Paul’s emphasis on Christ’s “obedience to the point of death,” which resulted in his vindication through resurrection, a strong possibility is that the phrase is a summary statement that captures the cause and effect sequence initiated by God’s provision of his Messiah. This reading also aligns with Paul’s underlying conception that the coming of Christ was the pivotal event in God’s self-disclosure to humanity. In this sense, God’s righteousness is revealed through the faithfulness (pistis) of Jesus, who is an active participant with God in salvation, for the benefit of the faithfulness (pistis) of the believer. For the believer, pistis is the only means to “see” God’s self-disclosure through Christ. While this is a probable rendering, it certainly is not the only one since Abraham’s faith may be assumed in the subsequent quotation from Hab 2:4, “The one who is righteous will live by faith.” The possibilities are well worth contemplating.
God’s righteousness speaks to his character as being equitable, just, and gracious through his fidelity to the promise initially given to Abraham that all nations will be united by the same faith that he showed to God. Other aspects of God’s righteousness include his generosity and mercy in his aversion of wrath and extreme displeasure with disobedience. God did not just show mercy to his elect people, but extended it to all peoples. At the same time, God remained loyal to his covenant with Israel despite their disobedience. The dominant attribute of God that emerges through Paul’s argument and indeed throughout the New Testament is compassion.
Justification by Faith
The phrase “justification by faith alone” may be familiar to students who have attended Lutheran and Reformed churches. It has been a foundational doctrine in Protestant theology since the beginning of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Martin Luther famously said that it is the article upon which the church stands or falls. The doctrine teaches that God’s forgiveness of sins takes place when an individual comes to faith in Christ. In contrast to the merits of good works and ecclesiastical pronouncements of grace (which are also important in Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy along with faith), it is only faith for many Protestants, as belief in the saving work of Jesus, that justifies the individual before God. It is true that Paul sometimes contrasts faith and works (of the Law), but for many Pauline scholars today who would identity with the so-called “New Perspective” on Paul, the traditional contrast between belief and acts of good works is unsupportable since Judaism was also a religion of grace. Today, many think that Paul’s use of the “works of the Law” is a reference to specific identity markers that separated Gentiles from Jews, such as circumcision, sabbath, and food laws. Note the Info Box below. Along similar lines, some scholars claim that Paul is not targeting specific identity markers, but rather specific perceptions about how his Jewish audience relates to the law in general. Since obedience to the law was equated with obedience to God in Judaism, Paul argues on the basis of Abraham’s faith that observance of the law, which chronologically followed his faith, does not alone create a right relationship with God.
Info Box 17.6: The New Perspective on Paul: Romans 3:28 as a Case Study
A helpful way of understanding how revolutionary the New Perspective on Paul has been is to look at its reading of specific texts. Consider the passage: “A person is justified by faith, apart from works of the law.” (Rom 3:28). What did Paul mean here? It depends on the interpreter’s perspective. While all can agree that people are made right with God by trusting in what God has done through Christ, the same cannot be said about the “works of the law.” According to the “Traditional Perspective” which represents the Reformation’s emphasis on justification by faith alone, the “works of the law” refers to meritorious acts of human achievement. They are, in short, the doing of good works. In this sense, faith and works are contrasted. According to the “New Perspective” on Paul, the “works of the law” have nothing to do with the practice of good works as acts that might merit salvation. Instead, “works of the law” is viewed as a Jewish construct that refers to the covenant markers that identify Jews as belonging to God’s chosen nation. In this reading, Paul is saying to Gentile believers that they are justified by faith instead of needing to become ethnic Jews. Their faithfulness is enough for being included “in Christ.”
The varied theological views expressed in the three major traditions of Christianity (Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy) bring with them their accompanying readings of Romans. In Romans, “justification,” which stems from the same Greek root for “righteousness,” conveys a right relationship with God. The explanation of that reconciliation, however, is contingent upon whether one holds to a judicial or participatory model. While there is no question that Paul teaches the important of faith for the pardoning of one’s guilt (Rom 3:28; 5:1), the difficulty arises when once again we try to make sense of what Paul actually means by “faith” (pistis). If he means “belief,” then justification is based on cognitive and emotional assent, submission, and trust, which has been the common Protestant view. While a life of obedience is viewed as the result and even evidence of faith, good acts do not in themselves merit justification. If, however, pistis means “faithfulness,” then it also incorporates human actions and decisions that could be included under the category of good works, which has been the Catholic and Orthodox position. In accordance with the latter view, some scholars point to the meritorious importance of good deeds in Rom 2:6–8, which reads, “For he [God] will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.” Furthermore, other scholars have pointed out that religious belief as we might understand it today in Christianity should not be imposed onto Paul. Today religious belief and unbelief tend to be contrasted and played against each other. In antiquity, this contrast was not of importance since some kind of adherence to deities was widespread. What mattered more was the performance of acts of worship so as to appease the gods that ruled over the Empire, the elements, regions, cities, and families. Faithfulness better expresses the religious ethos of the world in which Paul lived.
In addition, Romans is not always clear whose pistis effects the justification. Is it the individual’s pistis in God that justifies? Christ certainly enables a life of faith. Is it God’s pistis to his covenantal promises that justifies? Or is it Christ’s pistis as obedience to God’s will that justifies? Could it be a collaboration of all three? The roles of God, Christ and human beings in the justification process has generated lively discussion since the Reformation. Another difficulty that has occupied interpreters of Romans since the early Middle Ages, is whether God declares or makes the sinner just (or righteous). Protestant thinkers who hold to “the judicial model” have tended toward the former, whereas Catholic and Orthodox thinkers who hold “the participatory model” have tended toward the latter. Nevertheless, while these are enduring theological questions, they tend to represent our concerns and not always Paul’s concerns. Paul does not appear to be troubled by the ambiguity that we might want to resolve. He appears to have had a more comprehensive and integrative understanding of faith(fulness) than many modern readers. It is also possible that the ambiguity did not originate with Paul, but was already present in earlier traditions that Paul appropriated. What is of main importance for him is that justification is rooted in Christ’s obedience and vindication through which is expressed God’s faithfulness to his promises and compassion for both Jews and Gentiles (Rom 4:25; 5:18). Human beings participate in this through their faith(fulness).
Info Box 17.7: Images of Justification in Summary
Paul uses four dominant images to explain how Christ’s death and resurrection result in justifying believers. (1) The Image of Substitution. Since all people are guilty of not living as God commands, their penalty is death. Jesus as the innocent sacrifice takes on the guilt of humanity which diverts God’s wrath and brings restoration (Rom 3:23–24; 5:6–8; 6:23). (2) The Image of Redemption. People are like slaves, owned by a hostile personified power (e.g. sin, death). The ransom for freedom is the blood of Christ. God pays the ransom so that people can be in covenant relationship with God (Rom 3:24; 8:23). (3) The Image of Reconciliation. Since humanity has severely damaged its relationship with God, Jesus offers his Messiah as a mediator who restores the relationship (Rom 5:10). (4) The Image of Participation. Left to its own devices, since humanity lives under the power of sin and death, it cannot escape the inevitable mortality that affected Adam. God provides another Adam who is obedient, namely Christ. Faith through the act of baptism allows humanity to participate in the new Adam who offers an escape from mortality (Rom 6:1–11).
Universal Salvation
In broader Christian theological discussion, the phrase “universal salvation” usually refers to the view that God will inevitably save every human being. The result is that none will be eternally punished, but will instead live with God forever. When, however, the phrase is applied to Paul’s writings, it has an ethnic focus, referring to the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles, though not necessarily all Jews and Gentiles. Paul argues that the election of Israel was never intended to be exclusively for its own benefit. It was always supposed to culminate in the rescuing of the whole world, by which is meant both the Jews and Gentiles. Since Israel failed to achieve this mandate, God nevertheless continued with his plan by providing the Messiah who was the representative of Israel. While the Messiah came from the Jewish people, he did not come solely for them. The
grace that extended first to the Jews, is now extended to the Gentiles, who are equal members of the new covenant people of God. In Paul’s conception, both ethnic groups have transgressed God’s laws and have been dominated by the power of sin and death. However, by placing their pistis in the obedience of Christ Jesus who is declared the Son of God, each is liberated and the two become one people.
Paul uses the noun “salvation” and verb “to save” broadly in relation to time. While salvation comes to everyone who has faith, the terms are used in relation to a liberation in the past, present, and future. In relation to the past, Paul writes, for example, “for in hope we were saved” (8:24) and “But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles” (11:11). In relation to the present, he writes that the gospel “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith” (1:16). Finally, in relation to the future, which occurs most often, he writes, “For salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers” (13:11), “now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God” (5:9), and “having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life” (5:10).
Since the salvation of the Jewish and Gentile believers steer much of Paul’s argument, many contemporary scholars argue that it should be viewed as the central theme that guides the interpretation of Romans. This represents a major shift since the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, which has advocated for centuries that the central theme of Romans is justification by faith in contrast to works of the law. Over the last several decades in Pauline studies, advocates of the “New Perspective” on Paul, which focusses on locating Paul within the Judaism of his day, have displaced the centrality of justification by faith with the centrality of the universality of God’s salvation.
God and Israel
How does Israel fit into God’s redemptive plan? Paul spends three chapters addressing why many Jews have rejected the good news of Christ. He often shows that this rejection and subsequent loss of salvation of national Israel does not invalidate the scriptures (Rom 9:6a). He makes sense of the demise of national Israel by making a distinction between two kinds of Israel, whereby one is authentic and the other is inauthentic. While he does not specifically press that one is true and the other is false, he makes the distinction through statements like, “not all Israelites truly belong to Israel” (Romans 9:6b). For Paul, truly belonging to Israel is based on adherence to gospel of Christ. Thus, truly belonging to Israel means that one belongs to a remnant that has accepted the gospel message (Rom 11:1–6). God remains faithful to Israel through his faithfulness to the remnant of Israel.
In Romans 11, toward the end of his long argument, Paul conveys an unexpected twist. National Israel still plays a role in the salvation of the world. Israel’s rejection of Christ serves a useful purpose in that it prompted the gospel message to go out beyond the Jewish people into the Gentile world (Rom 11:11–24). Hope for national Israel remains in Paul’s conception of salvation. He believes that eventually, perhaps through the remnant, “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26). Paul is even willing to give up his own salvation to make this happen (Rom 9:3). Some scholars, however, are not convinced that national Israel is intended here, arguing instead that “all Israel” refers to everyone who will eventually believe.
Bibliography
Commentaries
Achtemeier, Paul J. Romans. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985.
Barrett, Charles Kingsley. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Rev. ed. Black's New Testament Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.
Byrne, Brendan. Romans. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996.
Cranfield, Charles E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: Clark, 1975, 1979.
———. Romans. A Shorter Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, l985.
Dunn, James D. G. Romans. 2 vols. Word Biblical Commentary 38a, 38b. Dallas: Word, 1988.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans. Anchor Bible, 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993.
Jewett, Robert. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.
Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Stuhlmacher, Peter. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Translated by Scott J. Hafemann from the 1989 German edition. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.
Wright, N. T. The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections. The New Interpreter’s Bible 10 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002) 395-770.
Ziesler, John. Paul's Letter to the Romans. Trinity Press International New Testament Commentaries. Philadelphia: Trinity, 1989.
Books and Articles on Romans
Boers, Hendrikus. The Justification of the Gentiles: Paul’s Letters to the Galatians and Romans. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994.
Cosgrove, Charles H. Elusive Israel: The Puzzle of Election in Romans. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997.
Dahl, Nils A. “The Missionary Theology in the Epistle to the Romans” and “The Doctrine of Justification: Its Social Function and Implications.” Pages 70–94 and 95–120 respectively in his Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977.
Donfried, Karl P., ed. The Romans Debate. Rev. ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991.
Dunn, James D. G., ed. Paul and the Mosaic Law. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1996; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000
Guerra, Anthony J. Romans and the Apologetic Tradition: The Purpose, Genre, and Audience of Paul’s Letter. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Hay, David M., and E. Elizabeth Johnson, eds. Pauline Theology: Volume III: Romans. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
Käsemann, Ernst. “‘The Righteousness of God’ in Paul.” Pages 168–82 in his New Testament Questions of Today. London: SCM, 1969.
Moxnes, Halvor. Theology in Conflict: Studies in Paul’s Understanding of God in Romans. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 53. Leiden: Brill, 1980.
Nanos, Mark D. The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.
Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977.
Stendahl, Krister. Final Account: Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
———. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Note his highly influential essay
“The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West” (78–96).
Wedderburn, A. J. M. The Reasons for Romans. Studies of the New Testament and Its World. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988.