M17a
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.
​
​
Paragraph narrow
Paragraph wide