Romans ABD

ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE [V, 816–30] The sixth book in the present ordering of works in the canon of the NT. __________ A. The Author and Name of the Epistle B. The Place of Romans 1. In the Christian Church 2. In the NT Canon 3. In the Career of Paul C. The Text of Romans D. The Epistolary Form and Occasion of Romans E. The Argument of Romans 1. Rom 1:16–17 2. Rom 1:18–3:20 3. Rom 3:21–4:25 4. Rom 5:1–8:39 5. Rom 9:1–11:36 6. Rom 12:1–15:13 F. The Literary Character and Style of Romans G. The Relation of Romans to Other Ancient Literature H. Some “Problem” Texts of Romans Reconsidered 1. Rom 1:26–27 2. Rom 13:1–7 3. Rom 16:1–7 __________ A. The Author and Name of the Epistle This epistle identifies its author as “Paul … [the] apostle” (1:1). Although a few persons in past centuries have questioned the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Romans, no one in recent years has successfully challenged the epistle’s authenticity. Not only do all agree that the apostle Paul was the actual author of this magnificent letter that bears his name, but this epistle is used as the standard against which the authenticity of other epistles attributed to Paul is measured.

As is the case with all of the Pauline Epistles, this work derives its canonical name from the recipients of the letter and not from the name of its author. According to 1:7a, the apostle Paul addressed this epistle to “all God’s beloved in Rome” (NRSV). Although some ancient mss omit the phrase “in Rome” in 1:7, the weight of the ms evidence favors the inclusion of this specific place indicator. The omission of the phrase “in Rome” is probably a later attempt to enhance the universal appeal of this epistle.

B. The Place of Romans It is difficult to overestimate the significance of the Epistle to the Romans.

Coming at a crucial point in the career of the apostle Paul, Romans represents the longest extant Pauline epistle and the most complete exposition of the Pauline gospel. Moreover, this lengthy epistle currently occupies a prominent place in the

canon of the NT and has had a profound and lasting impact on the Christian faith.

It is little wonder, then, that Romans has received more scholarly attention than any other Pauline epistle.

1. In the Christian Church. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans has been first and foremost in the lives of many Christians. The first words that Augustine of Hippo read, after hearing a child next door say, “Pick it up, read it,” were from Romans (i.e., 13:13). As a result of this incident, Augustine was immediately converted to the Christian faith (Confessions 8.12) and went on to become the most influential theologian of the next millennium. The first NT lectures that Martin Luther gave, after becoming a doctor of theology at the University of Wittenberg, were on the Epistle to the Romans (1515–16). The outcome of Luther’s struggle to understand this epistle was the Protestant Reformation, which had a dramatic impact not only on the Christian church but also on all of Western civilization. And the first major writing in the prolific career of the Swiss theologian Karl Barth was a commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (1918) whose impact was like the falling of “a bomb on the playground of the theologians” (Karl Adams). This commentary represented a break with the prevailing schools of theological thought and inaugurated a new era of theological investigation in the 20th century. In a very real sense, then, Romans has been a source of inspiration and reform since its composition. In the early Church, during the Middle Ages, and on into modern times, Romans has left its indelible mark.

The Epistle to the Romans has also contributed significantly to the history of Christian doctrine. Almost every influential Christian thinker has dealt with Romans. Origen, Thomas Aquinas, and Philip Melanchthon, to mention only a few, wrote noteworthy commentaries on Romans. And numerous theological notions have been derived solely or in part from Romans. Augustine acquired his idea of original sin from Romans 5, Luther gained his understanding of justification by faith alone from Romans 3–4, John Calvin obtained his doctrine of double predestination from Romans 9–11, John Wesley got his distinctive teaching on sanctification from Romans 6 and 8, and Karl Barth learned of the importance of the righteousness of God from Romans 1 and 2. In short, this epistle has exerted a powerful influence on all branches of the Christian Church, and its impact on the lives and thought of prominent Christian thinkers through the years has been second, perhaps, only to the canonical gospels.

2. In the NT Canon. In the current arrangement of NT books, Romans follows immediately after the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and Acts. In its present position, therefore, Romans is the first epistle in the NT as well as the first of thirteen epistles in the NT ascribed to the apostle Paul. Because the present ordering of the Pauline Epistles is based roughly on the length of the writings—from the longest to the shortest, first those addressed to churches (Romans to 2 Thessalonians), then those addressed to individuals (1 Timothy to Philemon)—the position of Romans in the canon indicates to the reader that Romans is Paul’s longest extant epistle to a church.

But Romans has not always occupied this prominent position, for the order of the epistles within the Pauline corpus has varied throughout the ages.

1

Romans was the fourth of ten Pauline Epistles in the mid-2d century canon of Marcion, and Romans is listed last among the letters of Paul in the Muratorian canon of ca. A.D. 200. In fact, Romans does not appear in canon lists in its present position at the head of the Pauline corpus until the 4th century and later.

But even after it assumed its position of preeminence among the letters of Paul, Romans, contrary to the present English order, was not the sixth book of the NT nor did it follow Acts. In the 4th-century uncial ms cod. Sinaiticus (and also in the 6th-century ms cod. Fuldensis) Romans comes immediately after the four gospels and before Acts, an order that was followed in the Greek NT of the Complutensian Polyglot Bible printed in 1514.

In almost all Greek mss of the NT, however, the seven Catholic Epistles (James; 1 and 2 Peter; 1, 2, and 3 John; and Jude) follow Acts and precede the Pauline Epistles. In these mss, therefore, Romans is the thirteenth book of the NT, and it follows the epistle of Jude. This placement of Romans and the rest of the Pauline corpus may have been due in part to Paul’s view that he was “the least of the apostles” (1 Cor 15:9), whereas the Catholic Epistles were associated with the so-called “pillars” of the apostolate (Gal 2:9). But the fact that Paul’s writings were addressed to specific churches and persons may also have made them less appealing than the more general address of the Catholic Epistles.

In its present position as the first Pauline work in the NT, Romans serves as an introduction to Pauline thought. Moreover, because of its present position following Acts, the detailed treatment of the missionary career of Paul in the second half of Acts serves as an introduction to the Pauline corpus. In the current arrangement, therefore, Acts ends with Paul in Rome (Acts 28:16–31), then follows the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.

3. In the Career of Paul. Romans also occupies a significant place in the career of the apostle Paul, for it was written relatively late in the life of Paul. At the time of writing Paul admits that he has completed his mission to the eastern Mediterranean world, having “fully proclaimed” the gospel of Christ “from Jerusalem and as far round as Illyricum” (15:19 NRSV). Paul then informs the Romans that he is heading to Jerusalem with aid for less fortunate believers in that region (15:25).

A relative chronology of the Pauline Epistles can be constructed by means of references in Paul’s genuine epistles to the Jerusalem collection. This collection was inaugurated at the apostolic council described in Galatians 2, when Paul agrees to “remember the poor” (Gal 2:10). The collection was introduced to the Corinthians in 1 Cor 16:1–4, where Paul provides directions for collecting money.

Then in 2 Corinthians 8-9 (esp. 8:6, 10; 9:1) Paul exhorts the Corinthians to complete what they have begun. When Paul writes Romans, he is ready to travel to Jerusalem with what has been collected among the gentile believers in Macedonia and Achaia (Rom 15:25–26). Prior to the time of writing Romans, therefore, Paul had already written Galatians, and 1 and 2 Corinthians, in addition to 1 Thessalonians (believed to be Paul’s earliest extant epistle), and perhaps Philippians as well.

Moreover, Romans is heavily indebted to those epistles that have gone before. As G. Bornkamm (1963: 2–14) has rightly pointed out, a number of topics that are present in Paul’s earlier epistles surface in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.

Among those topics are justification by faith and not by works of the law (Galatians 3–5; Philippians 3; Romans 1–4); the fatherhood of Abraham (Galatians 3; Romans 4); Adam as the head of the old order of humanity and Christ the head of a new order (1 Cor 15:21–22, 45–49; Rom 5:12–19); the church as Christ’s body composed of diverse elements (1 Corinthians 12; Rom 12:4–8); the need to exercise personal freedoms with consideration for the consciences of others (1 Corinthians 8–10; Romans 14–15)—to name only a few. But in Romans, Paul does not merely reiterate these ideas; rather he reformulates and refines them. Romans, therefore, evidences a greater theological maturity than the other Pauline Epistles.

Although we do not know this from Paul’s own writings, the visit to Jerusalem that Paul announces in Rom 15:25 results in his being taken into custody briefly in Jerusalem (Acts 21:27–23:30) before being transferred to Caesarea, where Paul remained in prison for no less than two years (23:31–26:32). Having appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11) Paul is then conducted to Rome (Acts 27:1– 28:16), where he remains in custody for two years (Acts 28:17–31) until his execution ca. A.D. 62, a few years before the Neronian persecutions of A.D. 65– 68. With this chronology in mind, Romans was written at the height of Paul’s apostolic career, ca. A.D. 55–57.

Paul probably wrote this epistle from the city of Corinth. In 2 Cor 1:16, Paul tells the Corinthians that he intends to depart from Corinth for Judea once the gentile offering is complete. Then, at the time that Paul announces to the Romans his impending trip “to Jerusalem with aid for the saints” (Rom 15:25), the collection is complete, and the Roman province of Achaia (whose capital is Corinth) is named as a prominent contributor (Rom 15:26). Moreover, if chap. 16 is accepted as part of the original epistle (see discussion below), then Paul’s commendation to the Romans of the deacon Phoebe from Cenchreae (16:1–2), which is the eastern seaport of Corinth, is another reason for believing that this epistle originated in Corinth.

It would appear most likely that Paul composed his Epistle to the Romans during his final three-month stay in Corinth (see Acts 20:2–3) not long before his departure for Jerusalem. The Epistle to the Romans, therefore, is the apostle’s last epistle as a free man, and coming at this late stage in his life, Romans represents Paul’s mature thought.

C. The Text of Romans Fragments of the Epistle to the Romans are preserved in a number of ancient Greek papyri. The earliest and most complete is p46, one of the Chester Beatty biblical papyri from about the year A.D. 200, which contains portions of Romans 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. The complete text of Romans is preserved in the earliest uncial mss that belong to the best ancient text-type (Alexandrian), including the 4th-century codex Sinaiticus, the 4th-century codex Vaticanus (B), and the 5th-century codex Alexandrinus (A), to name only a few.

2

Although scholars are in agreement that the apostle authored this epistle, there has been much discussion in recent years over exactly what Paul wrote to the Romans and what, if anything, has been added to his work. In other words, while accepting the essential authenticity of Romans, many have questioned the integrity of the epistle.

Several scholars in recent years have argued unsuccessfully that the Epistle to the Romans is actually composed of two or more writings, and its composite nature is the result of post-Pauline redactional activity. Schmittals (1975) perceives in Romans two distinct letters written to Rome at different times, along with some Pauline material not originally addressed to Rome and some later non-Pauline material. Scroggs thinks that Romans is composed of “two selfcontained and completely different homilies” (1976: 274). O’Neill (Romans PNTC, 11) asserts that the original Epistle to the Romans suffered corruption through the incorporation of brief marginal glosses into the text at an early date and longer editorial sections that were added to supplement the epistle. Nevertheless, none of these scholarly views has been widely accepted.

Another challenge to the integrity of Romans was mounted by Bultmann (1947: 197–202). Because Rom 2:1, 2:16, 6:17b, 7:25b and 8:1, 10:17, and 13:5 appear to disrupt the logic of Paul’s argument, Bultmann identified these verses as glosses, or brief marginal notes, that have found their way into the text of Romans.

But not everyone has been persuaded by Bultmann’s judgment on all of these verses.

The most extensive discussions regarding the integrity of Romans, however, have centered on three somewhat related textual problems. The first problem was mentioned in section A above, namely, the absence in some ancient mss of “in Rome” in 1:7, and the omission in others of the phrase “who are in Rome” in 1:15. Codex Boernerianus (G), a Greek mss with a Latin interlinear version, deletes the name of Rome in both verses. But textual critics agree that neither of these omissions represents earlier readings of the text. Rather these variants are best understood as deliberate attempts by later scribes to eliminate the specificity of the epistle and thereby make its contents more generally applicable.

The chief textual difficulties, however, concern the termination of Romans. At this point the textual history of the epistle is quite complicated. One significant textual problem is the doxology, which many of the best Greek mss (Sinaiticus, B) print at Romans 16:25–27. Other mss include the doxology after 14:23 (L, ms 044), one important witness (p46) places the doxology after 15:33, a few have it at the end of chap. 14 and then again at the end of chap. 16 (A, P), and some mss omit the doxology altogether (G).

The variability in the placement of the doxology, coupled with its distinctive stylistic and theological features, have led most scholars to conclude that these verses were not a part of the apostle Paul’s original Epistle to the Romans. But whether the doxology is a fragment from another Pauline work that was added later or simply a non-Pauline insertion cannot be determined conclusively.

The problem of the doxology, however, is related to another textual difficulty in the termination of the epistle. Serious questions about the authenticity and integrity of the rest of chap. 16, as well as chap. 15, have been raised.

Evidently, by the 2d century the epistle existed in a 14-chapter version, a 15chapter version, and a 16-chapter version.

Although the 14-chapter version is not preserved in any extant ms, there is indirect evidence to support its existence. According to Origen (comm. in Rom. 7, 453), Marcion used a 14-chapter version of Romans in the 2d century. Moreover, this shortened form of Romans is attested to indirectly in the ms tradition by the varying placement of the concluding doxology. Because of its character and tone, this doxology must have stood at the end of the letter. For this reason, the presence of the doxology after 14:23 in a few mss (L, ms 044, Origen) is indirect testimony to the existence of a short version of Romans, even though those witnesses in their present form contain chaps. 15 and 16.

But although the textual evidence suggests that the 14-chapter version of Romans is early, this version was probably not original. The deletion of chaps. 15– 16 may be related in some mss to the practice of omitting the specific addresses in Rom 1:7 and 1:15. The desire to eliminate the specificity of Romans and thereby gain for this work a more universal appeal may also have been the motive behind the elimination of chaps. 15–16, which contain Paul’s future travel plans and greetings to individuals.

The original form of the letter, in any case, must have been either the 15chapter or 16-chapter version. But here the ms evidence is not sufficient to determine conclusively which version is original.

Until relatively recently, the 15-chapter version was conjectured purely on the basis of internal arguments. By Paul’s own admission he has never visited Rome (1:10; 15:22), but in Rom 16:3–15 twenty-six persons are greeted by name.

Would Paul have known so many people in a place that he had not visited?

Moreover, Paul is not in the habit of greeting addressees by name. Paul usually communicates only a general and collective greeting, so would he have greeted specific individuals and groups even if he knew so many?

Finally, some of those on the list are associated more closely with the eastern Church than with the western Church. Prisca and Aquila, who are greeted in Rom 16:3–4a, were in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8, 19) at the time of the writing of 1 Corinthians. Andronicus and Junia(s) who are greeted in Rom 16:7 Paul describes as having been “in prison with me,” most likely at Ephesus. Epaenetus, who is greeted in Rom 16:5b, is called “the first convert in Asia,” the capital of which is Ephesus.

Such internal evidence for the 15-chapter version of Romans as the original form of the epistle has also found some external, textual evidence since the discovery in 1935 of the Chester Beatty papyrus of the Pauline letters (p46). This oldest extant mss of the Pauline corpus (from the early 3d century) contains the doxology between 15:33 and 16:1, and from this mss, therefore, one can infer the existence of a tradition that concluded Romans with chap. 15. See CHESTER BEATTY PAPYRI. 3

Manson (1948), who accepts the 15-chapter version as original explains the existence of the present 16-chapter version by assuming that Paul made two copies of the epistle. While the 15-chapter version was sent to Rome, the 16chapter version was addressed to a church other than Rome, most likely to the church at Ephesus. Nevertheless, although the 15-chapter version is no doubt ancient, the question remains about whether this version is the oldest tradition.

Prompted by the careful textual study of Gamble (1977; and the insight of Donfried 1970), however, the tide of scholarly opinion is shifting to a renewed appreciation of the integrity of the 16-chapter version of Romans (minus 16:25– 27). Gamble’s comparison of the style and structure of Pauline epistolary conclusions has shown that all of the elements of chap. 16 are typical of Paul’s conclusions. Moreover, without chap. 16 the 15-chapter version lacks a proper epistolary conclusion. In other words, if chap. 16 is not original, then the original ending has either been lost or displaced.

Finally, Gamble has shown that some of the unusual features of chap. 16 can only be understood if chap. 16 was addressed to Rome. One of the most prominent unusual features is the list of explicit greetings to individuals and groups which comprise most of the chapter (16:3–15). But the presence of twenty-six names in chap. 16 does not prove that this chapter is not original. Because Paul had not visited Rome, it was to his advantage to mention the names of those Roman believers who he knew from churches elsewhere. Moreover, Paul describes these persons in laudatory terms, which enhances their position in the community and reflects positively on Paul’s status in the church. In this way, Paul presents himself as one who was not unknown to the church at Rome.

This textual difficulty regarding the termination of the epistle, it should be noted, has significant interpretive significance. If the 15-chapter version is the original form of the epistle, then there is no reason to believe that Paul had any accurate information about the church at Rome. If, however, the 16-chapter version is original, then Paul must have known something about the church at Rome through his contact with members of the Roman church elsewhere in the Roman empire.

Although a detailed description of the textual history of the Epistle to the Romans is not within the scope of this article, one additional textual matter is worthy of note, namely, the unusual textual problem found in Romans 5:1. Here the ms evidence strongly favors the subjunctive “let us have” (echoœmen in Sinaiticus*, A, B*, C, D, Vg, copbo). The internal evidence, however, supports the less well-attested indicative “we have” (echomen in Sinaiticusa, B3, P, copsa), because other verses in this passage (see 5:2, 9–11) offer evidence of an indicative context, and the immediate concern of these verses is clearly with description rather than with exhortation. Because the o and oœ were virtually indistinguishable in pronunciation during the Hellenistic age, the original indicative echomen may have been mistakenly understood as the subjunctive echoœmen at an early stage of dictation, and the repeated use of this text in preaching may also have encouraged a hortatory understanding of the verb. For contextual reasons the indicative

(echomen) is the preferred reading in 5:1, but the textual evidence for this variant is such that the subjunctive reading has had and continues to have its proponents.

D. Epistolary Form and Occasion of Romans The uniqueness of the Epistle to the Romans cannot be overlooked.

Romans is the only extant epistle written by Paul to a church that Paul did not found. In fact, Paul wrote this epistle to a community that he had never even visited (Rom 1:10f.). Unlike 1 Corinthians, therefore, Romans is not a response to specific questions addressed to Paul by the community. Unlike Galatians, Romans is not a reaction to heretical teaching. And unlike the other Pauline epistles, the body of Romans does not exhibit an obvious “occasional” character. Paul confines his personal remarks largely to the beginning (1:1–15) and the ending of the epistle (15:14–16:23), and the occasional character of “the frame” of the letter appears to have little effect on the central section of Romans (1:16–15:13). The very structure of this epistle, therefore, helps to explain the tendency down through the years to understand Romans as a theological treatise or as “a compendium of the Christian religion” (Philip Melanchthon, Loci Communes Theologici), which contains pure, “objective” doctrine (so Nygren 1949: 4–9) untainted by historical circumstances.

Nevertheless, the current scholarly consensus is that Romans is like the Pauline epistles in that it is an actual letter. Although Romans is Paul’s longest and most systematic work, it is still an epistle, not a manifesto, or a treatise, or a position paper. As such, Romans exhibits an obvious epistolary form. First comes the salutation (1:1–7) that identifies both the author (1:1–6) and the recipients of the letter (1:7a) and includes the apostle’s characteristic greeting (“Grace … and peace … ” [1:7b]). Then, after the thanksgiving (1:8–15) comes the body of the letter (1:16–11:36), which is followed by the paraenetic or hortatory section (12:1– 15:13). Finally, Paul relates his travel plans (15:14–33), then he closes with greetings (16:1–16) and a benediction (16:20).

In addition to the epistolary form, however, Romans also has an epistolary occasion. But the question debated by modern scholars is whether the occasion for Paul’s Epistle to the Romans is to be found in the situation in Rome or in the life of the apostle Paul. Many scholars, including C. H. Dodd (Romans MNTC), T. W. Manson (1948), Nygren (1949), G. Bornkamm (1963), J. Jervell (1971), and C. E. B. Cranfield (Epistle to the Romans ICC), argue that Romans was prompted primarily by Paul’s own situation in life—his impending journey to Jerusalem, his future visit to Rome, and his eventual mission to Spain. It is not uncommon for these scholars to accept the 15-chapter version of Romans as original. After all, they argue, if chap. 16 was not a part of the original epistle, then we have no evidence that Paul knew much about this community that he had never visited (Rom 1:10). What he did know about was his own situation in life, and that is what prompted his writing to the Romans.

Other scholars, including K. P. Donfried (1970, 1974), P. Minear (1971), J. C. Beker (1980, 1989), and R. Jewett (1986), to name only a few, argue that although Paul had not yet visited Rome (Rom 1:10; 15:23), he did in fact know something about that community. Accepting the 16-chapter version of Romans as 4

the original form of the epistle, these scholars note then Paul apparently had many friends and acquaintances in Rome (some twenty-six, to be exact) who could have informed him of the community situation.

But how would Paul have met these Romans Christians, if he had not visited their city? According to the 1st century historian Suetonius in his Lives of the Caesars, the Roman Emperor Claudius in A.D. 49 “expelled from Rome the Jews who were constantly stirring up a tumult under the leadership of Chrestus” (Claud. 25.4). As a result of Claudius’ edict of A.D. 49 some of the JewishChristians were expelled from Rome. According to Acts 18:2, Prisca (Priscilla in Acts) and Aquila were among those expelled who Paul met elsewhere.

The fact that good cases can be made for both of these two scholarly views may indicate that each side has an element of the truth. In other words, it could very well be that in addressing the needs of the Roman community Paul finds that his present and future situation in life has applicability to the situation at Rome.

But what was the situation at Rome? Here one must piece together bits of information from the epistle itself. Because Paul directly addresses both gentiles (1:13, 11:13) and those of Jewish background (2:17, 3:9), the Christian community must have been a mixed congregation. Most likely, Jewish Christians founded the church at Rome, and some of these same Jewish Christians, like Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:2), may have been expelled from Rome by the Emperor Claudius in A.D. 49. When the ban was lifted after Claudius’ death in A.D. 54, many of the exiled Jewish Christians may have returned to Rome. But these returning exiles may have been surprised to find that the small group of gentile Christians that had remained in Rome had grown considerably during their absence. Without a doubt friction between the returning Jewish Christians and the resident gentile Christians must have resulted.

In 15:15 Paul admits that “on some points I have written to you rather boldly by way of reminder …” (NRSV). Problems of coexistence with Jewish Christians may have arisen in this largely gentile congregation: the gentile Christians were now in the majority and may have been all too willing to overlook the contribution of the Jewish Christian community. In chap. 14, Paul counsels the gentile Christians to be more tolerant of Jewish believers and their distinctive religious practices (14:3, 5–6, 14). One reason that Paul writes Romans, therefore, is to counsel the church on Jewish-gentile relations in the hopes of establishing the one church of Jews and gentiles. But this does not explain fully Paul’s reason for writing this particular letter to this Christian community.

Paul goes on in chap. 15 to say that he has completed his work in the East (15:19), and now he wants to move on to Spain (15:23–24). Rome would be an ideal point of transit (if not headquarters) for his Spanish mission (15:24). Since Paul has not yet visited Rome (15:22), another reason that Paul writes this letter is to introduce himself to the Roman Christians. But the Romans may have already heard about Paul and his law-free gospel (see Rom 3:8), so Paul takes this opportunity to explain his gospel more fully and also to respond to possible

objections to it. Although this is another important reason for writing, it is not a sufficient explanation for Paul’s writing this letter to the Roman community.

On several occasions in Romans, Paul has stated that he is an apostle whose ministry is directed to the gentiles (1:5, 13, 14; 11:13; 15:16, 18). Because of the large gentile population in the community at Rome, Paul has often longed to visit the imperial city (1:10–15). To date, however, Paul has not paid such a visit (1:13; 15:22), evidently because his mission has involved proclaiming the good news “not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on someone else’s foundation” (15:20). Since Rome already has an established Christian community, Paul has viewed other areas of the E Mediterranean world as higher priorities. But now that he has finished his work in the East (15:19b) and wants to move on to Spain (15:24a, 28), Paul intends to visit Rome (15:24b).

But Paul again will be delayed, for at the time of writing he is preparing to go to Jerusalem to deliver the gentile collection (15:25). Paul, “an apostle to the gentiles” (11:13), feels compelled to explain to the Romans his reason for doing this, lest they be offended by his decision to go “to the Jew first” in Jerusalem, and only after that “to the Greek” in Rome and beyond. A third reason, then, that Paul writes Romans is to apologize for his further delay in visiting Rome.

Finally, Paul asks the Romans to participate by means of their active intercession in the offering that he is about to deliver: “join me in earnest prayer to God on my behalf …” (15:30b NRSV). Paul is concerned about the possibility of persecution, so he asks the Romans to pray “that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea …” (15:31a NRSV). Paul is also concerned about the acceptability of the offering, so Paul asks them to pray “that my ministry to Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints … ” (15:31b NRSV). Therefore, a fourth and final reason that Paul writes Romans is to appeal for prayer support.

In short, no single reason accounts for the writing of Romans. Several factors converge, including the situation in Paul’s life at the present time and also the situation in Rome. Although Paul does not reveal the factors that prompted his writing until chap. 15, these several factors have in fact influenced the length, scope, and duration of Paul’s argument in the first 14 chaps.

E. The Argument of Romans Although scholars concur that Romans contains the apostle’s longest and most systematic argument (1:16–11:36), there has been much discussion about the structure of the argument in this important Pauline epistle. Part of the problem stems from the fact that Romans 1–4 differ considerably from Romans 6–8. The discussion in chaps. 1–4 is carried out primarily in the third person, while the discussion in chaps. 6–8 is in the first and second person. Moreover, in chaps. 1–4 Paul repeatedly refers to the Jews (1:16, 2:9, 10, 17, 28, 29; 3:1, 9, 29) and the gentiles (1:5, 13; 2:14, 24; 3:29; 4:17, 18), but in chaps. 6–8 all such references are absent. And finally, there exist significant lexical differences. Terms prominent in chaps. 1–4 (such as “faith” [pistis] and “wrath” [orgeœ]) are lacking in chaps. 6–8 where new terms (such as “life” [zoœeœ] and “spirit” [pneuma]) predominate.

5

As a result of these and other differences, most scholars perceive two phases of Paul’s argument in Romans 1–8. Traditionally, 5:21 was understood as the conclusion of the initial phase of the argument and 6:1 as the beginning of a new phase (so Sanday and Headlam Romans ICC, and most Protestant commentaries from the 16th through the 19th centuries; recently, Wilckens An die Römer EKK).

But N. Dahl (1951: 37–48) argues persuasively that the theme of chap. 6 is to be found in the verses that immediately precede in 5:20–21. Therefore, contrary to the traditional understanding of the structure of the epistle, a new phase of Paul’s argument does not begin at 6:1. Furthermore, by printing a synopsis of Rom 5:1–11 and 8:1–39 Dahl shows that “chapter 8 contains a fuller development of the themes which are briefly stated in 5:1–11” (ibid., 39), and this fact also argues in favor of connecting chap. 5 with chaps. 6–8. For these reasons, Dahl sees 5:1 as the beginning of a discussion that extends through chap. 8, a conclusion that supported the work of some previous commentators (notably Barth 1933; Dodd; and Nygren 1949) and has been supported by others since (so, e.g., Cranfield; Käsemann 1980; Meyer in HBC 1130–67; and Beker 1989).

Another problem in the structure of Romans, however, is a result of the obvious break between the climactic conclusion of chap. 8 and the somber note sounded at the beginning of chap. 9. This raises the question of how chaps. 9–11 are related to chaps. 1–8. Are chaps. 1–8 “the main argument” of the epistle (Sanday and Headlam, 225) to which are appended chaps. 9–11? Or do chaps. 1–8 serve merely as an introduction to the climactic discussion of chaps. 9–11 (Baur 1876: 315; Stendahl 1976: 28–29)? While many contemporary scholars are unwilling to call chaps. 9–11 the “climax” of Romans, most would be even less willing to call these chaps. an “appendix.” In these chaps., Paul responds to the questions first posed in Rom 3:1–4 and then answered with a brief “By no means!”

The subsequent discussion in chaps. 9–11 shows that Paul’s notion of grace, which was the subject of chaps. 3–4, does not invalidate God’s promises to Israel. As a result, the discussion in chaps. 9–11 is hardly an afterthought.

These are some of the questions that continue to plague scholars who acknowledge the systematic form of the argument in Romans but who account for this form in different ways. Nevertheless, all agree that the central argument in Romans is without parallel in biblical literature. For that reason, a brief overview of the argument of Romans 1:16–11:36 and its practical application that follows in 12:1–15:13 is in order.

1. Rom 1:16–17. The central argument of the epistle begins with a thematic statement (1:16–17) that picks up on the notion of proclamation from v 15, where Paul has expressed his “eagerness to proclaim the gospel to you also who are in Rome” (NRSV). The theme is introduced by the assertion, “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” (1:16 NRSV). Here Paul acknowledges the salvation-historical priority of the Jews in his remark “to the Jew first,” but he also refutes Jewish exclusivism when he adds, “and also to the

Greek.” The relationship between Jew and Greek in salvation history will be unfolded in greater detail in Romans 9–11.

Paul goes on to say, “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, ‘The one who is righteous through faith shall live’” (1:17). That is to say, the gospel reveals exactly how God justifies or puts people right with himself: it is through faith from beginning to end. The OT quote from Hab 2:4 supports this notion that the one who is put right with God by faith shall live.

Romans 1–8 elaborate on the Hab 2:4 quote of Rom 1:17. Chaps. 1–4 treat being put right with God “through faith.” This section climaxes in 3:21–30, and the climax is then supported by the example of Abraham in chap. 4. Chaps. 5– 8, on the other hand, treat Christian existence in light of God’s act of justification.

Here Paul considers the life that should be led by one who is righteous through faith.

2. Rom 1:18–3:20. In the first part of the argument in chaps. 1–4, Paul portrays the human dilemma by demonstrating that both Greek and Jew deserve divine condemnation and punishment when judged on the basis of their “works.”

Paul begins the argument with an indictment of the gentiles (1:18–32). Although Paul does not explicitly identify this group in these verses, the references to idolatry in 1:23, 25, indicate that the gentiles are intended. Paul states that through the creation God has clearly revealed himself to the gentiles as omnipotent and divine Creator (1:18–20). But the gentiles, “though they knew God” (1:21a), did not give God the reverence and thanksgiving due him (1:21b). Instead, they became idolaters (1:21a–23), the result of which was all manner of sordid behavior that violates the divine will (1:24–31) and makes them worthy of divine condemnation (1:32).

In the next section Paul addresses an unspecified “you” (2:1a), although this is identical to the direct address of 2:17 where “a Jew” is named. In any event, the “you” who self-righteously passes judgment on behavior described in 1:24–31 is guilty of self-condemnation, “because you, the judge, are doing the very same things” (2:1c). In other words, the addressee in 2:1–5 stands in the same condemnable position before God as the one judged does in the eyes of the addressee.

But Paul goes on to argue that no one escapes God’s impartial and just judgment (2:6–11). God will repay every person for what he or she has done (2:6).

People will get exactly what they deserve, either reward (2:7) or punishment (2:8).

God judges everyone (“the Jew first and also the Greek,” 2:9, 10) alike, “For God shows no partiality” (2:11).

But because God judges “according to each one’s deeds” (2:6), the Jew is as deserving of divine condemnation as is the gentile (2:12–29). God revealed his will for his people through the law. Yet mere possession of that law (2:12–24) is not enough to save Jews, because it is only “doers of the law who will be justified” (2:13b). Moreover, mere circumcision (2:25–29) is insufficient unless “you obey the law” (2:25). The failure of Jews to live up to the requirements of the law (2:17– 24) annuls their circumcision (2:25) and is grounds for their condemnation. In fact, 6

when redefined in terms of “deeds,” traditional Jewish “advantages” are opened up to gentiles, who by keeping the law (2:14–16) can have the benefits of circumcision attributed to them (2:26).

But if the Jew is no better off than the gentile, what benefit is there to being one of God’s chosen persons? Of course, the Jew has certain “advantages” over the Greek (3:1), such as possession of “the oracles of God” (3:2). But in light of God’s impartial judgment, the Jew is no better off than the Greek (3:9a). The Jew and the Greek are “under the power of sin” (3:9b), and Scripture itself supports Paul’s point (3:10–18). Being under the power of sin, therefore, people are unable to put themselves right with God “by works of the law” (3:20).

In 1:18–3:20 Paul has described the impartiality that characterizes all of God’s judgments. God is absolutely just and will judge everyone by what they do.

God will reward those who do good and punish all who sin, regardless of their ethnic background. But Paul had also demonstrated the universality of sin and the universal inability to be put right with God by means of what one does. The result is the human predicament: being under the power of sin, people are powerless to put themselves right with a just God, and therefore, they are worthy of condemnation and death.

3. Rom 3:21–4:25. In the second part of the argument in chaps. 1–4, Paul presents God’s response to the human predicament and begins to discuss the implications of that response. First comes the divine solution to the human predicament (3:21–26); Paul states that God has now revealed the way of being put right with him. It has nothing to do with (works of) the law ( = “apart from law,” 3:21a), which becomes the topic of 3:22–30. Nevertheless, this way “is attested by the law and the prophets” [ = the Scriptures] (3:21b), the topic of 3:31–4:25.

Since no one is able (“all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” 3:23), God puts people right with himself (3:22a). God puts right with himself all who believe [in Jesus Christ] (3:22b). But being put right with God is not earned; it is merely “by his grace as a gift” (3:24a). Being put right with God was achieved through Jesus Christ, whom God offered up as a sacrifice for human sin (3:25– 26a). As a result, God is both just ( = “righteous”) and the justifier of “the one who has faith in Jesus” (3:25b–26). By judging sin (through the death of Christ) but forgiving the sinner (through faith in Christ), God is shown to be both just and merciful.

Paul then begins to detail the consequences of the divine solution (3:27– 30). In the first place, human boasting is excluded (3:27a), for human achievement is denied. God alone puts people right with himself (see 3:22). Persons merely accept by faith what God has done in Christ (3:27b). That is to say, it is through faith in what God has done, not by doing works of the law, that one is put right with God (3:28).

But if a person is put right with God only through faith (3:28b), then, Paul concludes, there can be no distinction between Jew and Greek. God is the God of Jews and Greeks alike (3:29), and God accepts both Jew and Greek on the same basis: through faith (3:30).

Citing the example of Abraham in Rom 4:1–25, Paul demonstrates that being put right with God through faith “apart from (works of) the law” (3:21a) is the clear testimony of “the law and the prophets” (3:21b). Paul’s view, then, “upholds the law” (3:30).

In Rom 4:1–15 Paul uses the example of Abraham in Gen 15:6 to prove that divine approval is a gift and is not dependent on circumcision or obedience to the law. Abraham did not earn God’s favor. It was granted to him as a gift, and a gift that must be earned is no gift (4:2–8). Moreover, God’s acceptance of Abraham came prior to any mention of circumcision, and therefore divine approval cannot be dependent on circumcision and cannot be limited to those who are circumcised (4:9–12). Neither was the promise made to Abraham dependent on obedience to the law, which came much later (4:13–15). Therefore, from the earliest of time people have been put right with God by means of God’s grace through their faith!

Paul then goes on to show in Rom 4:16–25 that Abraham’s faith is a type of Christian faith. Abraham is “the father of all of us” (4:16), not only of the Jews, because Christian believers share with Abraham a common faith. Abraham believed in a God “who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist” (4:17 NRSV), so he believed that God would keep his promise to make him the father of many nations (4:17, 18), even though Abraham’s body “was [already] as good as dead” (4:19 NRSV). Abraham believed in this God (4:20–21), and for this reason was accepted by God as righteous (4:22). Likewise, Christians are accepted as righteous, because they believe in a God who raises the dead, Jesus Christ the Lord (4:23–24).

According to Romans 1–4, both Jew and Greek are confined under sin and both are liberated and united by faith in Jesus Christ. Because distinctions between Jew and gentile are overcome by God’s act in Christ, the discussion of Christian life in chaps. 5–8 omits mention of Jews and gentiles. Not until chaps. 9–11 does Paul return to the topic of Jewish-gentile relations.

4. Rom 5:1–8:39. This new life presupposes God’s act of justification by grace as a gift (5:1a, which recalls the conclusion reached in 3:28). This act, achieved by God giving up his own son on behalf of those who were “weak” (5:6), “sinners” (5:8), and “enemies [of God]” (5:10), “proves his love for us” (5:8). The result of God’s act in Christ, which is received by faith, is “peace with God” (5:1), “freedom from the wrath [of God]” (5:9), and “hope of sharing the glory of God” (5:2).

In 5:12–21 Paul compares Christ with Adam. Adam is the head of the old creation, which has been in bondage to sin and death since Adam’s act of disobedience. Christ by contrast inaugurates a new reign of God’s grace which “leads to justification and life for all” (5:18) as a result of Christ’s act of obedience [unto death] (5:19).

Paul concludes chap. 5 with two radical assertions, the first about the law (“But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied …” 5:20a) and the second about sin (“ … but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more …”

7

5:20b). These two statements prompt the discussion of chaps. 6 and 7. In Rom 6:1– 7:6 Paul treats the problem of sin, while in Rom 7:7–25 Paul considers the law.

In response to the assertion of 5:20b that grace abounds where sin increases the question naturally arises, “Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound?” (6:1). Paul responds with an emphatic, “By no means!” then goes on to explain that believers are no longer controlled by sin, because they have “died to sin” (6:2). Through baptism believers have been united with Christ in his death (6:3–5) so that they are no longer enslaved to sin (6:6). Therefore, having been united with Christ in his death, believers “will certainly be united with Christ in a resurrection like his” (6:5) at a future time.

Paul then uses two analogies in 6:15–7:6 to demonstrate that sin and the law have no power over ones who have been “baptized into [Christ’s] death.” In the slavery illustration of 6:15–23 Paul asserts that a slave is bound to a single master for life. Death, however, discharges one from servitude to one master and thereby allows one to be enslaved to another. The point is that believers, who were at one time “slaves of sin” (6:17), through baptism have “been set free from sin” (6:18) and have now become “enslaved to God” (6:22a), the result of which is sanctification and ultimately eternal life (6:22b).

In the marriage illustration of 7:1–6 Paul notes that the wife is legally bound to one husband for life. With death, however, she is “discharged from the law” (7:2) and may legally marry another. Similarly, believers have “died to the law” (7:4) through baptism into Christ with the result that “now we are discharged from the law” (7:6).

Paul then turns in 7:7–25 to explain the radical claim about the law that he made in 5:20a. Although “law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied” (5:20a), Paul asserts that the law is not sin (7:7, 12). Rather the law makes obvious the power of sin which manifests itself in “trespass” and “transgression.” Sin uses the good law to take advantage of the weak flesh. The function of the law, then, is to drive people to the point of seeing that there is no way out except through the gift of God’s grace in Christ (7:24–25).

Having completed in chaps. 6 and 7 his further explanation of the radical comments in 5:20, Paul returns in chap. 8 to the discussion begun in chap. 5 concerning new life. Here Paul characterizes that new life as “life in the Spirit” (8:9). At present, believers live “in the Spirit,” if they are controlled by the indwelling of the Spirit of God. According to Paul, “all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God” (8:14), and as children are “heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ” (8:17), provided that we suffer with him so that we will be glorified with him.

But Paul goes on to show that possession of the Spirit has a twofold function. In the first place, the Spirit makes believers aware that at present they are not what they should be. Present life is characterized by suffering (8:18), weakness (8:26), and decay since Adam’s fall (see Gen 3:17). Believers are not above the world order, but rather identify with the rest of creation as they “groan inwardly” (8:22–25). Furthermore, the Spirit intercedes on their behalf, because their prayers are not adequate (8:27).

But possession of the Spirit also assures believers that they have a future.

The Spirit is the “first fruits” or down payment of future redemption (8:23) as adopted children of God. When believers themselves (lit., “our bodies” in 8:24) are conformed to the image of God’s son (through the resurrection of the dead and the transformation of the living, which will occur at the parousia), then they shall be brethren of the firstborn son (8:29).

The concluding doxology in 8:31–39 serves as a summary of the entire argument in chaps. 1–8. Here Paul asserts that “God is for us.” The “us” refers to “the justified,” who are “called,” who are God’s elect (8:33). If God is for this group of “chosen” people, then nothing can be against them. Since God went to great lengths to justify believers, God will not now indict them. And because Christ suffered, died, and intercedes on behalf of believers, he will not condemn them.

Nothing, then, can separate God’s chosen ones from his love, absolutely nothing! Or is there something? Can lack of faith on the part of God’s chosen ones separate them from the love of God? This one possible exception is the topic of chaps. 9–11.

5. Rom 9:1–11:36. The solemn oath in 9:1–5 stands in stark contrast to the end of chap. 8 where Paul ponders whether anything is able to separate God’s chosen people from God’s love in Christ (8:35–39). In chaps. 9–11 Paul ponders the one “exception” that threatens to undermine his confidence, namely, the faithlessness of God’s chosen people. Paul expresses deep sorrow in these opening verses going so far as to say, “I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh” (9:3 NRSV), because of Israel’s unbelief in Christ.

But Paul’s sorrow in 9:1–5 is prompted not only by personal sorrow for the unbelieving members of his own race but also by a grave theological consideration, namely, God’s faithfulness in the face of Israel’s faithlessness. After all, God made promises to his chosen people Israel in the past. In light of Israel’s unbelief in Christ, will God now turn his back on Israel and turn to the gentiles instead (as Paul’s mission might suggest)? If this is the case, then hasn’t God welshed on his (unconditional) promises to Israel? And if he has welshed on his promises to Israel, what is to prevent him from welshing on his promises to Christian believers at some time in the future? Thus, Jewish unbelief is of concern for gentile believers.

Paul begins by arguing that the present unbelieving state of most Jews does not mean that God’s promise has lapsed. Paul reconsiders some important OT events, only to discover that human unbelief is unable to thwart the saving purposes of an all-powerful God. The present situation, where many gentiles are included in the people of God and many Jews are excluded, is in accordance with God’s revelation in Scripture, Paul says. According to Hosea (2:25; 1:10), gentiles would be called “children of the living God” (Rom 9:25–26), whereas Isaiah (10:22; 1:9) states that only a remnant of Jews will be saved (Rom 9:27–29).

But even though most of Israel suffers from hardness of heart in the present, God continues to reach out to his chosen people. He has made being put right with God (10:6) a simple matter of faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ 8

and confession of his lordship (10:9). Moreover, he has brought the message of faith near to the Jews (10:8) through the apostles’ preaching of Christ (10:15). But even though “not all have obeyed the good news” (10:16), God continues to reach out to Israel to bring about its obedience: “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people” (10:21).

To the question, “Has God rejected his people?” Paul gives a negative answer (11:1). Paul then goes on to show that the rejection of Israel by God is partial (11:1–10), temporary (11:11–27), and has had a deeper purpose (11:28–36).

Paul points to his own Christian existence as proof that the Jewish people as a whole have not been rejected. Contrary to what many think, there is a remnant of Jews that will be saved. According to 11:7 Israel is composed of “the elect” and “the rest.” Surely the elect will be saved (9:27). The real issue is the destiny of “the rest,” who are hardened in unbelief (11:8–10).

Next Paul argues that the rejection of Israel is a temporary condition (11:11–24). He begins by asking, “… have they stumbled so as to fall” (11:11a).

Here the “they” refers to “the [unbelieving] rest” of 11:7, “stumbled” alludes to Jews’ rejection of Jesus (see 9:32f), and “fall” means to fall from grace eternally.

In short, when the Jews rejected Jesus, was it God’s intention to cut them off forever?

Paul’s response to the question of 11:11a is an emphatic “By no means!”

God turned Israel’s stumbling into good. It brought salvation to the gentiles, which in turn will “make Israel jealous” (see Rom 10:19 = Deut 32:21). Therefore, God’s promise of salvation has not been taken from the Jews and given to the gentiles.

The order of events has merely been reversed: to the gentiles first and also to the Jews.

This fact informs Paul’s missionary method. In spite of Israel’s unbelief, God can reach the Jew via the gentiles and the jealousy that the gentiles’ acceptance of the gospel will cause. Therefore, Paul’s mission to the gentiles does not overlook Israel; it is at present the most direct way to get at the Jews.

Paul believes that his mission to the gentiles will have an impact on some of the unbelieving Jews (11:14). Note that the rejection of the Jews by God brought about the preaching of the gospel to the gentiles, which resulted in the reconciliation of the world (11:15). If this tragic event (Israel’s rejection by God) brought such good results (gentiles’ acceptance by God), what will happen when the Jews are accepted (11:15)? God has rejected unbelieving Israel in the present, but has not cast off Israel forever.

Paul then appeals to the metaphor of the olive tree (11:17–24). Here “some of the branches” (11:17a) refers to “the rest,” that is, unbelieving Jews (11:7), while “you, a wild olive shoot” (11:17b) agrees with the direct address of 11:13 and must, therefore, refer to a believing gentile. This metaphor illustrates several points. In the first place, the ingrafting of gentile Christians is something unexpected, unnatural. Gentile Christians are at best “honorary Jews” (so Stendahl 1976: 37) who have become such by adoption. The practical result of this perspective is that gentile Christians must not “boast over the [natural] branches” (11:18), for the gentiles are dependent on the Jews. The gentiles must “not become

proud, but stand in awe” (11:20), for God who did not spare the natural branches will surely not spare the wild branches, if they do not continue in their faith.

Moreover, God can easily restore the natural branches, if they do not persist in their unbelief (11:23).

In 11:25–32 Paul reveals an eschatological mystery (11:25). The hardening of Israel is limited in extent (“a hardening has come upon part of Israel”) and in duration (“until the full number of the Gentiles has come in”) (11:25b NRSV). The result is that in the future “all Israel will be saved” (11:26a NRSV).

And when will Israel be saved? According to the OT, which Paul cites in 11:26b– 27, it will not take place until “Out of Zion will come the Deliverer” (Isa 59:20– 21), that is, at the parousia of Christ. At that point Christ “will banish ungodliness from Jacob” (Isa 27:9), which Paul interprets to mean all unbelief on the part of “the rest” of Israel.

In response to the question implied in 9:6a, then, God is faithful! God will not take back from his people the gifts of his grace (listed in 9:4f) and their call to salvation (11:29). God’s obvious intention is to save all Israel (11:26). Just as the gentiles, who were once disobedient, now have obtained mercy through the disobedience of the Jews (11:30), so too “the rest” of the Jews are now disobedient in order that God may have mercy on all (11:32), both Jew and Greek.

Paul concludes Romans 9–11, and also the whole of Romans 1–11, with a final hymn of praise (11:33–36). Here he states that God’s ways of dealing with humankind are miraculous, far surpassing human understanding (11:33–34).

Furthermore, no one holds God in his debt. What is received from God is not merited; how God acts is purely according to his will (11:35). Finally, God is creator and sustainer of all, Jews as well as Greeks, and therefore to God alone belongs all glory (11:36).

6. Rom 12:1–15:13. Following the lengthy theological argument in chaps.

1–11 comes the paraenetic section of the epistle which begins in 12:1. Having the paraenesis follow the body of the epistle is not unusual in Paul’s writings (see also 1 Thessalonians 3–4 and Galatians 5–6). But this arrangement seems especially appropriate in Romans, for it shows that the saving work of God, which is described in chaps. 1–11, is not dependent on obedience to the injunctions of chaps. 12–15. One does not obey in order to earn God’s favor. Rather obedience is the result of gratitude for all that God has already done and will continue to do in Christ for those who believe (understanding the oun, “therefore,” of 12:1 to refer to all that has gone before).

This paraenetic section falls naturally into two distinct sections. While the first section (12:1–13:14) contains many general injunctions that seem unrelated to particular problems in Rome (but see the discussion of 13:1–7 below), the injunctions of the second section (14:1–15:13) are occasioned by and directed at the specific situation in Rome.

The exhortations of Romans 12–13 begin in 12:3 and end in 13:7. Life within the body of Christ is the subject of the first half of this section (12:3–14 [16a]), whereas relationships with those outside the Church are considered in the second half (12:15 [16b]–13:7). These exhortations are framed by an introductory 9

appeal in 12:1–2, which urges Christians to offer themselves wholly and unreservedly to God as a proper service of worship, and by concluding appeals in 13:8–14, which summarize what has preceded and underscore eschatological urgency.

The present structure of 12:1–13:14 shows that the Christian’s present life is radically qualified by the imminence of the New Age (13:11–14). Nevertheless, Paul does not conclude that Christians no longer have any responsibilities in the present age. In fact, according to Paul, life in Christ places special moral requirements on the believer. Gifts with which individuals are endowed (12:3–8) are to be used in the service of God, being the means whereby the believer’s faith is enacted in love. As in 1 Corinthians 12, Paul in Romans 12 follows his description of spiritual gifts with an appeal to “let love be genuine” (12:9a). Then in Rom 13:8–10 the love command reappears in the summary appeal of the whole section.

In Rom 14:1–15:13, Paul considers the tensions that are present within the believing community between the “weak” and the “strong.” In this section Paul describes those whom he calls “weak in faith” (14:1) as ones who “eat only vegetables” (14:2b NRSV) and also “judge one day to be better than another” (14:5a). The “strong,” although not mentioned as such until 15:1, are surely those who “believe in eating anything” (14:2a NRSV) and “judge all days to be alike” (14:5b). While they are never identified as such, the “weak” may refer to overly scrupulous Jewish-Christians, who because of their background, consider diet and festal observance matters of significant religious concern. The very fact that Paul has to council the so-called “strong” not to “despise those who abstain” and the socalled “weak” not to “pass judgment on those who eat” (14:3) reveals the tension between these two parties in the Roman community.

But Paul states that “God has welcomed” (14:1) members of both groups into the fellowship and all are advised to “Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you” (15:7 NRSV). Unity in the community, however, does not require uniformity of behavior (see 14:3, 5–6). But believers must be “fully convinced in their own minds” (14:5b) that what they do is done “in honor of the Lord” (14:6–9), knowing that one day they will have to account for their actions before God (14:10b, 12).

Believers must recognize that their responsibility to fellow believers does not simply involve tolerating the different practices of others. One’s own behavior must not injure or alienate others (14:13–23), even if that means giving up some personal rights, such as eating meat or drinking wine (14:21). If believers are more concerned with pleasing others than with pleasing themselves (15:1–2), then those from different backgrounds in Rome can “live in harmony with one another” (15:5) and thereby “with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (15:6).

Ultimately, then, this is the purpose of God’s act in Christ: to unite Jew and gentile in the praise of God (15:7–13). And that ultimate purpose explains why Paul writes to the Romans (15:14–17), why Paul wants to go on to Spain via Rome (15:18–24, 28–29), why Paul is about to go to Jerusalem with the gentile offering

(15:25–27), and why Paul is concerned about the acceptability of his service for Jerusalem (15:30–31).

F. Literary Character and Style of Romans The longest of the undisputed Pauline Epistles exhibits a remarkably varied literary character and style. In this 7,094–word epistle Paul uses a relatively large 1,068–word vocabulary, which betrays the author’s familiarity with Greek thought as well as his extensive knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures in their Greek translation (the LXX).

Besides using a varied vocabulary in Romans, Paul employs a wide variety of literary conventions, wider than in any of his other extant writings. Long ago Augustine noted (in On Christian Doctrine 4.7) the Apostle’s use in Romans 5:3–5 (see also 8:29–30 and 10:14–15) of the rhetorical device known as climax.

Elsewhere Paul also reveals a familiarity with other ancient rhetorical devices, such as chiasmus, a form of parallelism that inverts the order of the elements in the second half of the literary unit (hence, the ABB’A’pattern; see 1:17–18; 2:6–11; 6:3; 11:22; 11:33–36).

The diatribe is another important rhetorical device employed by Paul in Romans. In his doctoral dissertation, Bultmann (1910) pointed out the influence of the diatribe on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. But recent studies, particularly by Stowers (1981), have clarified and deepened our knowledge of the subject.

According to recent research the diatribe is actually a form of discourse that was used by teachers in certain philosophical schools to correct students and to refute their objections to the subject being taught. The diatribe, therefore, captures the earnest give-and-take between a pupil and a teacher. With this in mind, one can see that Paul employs the diatribe in Romans when he addresses an imaginary interlocutor (2:1–5; 2:17–24; 9:19–21; 11:17–24; 14:4, 10) and when he responds to objections and false conclusions (3:1–9; 3:31–4:2a; 6:1–3, 15–16; 7:7, 13–14; 9:14–15, 19–20; 11:1–3, 11, 19–20). Paul’s conspicuous use of the diatribe in Romans may also indicate something about the original addressees of this epistle.

Paul may have known (or at least thought it to be true) that the Romans were a sophisticated, well-educated congregation which would be familiar with this literary device.

In Romans, the longest sustained argument of any extant epistle, Paul skillfully unites the various topics taken up in this lengthy epistle into a single argument. On several occasions, Paul draws together the thought of a longer, moreinvolved discussion by means of a brief summarizing comment (see 6:11; 7:12; 15:5–6). At other times, the Apostle connects discrete portions of his argument by delaying such summarizing comments until after the next thought-unit has begun.

An obvious example of this type of delayed conclusion is found in 3:22b–23, where the comment, “For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” summarizes the discussion of 3:9–20 after a new thought has begun in 3:21 (see also 10:17).

But Paul is also careful to distinguish major sections of the epistle. Thus in 4:25 Paul cites a liturgical fragment to punctuate the discussion begun in 3:21. In 10

8:31–39 Paul utilizes a hymnlike passage to bring to a close the whole discussion that began in chap. 1 (understanding tauta, “these things,” in 8:31 as a reference to all that has preceded, at least since 3:21). In 11:33–36 Paul cites a doxological passage to end the discussion of chaps. 9–11, and in 15:13 a blessing serves to round off the previous discussion. In smaller thought-units in Romans, Paul often employs the literary device known as inclusion. Here a word or phrase at the beginning of a thought-unit is repeated at the end as a way of concluding the unit (for example, see the phrase “through our Lord Jesus Christ” in 5:11, which recalls 5:1 and rounds out the discussion in 5:1–11).

As a result of these punctuating devices, Romans contains some rather abrupt transitions and sudden changes of mood. But rather than interpreting these abrupt transitions as the result of some post-Pauline redactional activity (so Schmittals 1975; O’Neill Romans PNTC; and Scroggs 1976) they are better explained as deliberate attempts to demarcate the various sections of the letter and are not evidence of the composite nature of the epistle. To those who first heard this epistle read aloud these abrupt changes were needed to enable the auditors to distinguish one thought-unit from the next.

Some of the literary style and character of Romans, however, cannot be attributed to the apostle Paul, for there is much tradition cited by Paul in this epistle. In the first place, Paul repeatedly cites the LXX. Romans contains so many quotations from the Greek Bible (some 65 in all) that Martin Luther thought that Paul’s intent in writing this epistle was to compose “an introduction to the entire Old Testament” (1522 Preface to Romans).

But in Romans Paul also includes much pre-Pauline and even preChristian tradition. For example, Paul cites early creedal fragments (1:3b–4; 4:25), an early Christian hymn (11:33–36), an early Jewish-Christian liturgical statement (3:25), a baptismal tradition (6:4–5), a faith formula and confession (10:9), along with echoes of Christ-sayings (12:14, 17; 13:7; 14:13, 14). Some of the pre-Pauline paraenetic materials, such as the vice list in 1:29–31 and the imperative cluster in 12:9–13, may be pre-Christian. But Paul did not merely cite these traditions. He interpreted what he inherited by adding words and phrases in order to fit the occasion and his audience. The Epistle to the Romans, therefore, is not solely the product of Pauline originality.

All in all, the epistle that has as its theme “the power” of the gospel (1:16) is written in a style that is appropriate for the message. This epistle is forceful, but not angry like Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Moreover, Romans is argumentative, but not contentious like Paul’s Corinthian correspondence. But as is the case in the other Pauline writings, the literary character of Romans is also influenced by the audience that Paul addresses. The more sophisticated and more erudite style of Romans, in comparison to the other Pauline epistles, suggests that the community which Paul addresses is unlike his own congregations. Therefore, Paul wrote this epistle in a manner that he thought would enlighten and also persuade believers in Rome.

G. The Relation of Romans to Other Ancient Literature

Before World War I, Adolf Deissmann published his ground-breaking work (1910). Whereas previous scholars had compared NT works to the literature of Plato, Demosthenes, and other authors of classical antiquity, Deissmann endeavored to compare the literature of the NT with the plethora of nonliterary papyri that had been uncovered of late in Egypt. On the basis of this comparison, Deissmann distinguished between “letters” (Briefe), which were private, unliterary, and clearly occasional communications, and “epistles” (Episteln), which have the outer form of a letter but are actually artful literary products intended for public consumption and written for posterity. According to Deissmann, the writings of the apostle Paul were real letters and not literary epistles (1926: 9–12).

Not all scholars are satisfied with Deissmann’s absolute distinction between the letter and the epistle, particularly as it applies to Romans. Although most admit that Romans is occasional in nature, this work is not a casual correspondence written hurriedly and haphazardly. Neither is this work a private, informal communication. On the contrary, Romans is a well-thought-out, authoritative communication that is intended to serve as a substitute for Paul’s personal presence (Rom 15:25–27).

The enduring contribution of Deissmann, however, was his awareness of the need to compare the NT writings with the wide variety of Hellenistic literature.

This careful comparison has continued to be a vital part of Romans research in recent years, the thought being that the discovery of the rhetorical genre to which Romans belongs may provide some clue about Paul’s intention in writing Romans.

And a clearer sense of the rhetoric in Romans sheds valuable light on the structure of the argument.

Basing his work on the research of M. L. Stirewalt (1977: 175–206), K. P. Donfried suggests that Romans evidences the characteristics of the “letter-essay” (1977: 143–48). Stirewalt examines fifteen ancient Greek documents that he classified as “letter-essays,” because the more personal epistolary features of these writings seem to be giving way to the more impersonal features that characterize an essay. These writings often function as a summary of earlier work, and they seem to assume a third party (not only “I” and “thou,” but also “they”). The summary character and the public nature of Romans suggest that this writing may also exhibit characteristics of the “letter-essay,” Donfried asserts.

S. Stowers (1986: 114) classifies Romans as a “protreptic letter,” a type of letter which is modeled on the protreptic speech that goes back to the Sophists.

Protreptic works usually urge one to adopt a new way of life, and to do so they sometimes include a refutation of objections. In Romans, Paul introduces his gospel and himself as an authoritative teacher to the Roman Christians. Moreover, in Romans, Paul answers objections to his gospel and reproaches those who, through arrogance or pretentiousness, will not accept his gospel. All of these features, argues Stowers, are typical of the protreptic letter.

Other scholars have considered the whole of the Epistle to the Romans in relation to ancient Hellenistic literature by means of rhetorical criticism. After determining the conventional parts of a rhetorical composition through a careful examination of the contents of ancient rhetorical handbooks, these scholars 11

(notably W. Wuellner 1976: 152–74; G. Kennedy 1984: 152–54; and R. Jewett 1986: 382–89) then analyze Romans in terms of its rhetoric of argumentation.

Although there is no scholarly consensus at the present time, further comparisons of Romans with other ancient Hellenistic literature is assured. And although this type of scholarly research is still in its infancy, such analysis promises to shed new light on the perennial problems of the author’s intent, the structure of the argument, and the climax of the epistle.

H. Some “Problem” Texts of Romans Reconsidered Several passages in Romans, which down through the years have had a deleterious effect on the social, political, and moral realms, have received special scholarly attention in recent years. Three texts in particular have been the subject of considerable study: Rom 1:26–27, which deals with the subject of homosexuality; Rom 13:1–7, which concerns the Christian’s responsibility to the state; and Rom 16:1–7, which provides valuable testimony about the role women played in the first generation of the Christian Church.

1. Rom 1:26–27. In the course of indicting gentile unbelievers in 1:18–31, Paul refers to women who “exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural” (1:26 NRSV) and men who “giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.” (1:27 NRSV). Rom 1:27 is the clearest statement in the NT regarding the issue of homosexual behavior between consenting adult males, and Rom 1:26 is the only biblical text that addresses the particular issue of homosexual behavior between consenting females. Because of their clarity, these verses have served as a biblical warrant for singling out homosexual behavior as the grossest of sins and for discriminating against those who engage in such behavior.

Greater awareness of the historical context and a greater appreciation of the literary context of Paul’s remarks in Rom 1:26–27, however, have forced a reconsideration of these verses. True, homosexual behavior between consenting adult males was a capital offense in ancient Israel (Lev 18:22; 20:13), but so were such “heinous” crimes as consulting a medium or wizard (Lev 20:6), cursing your father or mother (Lev 20:9), and engaging in sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman (Lev 18:19; 20:18).

Apparently, homosexual behavior among consenting males was quite rare among Israelites. Nowhere in the historical literature is this practice mentioned.

More importantly, prophetic denunciations of Israel’s sins do not include homosexual behavior. The result is that among Jews, homosexual behavior was perceived as a “gentile” phenomenon and practice.

Although homosexual love (usually in the form of pederasty, the love of an older man for a younger) enjoyed a relatively prominent place in ancient Greek social life beginning in the 6th century B.C., homosexuality was viewed differently in the world of the 1st century A.D. To be sure, it was still practiced among some segments of society, but moral philosophers were beginning to question its merit.

Homosexuality was viewed as grossly self-indulgent, essentially exploitative, and an expression of absolutely insatiable lust. The same desire that drove men to

female prostitutes could, unless kept under control, drive men to seduce other men.

Homosexuality was also seen as a violation of the natural order. Since heterosexual intercourse was necessary for procreation, this was “natural,” whereas sex between same-sexed partners was “unnatural.”

It is vital to note that Paul’s presuppositions about homosexuality in Romans 1 are similar to those of his contemporaries. Paul’s choice of the active verbs “exchanged” (1:26) and “giving up” (1:27) assumes that homosexuality is an activity freely chosen. Paul’s use of the phrase “consumed with passion” (1:27) reveals the belief that homosexual behavior is associated with insatiable lust and unbridled passion. And Paul’s remarks concerning the giving up of “natural [heterosexual] intercourse” (1:26, 27) in favor of “unnatural” (1:26) understand homosexuality as a violation of the natural order.

It is also important to note that Paul describes homosexuality as the consequence of idolatry. In 1:18–23 Paul indicates that the source of gentile “ungodliness and wickedness” is their failure to give honor and thanks to God, who has revealed himself to all through the creation. “So they are without excuse” (1:20b). Rather than worshipping the Creator, they worship the creation instead (1:23, 25). And their fundamental confusion regarding the true entity of God (“they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator …” 1:25) results in a basic confusion about their own sexual identity (“they exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural,” 1:26).

Homosexual conduct (and the other vices catalogued in 1:29–31) is due to the sin of idolatry.

But Paul’s description of the gentile world in Romans 1 is not original. As the striking parallels with the Wisdom of Solomon (chaps. 11–15) indicate, Paul is heavily indebted to the traditional Hellenistic Jewish picture of gentile sinners.

Homosexual behavior, which was believed to be a typically gentile practice, is understood as a consequence of their refusal to let God be God. But Paul’s argument does not conclude with the description of the gentile world. At 2:1, Paul’s indictment of the gentiles’ behavior turns to “the man” (the Jewish boaster of 2:17?) who self-righteously judges that behavior. The one passing judgment is not innocent, because no one is guiltless, when judged purely on the basis of what one does before an impartial and just God (2:1–11).

While Paul obviously accepts the description of the gentiles in Romans 1, this is not the point of the initial chapter of Romans. Paul’s description of the gentiles is intended to provoke self-righteous Jewish pride, so that Paul can destroy it in chap. 2 by showing them that they sin against the law. Paul is simply leading up to the point that “all people, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin” (3:9b), so that he can introduce the topic of the reality and power of God’s redemptive grace for all (3:21–8:39).

Even within Romans 1, homosexuality is perceived not as one of the “sins” of the gentiles, but as one of the consequences of their root sin of refusing to let God be their God. Therefore, homosexuality cannot be singled out in this chapter, for Paul says that those who do such things (1:32a), or they that approve of 12

others doing them (1:32b), or they that pass judgment on those who do them (2:1) are all worthy of condemnation. In other words, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23).

2. Rom 13:1–7. The Apostle Paul’s admonition to “be subject to the governing authorities” (13:1a) on the grounds that “those authorities that exist have been instituted by God” (13:1c) has caused much needless suffering and much misery even in the 20th century. This passage seems to lend support to any existing government, regardless of how tyrannical or how corrupt, and any governmental policy, however repressive or unjust. This passage has been invoked by Christians to put down revolt, support war, and justify genocide. In fact, many Christians in Hitler’s Germany appealed to this text as the decisive biblical warrant for obedience to the Nazi regime. And it has been regret over the Church’s alignment with the Nazi regime that has forced a reconsideration of these verses, particularly

by German biblical scholars.

Again, a careful reading of the text along with an awareness of the historical context is essential for understanding this problem passage. It must be noted that Paul does not say “obey” or “disobey” governing authorities. He instead speaks of “being subject” (13:1, 5), which can include disobedience.

In Rom 13:1–2, Paul states that the authority of the governing authorities has been granted them by God. Here Paul is indebted to Hellenistic Judaism, which understood that earthly rulers had no authority except what God had given them (see Prov 8:15–16; 24:21; 1 Pet 2:17). But authority was not a license to do whatever one wanted. Tradition also held that earthly rulers were accountable to God for their own actions and were liable to God’s judgment (see, for example, Wis 6:1–11).

In Rom 13:3–4, Paul argues that earthly rulers function as servants of God to employ the authority granted them for the common good. According to Paul governing authorities are “God’s servants” and not divine representatives. Their authority is recognized, for it is given by God, and their rightful task is to serve.

The proper function of governing authorities is to assure the welfare of society by punishing those who do wrong and by supporting those who work for what is good.

In Rom 13:5, Paul advances a third point by repeating the opening admonition to “be subject” not only for fear of punishment but also “for the sake of conscience.” Up to this point Paul has argued for being subject to governing authorities, because they are God’s servants for the maintenance of law and order.

Now he says one must be subject “for the sake of conscience.” This refers to the capacity to reflect critically upon what is appropriate given the realities of existence. Therefore, Paul argues that if one thinks carefully and reasonably about it, subjection to the authorities will commend itself as a wise and prudent course.

This passage sums up the argument to this point, but the conclusion and real point of the paragraph comes in 13:6–7.

In Rom 13:6–7, Paul states exactly how one should comply with the demands of the governing authorities: by paying taxes. Everything in 13:1–5 has been leading up to the topic of “taxes” in 13:6–7. But the way that the admonition is worded suggests that Paul has a specific issue in mind.

Rom 13:7 is an admonition, which uses two different words (phoros = “taxes” in the NRSV, and telos = “revenue” in the NRSV) to refer to taxes due, in contrast to 13:6, which is a statement that mentions only “taxes” (phoros).

Moreover, the admonition in 13:7 stresses the need to render “to all what is due them” (NRSV).

What Paul apparently refers to in v 6 is direct taxes, which were collected by government officials. The reference to “revenue” in 13:7 is probably a reference to indirect taxes (such as harbor fees, import and export duties), which were collected by Roman citizens known for their exploitation the public. The Roman historian Tacitus (Ann. 13.50) says that public displeasure with the corrupt practices of these citizen collectors of “revenues” reached a climax in A.D. 58. As a result of the widespread discontent, Nero almost abolished these taxes, but instead he simply reformed the system.

Paul’s letter to Rome was written in ca. A.D. 55–57, while public pressure was building against abuses of revenue collectors. If the Roman church included some well-to-do people, then these would be ones most affected by revenue abuses. If this is true, then Paul is urging Roman believers to continue paying the direct tax (13:6) and also the controversial indirect tax (13:7). Paul urges the paying of whatever taxes are levied. This will prevent punishment for tax evasion, which is a reasonable thing to do as a sign of respect for law and order.

Rom 13:1–7, therefore, was originally directed to a specific situation in Rome during the mid-50s. When these words were composed, several years before Paul’s own death at the hands of the Romans and before the Neronian persecutions of the 60s, Paul must have been fairly confident that the Roman government would be just. Nevertheless, Paul’s thought about the governing authorities in these verses is not original; he was indebted to the Hellenistic Jewish tradition that he inherited.

But Paul uses that tradition to address a specific situation in Rome, because Paul did not believe that Roman Christians should become embroiled in the tax issue.

For that reason, the point of the discussion is the concluding admonition: “Pay to all what is due them” (13:7).

3. Rom 16:1–7. The problem with this passage is that it has for so long been overlooked. After all, on the surface these verses appear to be little more than commendations and greetings, material that is hardly worthy of any scholarly scrutiny. Nevertheless, in recent years this passage has been found to contribute some important pieces to a larger puzzle about the role(s) of women in the first generation of the Christian movement.

In Rom 16:1–2 Paul recommends to the Romans (assuming that chap. 16 is a part of the original letter to Rome; see the discussion in section C, above) a woman named Phoebe from the port city of Corinth. Note that she is identified as a diakonos, and although at this time “deacon” is not the formal office that it becomes at a later stage in the early Church, the woman Phoebe must have been a prominent figure in the church at Corinth. Moreover, the fact that Paul recommends to the recipients of his letter a woman who comes from the place where Paul wrote Romans suggests that Phoebe probably delivered Paul’s letter to the Romans, not an insignificant task.

13

In Rom 16:3–4, Paul greets Prisca and Aquila, a woman and her husband.

According to Acts 18, after this man and his wife (called Priscilla in Acts) were expelled from Rome by the Emperor Claudius, they met Paul in Corinth (Acts 18:1–3). Acts also states that this husband-wife team later “expounded to [Apollos] the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:26). In Rom 16:3, Paul, contrary to ancient practice, greets Prisca before Aquila, which may indicate that Prisca was the leader of the team. In any event, Paul calls both Prisca and Aquila synergoi (“fellow workers”), a title reserved for important leaders (for example, Apollos, 1 Cor 3:9; Titus, 2 Cor 8:23; Timothy, 1 Thess 3:2).

In Rom 16:7, Paul greets two apostles who Paul describes as “prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was” (NRSV). One of these apostles is a man, Andronicus. But the other apostle, who was an apostle before Paul himself, may be a woman and the spouse of Andronicus. Most English translations merely transliterate the Greek text and render Ioudian as “Junias,” a male name that is otherwise unattested in antiquity. But the name in the Greek text is in the accusative case, because it is the direct object of the sentence. That same name in the nominative (subject) case could be “Junia,” which was the Greek version of a common Roman name for a woman. If “Junia” is the correct name in this verse, and this reading is gaining wider acceptance (so the REB and NRSV), then here is evidence that women were apostles at a very early stage in the Christian movement.

These few verses testify, therefore, that Paul knew of women in positions of leadership in the early Church and that he acknowledged their authority. These verses also reveal that the practice in the first generation of the Church’s existence differed from the practice of the later Church, which is reflected in 1 Tim 2:11– 3:13. Apparently, in Paul’s day women were not denied the right “to teach or have authority over men …” (1 Tim 2:12). In Paul’s churches, those who led were the ones most-gifted spiritually (see 1 Cor 12:4–11, where Paul’s remarks do not bar anyone from participation in the various offices listed). As a result, women had access to prominent roles of leadership in the earliest generation of the Church.

Paul’s own testimony suggests that in reality women were among his closest associates in ministry and that women were among the most prominent leaders in the early Church.

Rom 16:1–7, therefore, lend additional support for understanding 1 Cor 14:33b–36 as a non-Pauline insertion and for recognizing Paul’s remark that “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28b) as most expressive of Paul’s attitude toward women.

Bibliography Barth, K. 1933. The Epistle to the Romans. Trans. E. C. Hoskyns. London.

Bassler, J. M. 1982. Divine Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom. SBLDS 59. Chico, CA. Baur, F. C. 1875–76. Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ. 2d ed. 2 vols. Trans. A. Menzies. London.

Beker, J. C. 1980. Paul the Apostle. Philadelphia.

Bornkamm, G. 1963. The Letter to the Romans as Paul’s Last Will and Testament.

ABR 11: 2–14. Repr. pp. 17–31 in K. P. Donfried, ed. 1977.

Bultmann, R. 1910. Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe. Göttingen.

———. 1947. Glossen im Römerbrief. TLZ 72: 197–202.

Dahl, N. A. 1951. Two Notes on Romans 5. ST 5: 37–48.

———. 1977. Studies in Paul. Minneapolis.

Deissmann, A. 1910. Light from the Ancient East. London.

———. 1926. Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History. 2d rev. ed. Trans. W. E. Wilson. London.

Donfried, K. P. 1970. A Short Note on Romans 16. JBL 89: 441–49. Repr. pp. 50– 60 in K. P. Donfried, ed. 1977.

———. 1974. False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans. CBQ 36: 332–55.

Repr. pp. 120–48 K. P. Donfried, ed. 1977.

Donfried, K. P., ed. 1977. The Romans Debate. Minneapolis.

Furnish, V. P. 1985. The Moral Teaching of Paul. 2d rev. ed. Nashville.

Gamble, H. Y., Jr. 1977. The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans. SD 42.

Grand Rapids.

Jervell, J. 1971. Der Brief nach Jerusalem: Über Veranlassung und Adresse des Römerbriefes. ST 25: 61–73. Trans. and repr. pp. 61–74 in K. P. Donfried, ed.

1977.

Jewett, R. 1986. Following the Argument of Romans. WW 6: 382–89.

Käsemann, E. 1980. Commentary on Romans. Trans. G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids.

Keck, L. E. 1979. Paul and His Letters. Proclamation Commentaries. Philadelphia.

Kennedy, G. 1984. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism.

Chapel Hill, N.C. Luther, M. 1961. Lectures on Romans. Trans. and ed. W. Pauck. LCC 15.

Philadelphia.

Manson, T. W. 1948. St Paul’s Letter to the Romans—And Others. BJRL 331: 224–40. Repr. pp. 1–16 in K. P. Donfried, ed. 1977.

Metzger, B. M. 1987. The Canon of the New Testament. Oxford.

———. 1971. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. New York.

Minear, P. S. 1971. The Obedience of Faith: The Purposes of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. SBT 2d ser. 19. Naperville, IL. Munck, J. 1967. Christ and Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9–11. Trans. I. Nixon. Philadelphia.

Nygren, A. 1949. Commentary on Romans. Trans. C. Rasmussen. Philadelphia.

Schmittals, W. 1975. Der Römerbrief als historisches Problem. SNT 9. Gütersloh.

Scroggs, R. 1976. Paul as Rhetorician: Two Homilies in Romans 1–11. Pp. 271–98 in Jews, Greeks and Christians, ed. R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs. SJLA 21.

Leiden.

Stendahl, K. 1976. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays. Philadelphia.

Stirewalt, M. L. 1977. The Form and Function of the Greek Letter-Essay. Pp. 175– 206 in K. P. Donfried, ed. 1977.

14

Stowers, S. K. 1981. The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans. SBLDS 57.

Chico, CA. ———. 1986. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. LEC 5. Philadelphia.

Wuellner, W. 1976. Paul’s Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans. CBQ 38: 330– 51. Repr. pp. 152–74 in K. P. Donfried, ed. 1977.

CHARLES D. MYERS, JR.

15