Romans is a letter sent by Paul from Corinth to the house
churches in Rome. The letter is unique in several ways. It is the
longest of all Pauline letters, which explains why it appears first
in the NT canon (Paul’s letters are arranged in length from
longest to shortest and divided into two groups: to churches and to
individuals). Romans is one of the last letters Paul wrote while he
was a free man. Shortly after sending it, Paul traveled to Jerusalem,
where he was arrested, and subsequently spent several years in prison
in Caesarea and Rome. Romans is one of two letters Paul sent to
churches that he had never visited (the other is Colossians, a church
started by Paul through one of his missionary associates, Epaphras).
But what sets Romans apart from the rest of his letters is this: it
is the only letter Paul sent to establish contact with a church that
he did not start. Since letter production was so expensive, why did
Paul send this, his lengthiest letter, to a group of people he did
not know? It seems perfectly reasonable for Paul to send letters to
straighten out problems among his own converts while he was absent,
but it seems odd that he would send a very long, sophisticated
theological argument (with several warnings) to a group of house
churches that did not know him, much less ask for his advice. Why did
he do it?
Paul’s
Purpose
Rome
and Spain. Paul
states his purpose for sending Romans at the beginning and toward the
end of the letter. At first, he explains why he had not visited Rome,
even though he wanted to come in order to “impart to you some
spiritual gift to make you strong” and “that I might have
a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles”
(1:11–13). Paul’s intentions are revealing. He believes
that since God has called him to be the apostle to the Gentiles
(1:1), it is his duty to impart spiritual gifts to churches with
Gentile members as well as add to their number by converting Gentiles
in their region. In other words, although Paul had never visited Rome
or had a hand in starting or guiding the Roman church to this point,
he believes that he is responsible for it by virtue of his calling.
Therefore, since he has been unable to do the work of an apostle by
coming to them, he sends the Roman house churches a letter
(15:14–16). But this is not the only reason for Romans. At the
end of the letter Paul asks the Roman Christians to support his
upcoming mission to Spain (15:22–29) and to pray that God will
protect him during his visit to Jerusalem, for he expects trouble
when he arrives there (15:30–32).
Paul’s
request for financial support is a little unusual. Only a few
churches helped him financially (Philippi and probably Antioch), and
as far as we know, he did not ask for this assistance (Phil. 4:15–17;
2 Cor. 11:9). He preferred to support himself by working (1 Cor.
9:6–18; 2 Thess. 3:7–10). In Paul’s day, money
came with strings attached; clients were obligated to “obey”
their patrons—an arrangement that Paul would find intolerable.
So, in light of Paul’s practice of self-support, why did he ask
the Roman house churches for assistance with his planned mission to
Spain? And if that were his primary purpose in writing, why did he
send such a lengthy letter containing arguments that seem to have
little to do with his request? A simple letter asking for help would
have sufficed. Besides breaking from his usual practice of
self-support, why would he ask the Roman church for help? Why not
send a letter to churches that he himself had started and ask for
their help? Paul had recently finished collecting a relief offering
from his churches to help the poor in Jerusalem. Why did he not
collect additional funds (or use part of the money) to expand his
missionary efforts to Spain? If he was willing to be indebted to
someone, why not let it be his own converts (especially the
Philippians)? Indeed, there seems to be more to Paul’s letter
than a request for financial aid. Apparently, Paul’s reasons
for writing Romans go beyond his stated purposes.
The
Roman churches.
Paul’s relationship with the Roman house churches may have been
more involved than what might be presumed. At the end of the letter
Paul greets at least five house churches, naming several individuals
(16:5, 10–11, 14–15). It is a long list of names,
especially compared to other Pauline letters. These are persons Paul
knew very well, not only Prisca and Aquila (cf. Acts 18:2; 1 Cor.
16:19), but also Epenetus, Ampliatus, and Stachys, whom Paul calls
“my dear friend” (16:5–9) as well as Andronicus,
Junia, and Herodion, who are called “my relatives” (16:7,
11; NIV: “my fellow Jews”). He even referred to a member
of the church as “a mother to me” (16:13). Paul also knew
about the problems in Rome (14:1–15:13) and felt obliged to
clear up what others were saying about him in Rome (3:8). In other
words, Paul and the Roman church were not strangers. He did not send
the Roman letter to introduce himself in order to ask for help. Even
though the apostle to the Gentiles had never visited Rome, Paul and
the Roman church knew each other. He obviously had many friends among
their number; several were key leaders (a group to which Paul was
trying to add Phoebe [16:1–2]). Perhaps Paul’s influence
in the church was so significant that he was compelled to send the
Roman letter for the same reason he sent other letters: they needed
his help in straightening out their problems. In particular, Jewish
Christians were not getting along with Gentile Christians—a
situation that Paul had faced several times before—which the
apostle addresses in the last half of the letter (9:1–15:13).
But if that is the main reason for Romans, what is the purpose of the
first half of the letter—a lengthy, sophisticated theological
argument concerning the righteousness of God that seems to have
little to do with ethnic divisions among Roman Christians?
Theology.
Since Romans contains the clearest and most substantive theological
argument of all of Paul’s letters, scholars wonder why he wrote
it. Some have thought that Paul was trying to get his beliefs down on
paper before facing perilous times in Jerusalem. Others have argued,
based on Paul’s appeal for financial support, that Romans is a
condensed version of his gospel—a “this is what I preach
so you can support me” letter. Recently, scholars have been
emphasizing the correlation between chapters 1–8 and 9–16.
That is to say, the first half of Romans is the theological
foundation upon which Paul builds his argument for a unified church
threatened by ethnic, social, and economic divisions. But what is the
evidence of ethnic strife in the Roman letter? First of all, when
Paul greets certain house churches, the grouping of names reveals
that “birds of a feather flocked together.” Persons with
Jewish names appear together (16:1–7), separated from those
with slave names (16:8–10a), and distinguished from those with
high-status Greek names (16:14–15). This conforms to the
demographics of the first-century city, where Jews were segregated
from their neighbors and the poor lived together in the least
desirable part of Rome. The contentious debate over food and calendar
between the “weak” and the “strong” reveals
fault lines that conform to ethnic and social divisions within the
church: weak = Jews, strong = Gentiles (14:1–15:13).
At one point, Paul even singles out his Gentile readers by issuing a
specific warning about ignoring the Jewish roots of their faith
(11:13–24). With these issues in mind, scholars see how Paul
front-loaded his warnings about ethnic strife with the theological
argument of 1:1–8:39. Indeed, Romans is a pastoral letter with
theological purpose.
Outline
I.
Introduction (1:1–17)
A.
Greeting (1:1–7)
B.
Thanksgiving and prayer (1:8–15)
C.
Thesis: the righteousness of God by faith (1:16–17)
II.
The Righteousness of God by Faith (1:18–8:39)
A.
Judgment of God against ungodliness and unrighteousness (1:18–3:20)
B.
Righteousness of God in Christ by faith (3:21–5:11)
C.
Questions regarding the righ-teous-ness of God in Christ by faith
(5:12–8:39)
III.
Living Righteously by Faith (9:1–15:13)
A.
What about Israel? (9:1–11:36)
B.
Present the body as a sacrifice (12:1–21)
C.
Submit to God (13:1–14)
D.
Accept one another (14:1–15:13)
IV.
Conclusion (15:14–16:27)
A.
Paul’s purpose (15:14–33)
B.
Final greetings (16:1–27)
Paul’s
Argument
The
main point of Paul’s letter to the Romans is that the
righteousness of God has been fully revealed in Christ Jesus.
According to Paul, this is “good news” (gospel) for Jews
and Gentiles. In fact, the entire letter is Paul’s explanation
of why he believes that this new revelation of God’s
righteousness in Christ is good news for all people, even his own
kin. But what does Paul mean by “the righteousness of God”?
Is he talking about how God makes individuals right by faith in
Christ? Or is he defending God’s way of saving the world,
saying that God is right to bring salvation to all people through the
gospel? Does the phrase “righteousness of God” mean
“personal justification that comes from God” or “the
justice of God”? What makes Paul’s meaning even more
confusing for speakers of English is that one Greek word (dikaiosynē)
can be translated three ways: “righteousness,” “justice,”
or “justification.” Thus, there are those who argue that
Paul emphasizes personal righteousness—that is, how a person
can have right standing with God. Others, however, maintain that Paul
is arguing for his gospel as an undeniable demonstration of God’s
justice—that is, how God’s character as a just God is
revealed through the salvation of the world through Christ (not only
sons of Abraham, not only sons of Adam, but all creation). The
different emphases have significant implications for Paul’s
argument.
Judgment
of God against ungodliness and unrighteousness (1:18–3:20).
Take, for example, Paul’s view of the law and how it functions
in the first part of Romans (1:18–3:20). Some take 3:20 as the
climax of this part of the argument, where Paul assigns one purpose
to the law: to define sin. So according to this line of
interpretation, Paul believes that God gave the law in order to show
humanity’s need of Christ. Since no one is able to keep the
whole law, especially those to whom it has been given, the Jews, then
“all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
(3:23). The implication, of course, is that God gave the law in order
to reveal to people Israel’s failure so that Israel would
recognize their need for a righteousness that depends not on
obedience but on God’s free gift through Christ. But there are
two problems with this approach: Paul is offended by the idea that
God gave the law to the Israelites in order to cause them to “stumble
so as to fall” (11:11–12), and he also maintains that
there were some who kept the law (Gentiles!), proving that “doers
of the law will be justified” (2:13–14 NASB, NKJV). In
other words, the law is God’s gift to Israel that is supposed
to give it an advantage when it comes to righteousness (3:1–2).
But the Jews disobeyed God (2:17–24), incurring his wrath
( just like the Gentiles [1:18–32]). So Paul makes the
argument that God is right to punish Israelites (as well as the
Gentiles) for their disobedience (2:1–12): “There will be
trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for
the Jew, then for the Gentile” (2:9). In other words, 1:18–3:20
is not only an argument for the universality of sin (which neither
Jew nor Gentile would deny) but also a justification of the
revelation of God’s righteous wrath against all ungodliness and
disobedience, even for the Jewish people. Paul is pointing out the
justice of God by emphasizing his impartial punishment of sin.
But
this is where an interlocutor (a hypothetical opponent of Paul) could
raise an objection: “But we Jews have the covenant with God,
consisting of laws and promises from God. God promised to bless the
sons of Abraham and gave us the law—with all the prescriptions
for sacrifices and atonement—to deal with sin. We will escape
God’s wrath because God is faithful even though we are not.”
Even though Paul’s interlocutor does not use these words, this
is the basis of the argument that Paul puts into the mouth of his
imaginary opponent in 3:1–8. The interlocutor essentially says,
“If our sin reveals the righteous wrath of God, then Paul is
saying that our disobedience serves his purpose. Why should we be
judged as sinners?” In other words, what is the point of the
covenant if God’s chosen people are no better off than pagans
on the day of judgment? But this is the very point that Paul will
contend with on two counts. First, who says that God’s chosen
people do not have an advantage in preparing for the day of judgment
(an argument that he will come back to in 9:1–11:32)? Second,
who says that the law is God’s only requirement of the covenant
(a question that he answers in 3:21–5:21)? Throughout the
entire Roman letter Paul holds two seemingly contradictory ideas in
tension: the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to Abraham
is not contingent upon Israel’s obedience (God is faithful),
and not every descendant of Abraham will realize the covenant
promises of God (only those who have faith like Abraham). The reason
for the tension is that a new kind of righteousness has been revealed
apart from the law (although predicted by the Law and the Prophets),
fulfilling the salient requirement of the covenant. Those who believe
that the righteousness of God is found in Christ will inherit the
promises of God to Abraham, whether Jew or Gentile. Therefore,
Christ’s followers are the sons of Abraham, the children of the
covenant, justified by faith, not by law. All of this is by divine
design—what Paul calls “predestination.”
Righteousness
of God in Christ by faith (3:21–5:11).
According to Paul, sacrifices prescribed by the law only deferred the
wrath of God. “In his forbearance he had left the sins
committed beforehand unpunished” (3:25). On the other hand,
Jesus’ sacrificial death, a public display of God’s
righteousness, atones for the sins of Jews and Gentiles “at the
present time” (3:25–30). To describe the justification of
Christ’s death as an act of redemption, Paul uses a technical
word, “propitiation” (v. 25 [NIV: “sacrifice
of atonement”]), which has two meanings: either God’s
righteous requirement was “satisfied” by the blood of
Christ, or God’s wrath was “appeased” by the blood
of Christ. Either way, at this point we might have expected Paul to
explain how Christ’s death satisfied the requirements of the
law by offering the perfect sacrifice (much like the argument of
Hebrews). Instead, he emphasizes the role of faith in this new
revelation of God’s righteousness: both the faith(fulness) of
Jesus and the faith of those who believe in him (the phrase often
translated “faith in Jesus Christ” might also mean
“faithfulness of Jesus Christ” [3:22, 26]). This does two
things at once: it makes the righteousness of God available to
Gentiles as well as Jews because it is based on faith (“Is God
the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of
Gentiles too” [3:29]), and it elevates the role of faith above
works of the law in the story of God’s covenant with Israel
(“For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart
from the works of the law” [3:28]). In other words, by
privileging faith over works of law, Paul has made a way for Gentiles
to realize the promises God made to Abraham and has established the
supreme requirement of the Abrahamic covenant for Jews. This is why
scholars say that 4:1–25 (Paul’s interpretation of God’s
covenant with Abraham) is crucial to his argument for the
righteousness of God in Christ.
Abraham
was God’s first Gentile convert. That is to say, Abraham was an
uncircumcised Chaldean when God established his covenant with the
father of Israel. For Paul, the sequence of the story is pivotal to
his argument. In 4:3 he quotes Gen. 15:6, “Abraham believed
God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and points
out that God’s righteousness was “credited” or
“reckoned” to the patriarch because of his faith while he
was still uncircumcised (Rom. 4:10–12). Abraham believed God’s
promise of making him the father of many nations even though he had
no son. Faith in God’s promise is what made this uncircumcised
man righteous. Furthermore, because of his faith, the promise of God
was fulfilled: Abraham not only became the father of Israel; he
became the father of all nations (Gentiles) who have faith like
Abraham. And what kind of faith is that? It is a resurrection
faith—one who believes that God gives life to the dead, not
only dead loins and a dead womb, but also a dead man (4:16–25).
So the righteousness of God is “reckoned” for “us
who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was
delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our
justification” (4:24–25). Faith in the promise of God is
the requisite of covenant blessing. For if the covenant were based on
works of law, then Israel would be the only beneficiary of God’s
grace, and the promises God made to Abraham—that he would be
the father of many nations—would be made void (4:13–15).
“Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by
grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not
only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the
faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all” (4:16).
The
death and resurrection of Jesus changed everything. It turned God’s
enemies into friends. It brought peace to those who deserved God’s
wrath. In Christ’s death, God loves the ungodly. In Christ’s
resurrection, hope befriends the helpless. When Paul spells out the
advantages of the righteousness of God in Christ in 5:1–11, it
reads like a condensed version of all that is right with the gospel
according to Paul. His favorite triad is there: faith, hope, love. He
employs his favorite metaphors to explain the meaning of the
sacrifice of Christ: justification and reconciliation. He writes of
salvation in every tense: past, present, and future. In fact, the
rest of the argument in 5:12–8:39 is Paul’s explanation
of what he means in these few verses, gathering up issues raised at
the beginning of the letter—the problem of sin, the law, and
the righteousness of God.
Questions
regarding the righteousness of God in Christ by faith (5:12–8:39).
Paul once again begins with the human condition: the law of sin and
death reigns in the world because of Adam. But where the first Adam
failed, the second Adam (Christ) has succeeded: because of his
obedience, grace reigns eternally through his righteousness
(5:12–21). How does this righteousness apply to Christ
believers, especially Gentiles without law? Sin was crucified with
Christ so that believers can be slaves of righteousness, freed from
the bondage of sin (6:1–23). Furthermore, believers have been
freed from the law, a spiritual and holy gift that sin used to arouse
the flesh, effecting death (7:1–25). What the law could not do
(bring life) because of the weakness of the flesh, God did by sending
his Son in human flesh in order to condemn sin, bring about
justice/righteousness required by the law, and provide his Spirit to
enable believers to have resurrection life (8:1–27). This has
been God’s plan from the beginning (predestination): he will
have a people (election) like Jesus Christ ( justification),
who will share in his resurrection (glorification). And what God
starts, he finishes. Nothing can frustrate the plans of God. His love
is too great; his power is irrepressible (8:28–39). Since God
is the one who justifies the “elect,” no charge can be
brought against them (8:33).
Paul’s
Advice
The
conclusion to Paul’s argument—believers in Christ can do
nothing to jeopardize God’s love for them as his “elect”—brings
to mind the problem of Israel’s rejection of the gospel
(9:1–11:32). If Paul believes that God’s promises are
irrevocable, should not the same apply to Israel? If the
righteousness of God is found in Christ, what does this mean for Jews
who do not believe in Jesus? Does their unbelief undermine God’s
faithfulness? This was more than a theological problem for Paul.
Ethnic issues threatened to divide the church in Rome. Evidently,
Gentile believers were displaying an arrogant attitude toward Jewish
members of the church (11:13–24), contemptuous of their dietary
restrictions and Sabbath observances (14:3–6). Perhaps Paul’s
notorious reputation as a lawbreaker (3:8) added fuel to the fire of
ethnic strife and emboldened Gentile believers to disregard Jewish
sensibilities with smug confidence, especially in a place such as
Rome, where tensions between Jews and Gentiles were prevalent. Or,
maybe Paul had nothing to do with it; Gentile contempt for Jewish
people and their ways was an unfortunate by-product of the argument
for Gentile inclusion: the law no longer defined righteousness (“Who
needs the Jews and their law?”). Whatever the cause, Israel’s
rejection of the gospel coupled with the historical problem of Jew
versus Gentile was a delicate issue that required a carefully nuanced
answer from Paul (9:1–11:32), setting up his advice for house
churches that needed to learn how to get along with one another
(12:1–15:13).
What
about Israel? (9:1–11:36).
Paul uses Isaiah’s idea of a faithful remnant to explain how
God’s promises to Abraham are fulfilled despite Israel’s
disobedience (9:27–11:10). In this case, the disobedient of
Israel are made evident by their refusal to believe in the gospel
according to Paul (10:5–21). Because they prefer a
righteousness of their own (a Jewish kind of righteousness), zeal for
the law has made them ignorant of the righteousness of God in Christ
(9:30–10:4). But does Jewish unbelief compromise God’s
faithfulness, jeopardizing God’s promise to Abraham? No, for
according to Paul, not every descendant of Abraham inherits the
covenant blessings (e.g., Ishmael and Esau [9:6–26]). So, if
Gentiles are grafted into the tree of Abraham’s descendants by
faith, and Jews who deny the righteousness of God in Christ are
branches broken off the tree of promise, does this mean that God has
given up on Israel (11:11–24)? No, because Paul believes that
“Israel has experienced a hardening in part” (11:25).
Eventually, the hearts of the Jews will soften to the gospel, because
they will be jealous of God’s covenant blessing extended to
Gentile believers, and “all Israel will be saved” in the
end; the natural branches cut off from the olive tree will be grafted
back into Abraham’s family tree (11:11–15, 24–32).
Here Paul inverts the Jewish eschatological expectation that Gentiles
will be saved before the end of the world because of their jealousy
of God’s blessings for his people, Israel (Isa. 19:23–25;
49:6–7). In the end, then, God’s mercy triumphs over all
disobedience (whether Jewish or Gentile) because “God’s
gifts and his call are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29).
Present
the body as a sacrifice (12:1–21) and submit to God (13:1–14).
Because of God’s mercies for Jews and Gentiles, Paul appeals to
the house churches in Rome to sacrifice themselves for the cause of
Christ (12:1–2). What does a life of surrender look like? It
means keeping overinflated self-esteem in check (12:3) and affirming
the diversity of the body of Christ, meeting the needs of all
members, and overcoming evil with good by avoiding revenge, helping
enemies, and submitting to Roman law (12:4–13:7). Love is the
key to this life of sacrifice, in which the believer wears the Lord
Jesus Christ like an armor of righteousness, knowing that the day of
salvation draws near (13:8–14). In the meantime, believers must
accept one another “just as Christ accepted you, in order to
bring praise to God” (15:7). Indeed, for Paul, Christ is the
supreme example of sacrifice because he “did not please
himself” but rather took on the sins of the circumcised and the
uncircumcised (15:3–9).
Accept
one another (14:1–15:13).
Thus, since Christ was a servant to Jews and Gentiles, how much more
Jewish and Gentile Christ believers should serve one another. Jewish
members of the Roman church should quit judging believers who eat
meat, drink wine, and recognize every day as a holy day (14:1–12).
Gentile members should stop parading their freedom to eat and drink
whatever they want (14:13–23): “If your brother or sister
is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in
love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died”
(14:15). Regarding these gray areas, each person should operate
according to his or her own conviction before God (14:22–23).
But when it comes to the bonds of fellowship, Paul encourages them to
have “the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ
Jesus had” (15:5). So Paul’s innocuous request of the
segregated house churches may reveal a unifying strategy: “Greet
one another with a holy kiss” (16:16).
