The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (120 page)

Occasion

Paul wrote Romans shortly before his final recorded journey to Jerusalem (Rom 15:25-29). He wanted to travel to Jerusalem in order to present the money that had been collected by the Gentile churches in Macedonia and Achaia to help meet the needs of poor Christians in Jerusalem (15:26). The relief offering was partially motivated by a desire to promote good relations between Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian churches. This concern is related to some of the topics that Paul addressed in Romans 9—11 and 14—15.

Paul planned to travel from Jerusalem through Rome to Spain due to his longing to “preach the gospel where Christ was not known” (Rom 15:20 NIV). This information fits very well with Luke's description of Paul's travels at the close of the third missionary journey (Acts 19:21; 20:16). Acts 20:3 shows that Paul spent three months in Greece during his trip from Macedonia and Achaia to Jerusalem. Paul wrote Romans at this time, and it served as a formal introduction of Paul and his gospel to the church in Rome in preparation for his eventual visit to the church.

These circumstances are clear and are based on explicit data in Romans and Acts. Additional clues regarding the occasion of the letter can be gleaned from extrabiblical sources. Several sources document Claudius's expulsion of the Jews from Rome around 49. After Jewish Christians evacuated Rome, the leadership of the Roman churches fell entirely to Gentile believers. Gentile congregations developed largely without Jewish influence and thus without sensitivity to Jewish scruples. Some Jews likely began to return to Rome during the final years of Claudius's reign. They returned in far greater numbers after Claudius's death when his decree officially expired. They returned to find that the very churches they formerly dominated were now controlled and led by Gentile Christians. They likely felt that Gentile Christian leaders were not appropriately appreciative of and sensitive to their own rich Jewish heritage. Gentile Christians resented pressure from their Jewish brothers and sisters to adopt Jewish ways and restrict their freedom in Christ. These factors in the historical setting help explain why much of the letter to the Romans addresses issues of importance to the relationship between Jewish and Gentile Christians.
⁴⁹

Tacitus recorded a description of the political situation in Rome that may be helpful in explaining some features of this letter. Tacitus described political unrest related to the tax burden born by people in the empire.
⁵⁰
The people of the empire had repeatedly demanded that Nero take actions to prevent greedy revenue collectors from imposing higher taxes on the people than the law allowed for their own financial profit. Nero considered repealing all custom taxes since these were more commonly abused. The Senate discouraged such an action since it might encourage the people to protest even income taxes without which the empire could not survive. Thus, instead of abolishing the abused taxes, Nero ordered that the laws regarding these taxes be published throughout the empire, so that people could be properly informed of the amounts due and protest and prosecute excessive taxation. He also ordered judicial officials to give priority to cases in which subjects claimed that they were abused by tax collectors. He repealed the 2 percent and 2.5 percent duties since these were the most notorious examples of taxes that he knew collectors had cleverly invented as a cover for their extortion. These events described by Tacitus occurred in the year 58. The growing unrest throughout the empire concerning the matter of taxation in the years prior
to 58 is probably the reason Paul concluded his discussion of the Christian's responsibility to the state with a command to pay taxes (Rom 13:6—7).

Purpose

Some interpreters have felt that Romans is a theological treatise or a compendium of Christian doctrine. The earliest comment on the purpose of Romans appears in the Muratorian Canon, which probably dates to the later second century:

As for the Epistles of Paul, they themselves make clear to those desiring to understand, which ones [they are], from what place, or for what reason they were sent. First of all, to the Corinthians, prohibiting their heretical schisms; next, to the Galatians, against circumcision; then to the Romans he wrote at length, explaining the order (or, plan) of the Scriptures, and also that Christ is their principle (or, main theme).
⁵¹

Although the author of the fragment viewed 1 Corinthians and Galatians as occasional documents that addressed specific problems in a particular congregation, he viewed Romans as a summary of Christocentric biblical doctrine. The view of Romans as a compendium of Christian doctrine was latter advanced by Philip Melanchthon in his
Loci Communes
(1521) and his commentary on Romans (1532). Romans has generally been viewed as a summary of Christian theology ever since.
⁵²

Although Romans is an intensely theological letter, most scholars today view it not as a general treatise but as an occasional document, that is, a letter written to address the particular needs of a specific group of churches. They point out that the letter does not expound some important aspects of Paul's theology such as his doctrine of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:17-24), the Second Coming (1 Thess 4:13-5:11), or the doctrine of the church that is explicated in far greater detail in Ephesians and 1 Corinthians. This silence is indeed hard to explain if the letter were written to be a general theological treatise.

Moreover, Paul also gave a lot of attention in this letter to matters such as the wrath of God (Rom 1:18—32) and the Jews’ rejection of Jesus (Romans 9—11), which he did not discuss extensively in his other letters. Several aspects of the letter, such as the discussion about the way in which believers should relate to the government (Rom 13:1—7) and the discussion of the weak and the strong (Rom 14:1—15:6), seem to reflect the specific struggles faced by this particular congregation. Thus Romans should not be viewed as a textbook of systematic theology written to total strangers.

An examination of the entirety of the letter demonstrates that Paul had several reasons for writing this book. First, Paul wanted to remind the Roman believers of some of the fundamental truths of the gospel in fulfillment of his priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles (Rom 15:14—16). Paul was well aware of the many ways in which his message might be misunderstood or misapplied. He wrote to clarify important aspects of his message to those who had heard about him and his gospel only indirectly. Moreover, Rom 16:17—20 shows that Paul was concerned about false teachers infiltrating the Roman church.
⁵³
In the face of this danger, a careful articulation of the essentials of Paul's gospel was needed.

Second, Paul wanted to address several of the problems faced by the Roman church. In particular, he wanted to call the churches to unity. He was aware that some of the differences in outlook between the Jewish and Gentile Christians had produced disunity in the congregations at Rome. These differences emerged in arguments about obligations to OT dietary laws and the observance of Jewish holy days. Perhaps at the heart of the debate was the larger question: Did the inclusion of the Gentiles among the people of God mean that God had abandoned his promises to Israel (see esp. Romans 9—11)? In dealing with this question, Paul's letter stressed the equality between Jewish and Gentile believers. He insisted that Jews and Gentiles alike were condemned as sinners (Rom 2:9; 3:9,23) and that both Jews and Gentiles were saved by grace through faith apart from the works of the law (Rom 3:22, 28-30).
⁵⁴
He explained the different roles for Jews and Gentiles during different phases of God's redemptive plan (Romans 9—11). He also directly addressed issues such as diet and calendar observances that were apparently the immediate sources of tension between Jewish and Gentile believers (Rom 14:1—15:13).

Third, Paul wanted formally to introduce himself to the Roman churches and solicit their support for his Spanish mission. Paul had fully proclaimed the gospel through the eastern half of the Roman Empire, “from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum” (Rom 15:19). Now he was planning to introduce the gospel in Spain in the far west of the empire. After Paul left Jerusalem, he would travel to Spain by way of Rome. Paul hoped to receive a material gift from the Roman church to assist him in his missionary endeavors in Spain (Rom 15:21).

Most scholars affirm these three purposes for the letter at least to some degree. The disagreement among scholars that has led to what J. D. G. Dunn aptly described as “a long and seemingly unending debate” over the purpose of the letter is generally a disagreement over which of the several purposes was primary for Paul. Many commentators claim that the second purpose, that is, encouraging unity between Jewish and Gentile believers,
was Paul's primary purpose but that a careful articulation of the gospel was necessary to promote that unity. Paul recognized that the key to unity between Jewish and Gentile believers was a clear understanding of the Christian message. Other scholars suggest that of the three purposes Paul's desire to introduce his gospel to the churches of Rome seems central. Arguments over which purpose was primary will not likely be resolved. The wisest conclusion seems to be to affirm all three purposes.

Two cautions should be heeded in the study of the purpose of Romans. First, the multiple purposes of the book are clearly interrelated. To affirm one and neglect another leads to an impoverished view of the letter. Second, efforts to identify a primary versus a secondary purpose often degenerate into discussions of a sociological or psychological nature that involve a great deal of speculation. M. Seifrid's attempt to integrate the accepted views regarding the purpose of Romans is commendable: Paul wrote to unite the churches of Rome under his gospel.
⁵⁵

On the other hand, interpreters must be careful not to confuse Paul's purpose with the means by which he sought to accomplish that purpose. Identifying a primary purpose for the book is not the same as identifying the book's central theme. Interpreters of Romans have long searched for a single theme that unifies and gives continuity to the letter. During the Protestant Reformation the tendency was to focus on the first major section of the book and single out “justification by faith” as the theme of the letter.
⁵⁶
Later interpreters argued that Romans 6—8 was the heart of the letter and the central theme was the believer's union with Christ and the work of the Spirit.
⁵⁷
Others replied that Romans 9—11 was the centerpiece of the letter and that the real focus was the relationship of Jews and Gentiles in God's saving plan.
⁵⁸
Still others insisted that the practical section, Romans 12—15, expressed the central theme of the book.
⁵⁹
Paul's main intention was to call the church to unity and to promote harmony between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Each of these views tended to emphasize one section of the letter and neglect the rest.

Recent scholars generally agree that the one theme that may encapsulate the entire book is “the righteousness of God.” Unfortunately, the precise meaning of this phrase is still disputed. However, by any definition, the concept of “the righteousness of God” seems a bit too narrow to be identified as the central theme of the entire book.
⁶⁰

A better approach recognizes “the gospel” or “the gospel of the righteousness of God” as the theme of the whole letter.
⁶¹
Several pieces of evidence support this claim. The word “gospel” and related terms appear frequently in the introduction and conclusion to the letter (Rom 1:1,9,16; 15:16,19; 16:25). The word is also most prominent when Paul announces the theme of the book in Rom 1:16—17. Romans 1:16—15:13, then, explains the major facets of Paul's gospel in great detail.

Paul's intention to introduce his gospel to churches about which he knew fairly little resulted in a letter that was more general and directly applicable to the Christian church at large and throughout all time. Indeed, one recent commentator has suggested that Melanchthon's classification of the letter as a “treatise” has been too readily dismissed:

These features show that the main body of Romans is what we may call a “treatise,” or “tractate.” It addresses key theological issues against the backdrop of middle first-century Christianity rather than within the context of specific local problems. Nevertheless, Romans is no timeless treatise. We must not forget that Romans as a whole is a letter, written on a specific occasion, to a specific community. Romans, then, is a tractate letter and has at its heart a general theological argument, or series of arguments.
⁶²

Several other scholars who affirm that Romans is an occasional document agree with Moo in emphasizing the theological character of the letter. T. W. Manson portrayed Romans as a manifesto of Paul's theology that sums up Paul's response to the theological controversies he had faced in Galatia, Corinth, and Philippi.
⁶³
Similarly, Bornkamm described Romans as Paul's “last will and testament” through which he bequeathed a summary of his theology to the Roman churches.
⁶⁴
P. Barnett asserted that “Melanchthon was more or less right in saying that Romans is ‘a compendium of Christian doctrine.’”
⁶⁵

The general character of the message of Romans makes it directly applicable and particularly helpful to modern believers. Moo stated:

We moderns must beware the tendency to overhistoricize: to focus so much on specific local and personal situations that we miss the larger theological and philosophical concerns of the biblical authors. That Paul was dealing in Romans with immediate concerns in the early church we do not doubt. But, especially in Romans, these issues are ultimately those of the church—and the world—of all ages: the continuity of God's plan of salvation, the sin and need of human beings, God's provision for our sin problem in Christ, the means to a life of holiness, and security in the face of suffering and death.