Welcome to Paul’s Letter to the Romans.
Firstly:
Please look at the course outline for your unit to see what assignments you have to do and when they are due.
These people conducted seminars:
| Seminar | People |
|---|---|
| Author | Sally |
| Occasion | Braden, Royce |
| Audience | Graham |
| Thought world | John |
| Mechanics | Kim, Ivan |
| Transmission | Tim |
| Rhetoric | Douglas |
| Righteousness of God | Noel |
| Paul’s heartbreak | Ben |
| Women | Owen |
Let’s begin with two texts, both by Luke, one of Paul’s travelling companions.
Luke 8.40-56
God’s power to heal and even restore life is released through believing in the one he sent.
Luke 18.9-14
Two ways to approach God are illustrated. One is effective. It involves a realistic view of oneself as a sinner. It involves God’s initiative in performing a sacrifice to make things right.
From the viewpoint of Christian history and doctrine, Romans is without doubt Paul’s most important letter. It is still studied intensely, with recent times seeing a renewed interest that continues to grow. It may be that of all the writings that emerged from the ancient world none has had a greater impact than Romans, more influential upon the histories of Western nations and constitutions of Western governments than the writings of Moses, Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Zeno, Epicurus, and the rest. A Roman named Augustine laid eyes on a sentence in Romans and his heart was flooded with light. A thousand years later while contemplating a sentence in Romans an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther had a revelation about God’s free gift of righteousness obtained through faith. So began the reformation which ultimately produced legally enshrined freedom of conscience with respect to religion. Two centuries later an Oxford graduate named John Wesley felt his heart strangely warmed while listening to Luther’s introduction to Romans. So began the evangelical awakening which gave Britain and her children a conscience, ultimately leading to the abolition of great evils such as slavery and child labour. What will be the next great revolution triggered by treasures that lie hidden in Romans?
Today’s New Testament is comprised of 27 pieces: four Gospels, a book of Acts, an Apocalypse, and 21 letters. (See Redating the New Testament (Robinson 1976) for a reasoned account of why all 27 predate 70 AD.) According to the following scheme, all but one piece (i.e. Jude’s letter) can be associated with four central figures of the early Christian movement: Jacob (AKA James the Just, Jesus’ brother), Simon (AKA Peter, Jonah’s son), John (AKA “beloved disciple” or “the elder,” Zebedee’s son), and Saul (AKA Paul, a pharisee’s son).
| Name | Associates | Books | Letters |
|---|---|---|---|
| James | Levi? | Matthew’s Gospel | James |
| Peter | John Mark (his son?), Silvanus | Mark’s Gospel | Peter A, B |
| John | “we” | John’s Gospel, John’s Apocalypse | John A, B, C |
| Paul | Silvanus, Timothy, Luke | Luke’s Gospel, Acts | Thirteen letters, Hebrews |
How do we arrive at these associations? James’ letter reads like a commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, suggesting that Matthew’s Gospel, which early tradition associates with Levi, is somehow connected to James. Matthew’s Gospel seems to concentrate particularly on things Jewish, so would fit the context of James leading the Christian mission to the Jews living in Jerusalem and its surrounds. These Jews stuck to the Law. Matthew’s Gospel and James’ letter emphasize a kind of right living that fulfills the Jewish Law. (One part of James’ letter (2.14) asks a question that might arise if someone said “We are made right with God through faith.” Could James have seen Paul’s letters to the Romans and Galatians?)
An early bishop named Papias says that John Mark was Peter’s translator who took down what Peter said though not in order. (This might also mean that the episodes were not arranged thematically, leaving open the possibility that Mark’s Gospel gives a time-ordered sequence of events. By contrast, the Gospels of Luke and Matthew are arranged thematically.) Peter calls John Mark “my son.” If we take this literally then the trouble between Paul, Barnabus, and John Mark (Acts 15.36-41) takes on a new light. Mark’s Gospel is not what you would call polished Greek. Instead it sounds like a fisherman talking. E.g. (Mark 1.44) ‘He says to him, “Look, don’t say anything to anyone…”’ By contrast, Peter’s first letter has fine Greek style. Perhaps Peter had help from someone good at Greek? Both Mark and Silvanus (AKA Silas) are mentioned at 1 Peter 5.12-13:
Through Silvanus, our faithful brother (for so I regard him), I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it! She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark.
The Gospel and second and third letters of John name the author as the “elder” or the “beloved disciple.” This is consistent with an effort to encrypt the author’s name, perhaps because John’s friends wanted to protect him during a dangerous time for leaders of the Christian movement (e.g. immediately following the fire of Rome). For those in the know, the meaning of code words such as these and “Babylon” (i.e. Rome) were clear enough. John’s Gospel and the first letter of John have many similarities indicating they have the same person behind them, though the Greek polish and “we” phrases suggest John was helped by people well educated in the art of Greek composition. As for the Apocalypse, the author says “I John.” People such as Dionysius of Alexandria and Eusebius emphasized that this John might not be the Apostle though they had political reasons for doing so. Themes occurring in John’s Gospel and Apocalypse yet nowhere else (e.g. living water, lamb of God) indicate that the same mind is behind both.
Of those listed in the table, all the remaining letters except Hebrews state who they are from. There are endless debates about whether they are actually by the people named. One thing to consider: there is at least one instance of early Christians taking a dim view of someone who wrote pretending to be someone else. (He got the sack (Metzger 1972, 14).) Another thing to consider: would a letter written by someone the recipients knew was not an Apostle be treasured and so kept for posterity? As for Hebrews, Origen said it contained Paul’s thoughts:
For my own part, if I may state my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition are the work of someone who called to mind the apostle’s teaching and wrote short notes, as it were, on what his master said.
Concerning who wrote it, Origen said: “Only God knows who wrote Hebrews.” Interestingly, there are some similarities between 1 Peter and Hebrews. (E.g. compare Heb 5.13 and 1 Peter 2.2.) I wonder whether Silas wrote Hebrews? He is an interesting character with connections to the Jerusalem church (Acts 15.22), Peter, and Paul.
In his letter to the Galatians, Paul says (Gal 2.9) that James, Peter, and John were called “Pillars of the Church.” If we add Paul then we have Four Pillars as foundational supports of the New Testament.
What were relations like between these four? It would seem that Paul was the lesser, someone born “at the wrong time” who had a worrying history. Ananias said (Acts 9.13) “Lord, a lot of people have told me about the terrible things this man has done to your followers in Jerusalem.” In addition there had been a disagreement between Peter and Paul (Gal 2.11-14 CEV):
When Peter came to Antioch, I told him face to face he was wrong. He used to eat with Gentile followers of the Lord, until James sent some Jewish followers. Peter was afraid of the Jews and soon stopped eating with Gentiles. He and the other Jews hid their true feelings so well that even Barnabus was fooled. But when I saw that they weren’t really obeying the truth that is in the good news, I corrected Peter in front of everyone and said: “Peter, you are a Jew, but you live like a Gentile. So how can you force Gentiles to live like Jews?”
What was this all about? What Gentiles ate seems to have caused the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem some concern. Peter used to follow Jewish dietary laws strictly (Acts 10.14) but was no longer bothered about eating things that might not be kosher. Not until “men from James” showed up. Peter was between a rock and a hard place. He was charged with the mission to Greek speaking Jews. (He was on the run from Herod, which would have seriously restricted any work in and around Jerusalem.) He may have thought that it would reduce his effectiveness among Greek speaking Jews if they found out he ignored the Jewish food laws. As for power relationships, Peter was afraid of the men from James.
Questions of the Jewish Law and kosher food caused trouble among the early Christians. Acts 15.1 says:
Some people came [to Antioch] from Judea and started teaching the Lord’s followers that they couldn’t be saved, unless they were circumcised as Moses had taught.
It was decided by those at Antioch to send Paul and Barnabus to Jerusalem to get a decision. During the meeting some Pharisees who had become followers stood up and said (15.5):
Gentiles who have faith in the Lord must be circumcised and told to obey the Law of Moses.
Peter got up and said (15.10-11):
Why are you trying to make God angry by placing a heavy burden on these followers? This burden was too heavy for us or our ancestors. But our Lord Jesus was kind to us, and we are saved by faith in him, just as the Gentiles are.
Then James said (15.19-20):
I don’t think we should place burdens on the Gentiles who are turning to God. We should simply write and tell them not to eat anything that has been offered to idols. They should be told not to eat the meat of any animal that has been strangled or that still has blood in it. They must also not commit any terrible sexual sins.
It would seem that Peter’s opinion carries weight but James has the final word.
James’ decision gives ground to both sides. While the Gentiles are saved from the full burden of the Law, certain Jewish dietary restrictions are imposed. This solution seems to have worked though trouble continued to brew. Going forward some time, Paul arrives back in Jerusalem not long after writing his letter to the Romans. He has a gift of money for the poor saints in Jerusalem, collected from believers in Macedonia and elsewhere. My guess is Paul expected to drop off the money, report on what God continued to do among the Gentiles, then head back to Rome with the blessing of the leadership in Jerusalem. However, things took another course (Acts 21.17-21 CEV)
When we arrived in Jerusalem, the Lord’s followers gladly welcomed us. Paul went with us to see James the next day, and all the church leaders were present. Paul greeted them and told how God had used him to help the Gentiles. Everyone who heard this praised God and said to Paul: ‘My friend, you can see how many tens of thousands of our people have become followers! And all of them are eager to obey the Law of Moses. But they have been told that you are teaching those who live among the Gentiles to disobey this Law. They claim that you are telling them not to circumcise their sons or to follow our customs.’
Paul is advised to take part in a temple ceremony that will serve as proof that he is a Law abiding Jew, which he then does. However, towards the end of the seven day proceeding, Jews from Asia see him and create a riot which results in Paul being taken into protective custody by the Romans. They manage to get him out of Jerusalem despite a gang of forty (σικαριοι?) who have vowed not to eat until he is dead (Acts 23.12-33). Paul did eventually get to Rome but not as a free man.
As for relations between John and the others, we are not told much. Nothing is said about the relationship between James the Just and John. Peter and the brothers John and James Zebedee (not to be confused with James the Just) were among the first disciples of Jesus, saw Jesus transfigured, and were there when Jesus brought Jairus’ daughter back to life. Peter and John seem to have been close to each other, figuring prominently early in Acts. However, at one point Mark’s Gospel (associated with Peter) is quite unflattering with respect to the “Sons of Thunder,” namely John and James Zebedee. In Mark 10.35-45, James and John ask for the best seats in God’s kingdom and earn something of a rebuke from Jesus. Matthew’s version of the same episode (Matt 20.20-28) blames James and John’s mother for the request. Luke, even more diplomatically, leaves the episode out altogether.
John gives us interesting details relating to Peter, saying whose ear he cut off, who got him into the place where Jesus was being questioned, and who got there first when they ran to the place where Jesus had been entombed. Finally, John tells us what Jesus said to Peter on the shore of the Sea of Galilee. All of this sounds like eye witness accounts.
It seems that these four acted strategically to spread the good news about Jesus Christ. Peter, James the Just, and John concentrated on the mission to Jews while Paul and his companions concentrated on the mission to the Gentiles. There was overlap too, with Peter being the first evangelist to the Gentiles, and Paul’s habit being to go to Jews first then Gentiles.
James the Just was first bishop of Jerusalem. Acts 15 shows that he was in a position of authority. Tradition says he led the church there until about 62 AD when he was put to death (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9):
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.
Peter’s work began in Jerusalem then reached Antioch, Asia Minor, and beyond. (Perhaps Jesus’ Spirit told Paul not to go into Bithynia because Peter was already there?) Peter had become a fugitive after being sprung from jail by the Lord. After that he couldn’t risk public appearances in Jerusalem and its surrounds. As Luke says (Acts 12.17), “After that, he left and went somewhere else.” Maybe Luke was purposely vague? Parts of Acts sound as if Peter is telling the story. (Acts 12 is one example.) That would mean Luke knows exactly where Peter is because he is sitting in front of him saying what happened. That would also mean that Luke is being careful not to blow Peter’s cover. The same kind of secrecy might explain why John’s name is suppressed in his Gospel and letters, why code words such as “Babylon” are used, why the number of the beast is used in place of “Caesar Nero” (in Hebrew transliteration), why there is no mention of who wrote Hebrews, and why nomina sacra were used when copying Christian texts. (Accordingly, are those named in John’s Gospel dead or beyond Roman reach? Why isn’t John’s name suppressed in his Apocalypse?) Peter seems to have visited Corinth, hence the Peter faction there. Tradition says Peter travelled to Rome and was eventually put to death by crucifixion during Nero’s attack on the Christians after the fire of Rome, about 65 AD.
Paul’s work spanned the Eastern side of the Roman Empire. He may even have made it to Spain. (Clement of Rome, John Chrysostom, and Cyril of Jerusalem thought he did.) Tradition says that Paul too was executed by Nero about 65 AD.
John was the last of the four left standing. Many Christians thought that Jesus would return before John died. John himself dispels that notion at the end of his Gospel. His work started in Jerusalem and he did time on Patmos. He is supposed to have lived out his days in and around Ephesus. Asia Minor was by then the centre of the Christian world.
These four and their friends left things in good shape. According to Adolf von Harnack (Harnack 1908, 2:182), “Asia Minor … constituted the Christian country κατ’ ἐξοχήν [par excellence] during the pre-Constantine era.”
Few people doubt that Paul composed Romans. It was actually written down by Tertius. That’s not unusual – it was common practice in those days for someone like Paul to have a secretary or amanuensis to write down what was being dictated.
The Apostle Paul was a Jew, like Jesus and his twelve apostles, and a significant proportion of the Graeco-Roman world. Perhaps 5-10% of the population were Jews by birth or counted themselves as adherents to the Jewish religion. There were Jews in Palestine (the Roman province where Judah and Israel had once been), and Aramaic was the main language there. There were also many Jews in Greek-speaking parts of the world such as Asia Minor (now Turkey) and Rome. (Yes, people in Rome, including the Caesars, spoke Greek during Paul’s time.)
Paul was born in Tarsus of Cilicia but seems to have moved to Jerusalem when he was young. (How young?) In Jerusalem he became a Pharisee, taught by no lesser than Gamaliel. (See Acts 23.6 and 22.3.). He was a Roman citizen as well. (How did he get that privilege?) This combination, combined with a commission from Jesus Christ made him a formidable champion of the Good News concerning Jesus Christ. He was a deep thinker, and his deep understanding of the Gospel is revealed in his Letter to the Romans.
After an encounter with Jesus Christ, Paul lived as his slave. In the end Paul is thought to have been condemned to death by the Führer of the Roman Empire, Nero, some time between 65 and 68 AD. He was executed by beheading, the mode of execution Roman’s used on their own citizens. (Crucifixion was reserved for slaves and foreigners. It was a capital offence to execute a Roman citizen by crucifixion.) One source says he was buried two miles outside the city, on the Ostian way. (See Cardinal Ratzinger’s General Audience of 4 February 2009.) I wonder whether we hear an echo of this event in Hebrews 13.7-14?
Sally produced a terrific video of Paul’s life and class handout.
When was Romans written?
It is generally agreed that Paul wrote to Rome during an extended winter stay in Corinth just prior to setting out for Jerusalem with the Collection gathered from the Gentile churches of Mcedonia and Achaia (Rom 15:25-26; cf. Acts 20:1-4, 16; 24:17; 1 Cor 16:1-4; 2 Cor 8:1-9:15)… The interpretationof the letter is hardly dependent on a precise fixing of the date in terms of absolute chronology but it may be said that the winter of any year between late 54 C.E. and early 59 C.E. is possible, with the early months of 58 C.E. providing the most likely period…
(Byrne 2007)
Why was Romans written?
It is a presentation of the Gospel according to Paul. One amusing aspect is that Paul presents this Gospel to Christians in Rome. What would you say if someone wrote a letter to your church and said, in effect, “I would like to evangelize you.” What am I? Chopped liver?!
There is also an agenda or two. Paul has wanted to visit the believers in Rome for a long time but has been prevented. (He is apostle to the gentiles but has never been to the centre of the gentile world.) One motive in writing might have been to prepare the way for his anticipated visit.
Another motive might have been his ongoing trouble with Jewish people standing in the way of his efforts to proclaim that Jesus Christ is Israel’s Messiah. This might explain why his letter, whose audience on the face of it seems non-Jewish, reads like a dialogue with Jewish opponents. (Perhaps Paul wanted the audience to have some responses to difficult Jewish questions.)
Another possible motive is that Paul wants to take his Gospel to the western-most part of the Roman world, namely Spain. He would travel through Rome on the way and might have been thinking of raising support for the enterprise.
Braden and Royce’s made a musical production for the occasion. Here is Braden’s class handout.
Who was Romans written to? What does the letter indicate about the audience?
No one knows how Christianity came to Rome. Pilgrims from Rome are among those mentioned as present at Pentecost (Acts 2.10) and may have taken the news about Jesus Christ back to Rome very early. According to Suetonius, Claudius expelled Jews from Rome (in 49 AD?) “because they were constantly rioting at the instigation of Chrestus.” If Chrestus is in fact a reference to Christ then we have at that time unrest among the Jewish community caused by disputes over Christ.
The beginning of Paul’s letter indicates he is writing to non-Jews but the body of the letter contains many references to Jewish questions, as if Paul is answering questions raised by Jewish skeptics.
The end of Romans (16.3-16) contains greetings to 26 individuals and five house churches. Given that the end of Romans is actually the end of Romans, those mentioned can give us some hints about the composition of the audience.
(Bruce 1985)
How did the Romans Paul wrote to understand the world around them?
Where was Romans written? How did the letter get to the Romans? Who read it to the Romans?
(Thank God for Phoebe. If she had not delivered Paul’s Letter to the Romans we most probably would not have it today.)
What is the textual history of Romans? Is the text we can recover significantly different to what was originally written?
What is rhetoric? Does Paul use rhetorical devices in his Letter to the Romans? What knid of rhetoric is the Letter to the Romans?
What does the Greek phrase δικαιοσυνη θεου mean?
Has God turned his back on Paul’s people? Has he hardened Israel to have mercy on everyone else?
What status did women enjoy in the Graeco-Roman world? What social conventions were in force with respect to women addressing an audience? What roles did women play in the Roman church?
Bruce, F. F. 1985. The Letter of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary. 2nd ed. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Leicester, England: IVP.
Byrne, Brendan. 2007. Romans. Sacra Pagina 6. Collegeville, Minn: Michael Glazier.
Harnack, Adolf von. 1908. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries. Translated by James Moffatt. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Williams and Norgate.
Metzger, Bruce M. 1972. “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha.” Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1): 3–24. https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/presidentialaddresses/JBL91_1_1Metzger1971.pdf.
Robinson, John A. T. 1976. Redating the New Testament. London: SCM.