Longer than any other NT letter, more thoughtful in its perspectives than any other undisputed Pauline letter, more calmly reasoned than Galatians in its treatment of the key issue of justification and the Law, the letter to the Romans has been the most studied of the apostle's writings - unquestionably Paul's theological masterpiece. From Augustine to Barth, through Abelard, Luther and Calvin, this letter has played a major role in the development of theology. With little exaggeration, it could be said that the debates over the main ideas of Romans have divided Western Christianity. Much of the analysis is colored by Reformation conflicts over faith and works, and these debated themes of Romans seem remote from ordinary Christian life today.

1. The Background

   By way of introduction, there are two important issues: the situation of Paul's life that explains the circumstances of the letter, and the history of the Roman community that received it.

   It is relatively easy to answer the first one. Paul writes from the vicinity of Cenchreae (the port of Corinth) since he recommends to the recipients the person of Phoebe, a woman deacon of that city (16:1-2). He conveys greetings from Gaius, who is the host of the whole church from which Paul is writing; and there was an important Gaius in Corinth (16:23; 1 Cor 1:14). Paul, at the time he wrote, intended to take a collection to Jerusalem (Rom 15:26-33). The apostle spent the winter of 57/58 (traditional chronology) in Corinth, and then (Acts 20:2-21:15) returned to Jerusalem, where he was arrested, passing through Macedonia, Asia and Caesarea. There is therefore almost unanimous agreement among scholars that Paul wrote to Rome from Corinth (in 57/58, or earlier according to the revisionist chronology).

   The second question concerns the recipients of the letter. A first approach considers the history of Christianity in Rome as irrelevant background. Paul was not the founder of the Roman Christian community, and proponents of this approach assume that he knew little about it. In his letter, he writes a magisterial compendium of his theology or general reflections based on his past experiences rather than dealing knowledgeably with issues of immediate interest to Roman Christians. This view is often linked to the theory that chap. 16, which contains Paul's greetings to twenty-six people, does not belong in the letter and was therefore not addressed to the Christians Paul knew in Rome. However, if chap. 16 does belong to the letter to the Romans (the prevailing view in English-speaking circles) and Paul knew so many people in Rome, then it can be assumed that he knew something about the Roman church.

   Accordingly, a more popular approach is that the Christian origins in Rome, the capital of the Empire, and the nature of the Roman church are an important background. There were probably 40,000 to 50,000 Jews in Rome in the 1st century CE and from the available evidence, from the 2nd century CE onwards, many had come from Palestine/Syria as merchants, immigrants or captives. Close political ties were maintained for two centuries, with Rome keeping a close eye on client kingdoms in Palestine, and Herodian princes being sent to Rome to be raised. After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, the Jewish historian Josephus lived out his life in Rome as a client of the Flavian emperors; and in the 1970s, the future emperor Titus brought to Rome the Jewish king Agrippa II, whose sister Berenice became Titus' mistress.

   Given this history of Jewish presence, it did not take long for Jews who believed in Jesus and converted in other cities of the Empire, such as Damascus and Antioch, to head for such a promising missionary field. When did the first news of Christ reach Rome? Let's work backwards to answer this question. Tacitus' account of Nero's persecutions after the fire of 64 (Annals 15.44) implies that it was possible to distinguish Christians (Chrestianoi) from Jews in Rome. Christians were numerous, and this "pernicious [Christian] superstition" had originated in Judea - which indirectly suggests that Christianity had come from Judea to Rome. Paul's letter of 57/58 implies that the Christian community had been in existence for a considerable time, since he had wanted "for many years" to go there (15:23). Indeed, the faith of the Romans "spreads throughout the whole world" (1:8), a flattery that would make little sense if Paul were writing to a tiny, newly founded group. So it seems that the Roman Christian community must have existed in the early 50s. Acts 18:1-3 records that when Paul arrived in Corinth (about 50), he found lodging with Aquila and Priscilla (= Prisca), a Jewish couple who had just arrived from Italy "because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome." Since it is never mentioned that Paul converted them, they came from Rome as Jews who already believed in Jesus. Suetonius (Claudius 25.4) states that Claudius "expelled the Jews from Rome because of the constant disturbances they were causing under Chrestus [impulsore Chresto]." This expulsion may have meant that by the year 49, the Christian mission had been in Rome long enough to cause serious friction in the synagogues. We have no substantial evidence before this, but it is very likely that Christianity had reached Rome by the early 40s, about 10 years after Jesus' death.

   Where did the Christian preachers come from? Around the year 375, Ambrosiaster, who lived in Rome and wrote a commentary on the letter to the Romans, reports that the Romans "received the faith although with a Jewish tendency [ritu licet Judaico]". Paul had never been to Rome; nothing in the Acts accounts of Antioch suggests that there was a mission from that city to Rome. In fact, there is no argument for a source other than Jerusalem; and Acts 28:21 records that the Jews in Rome had channels of theological information from Jerusalem, a connection supported by Jewish documents describing late first-century figures.

   Why is all this important for understanding Rom? It may be of twofold importance if we accept chap. 16 as part of the letter. First, knowing a surprisingly large number of Christians in Rome, Paul would have shaped his letter to address the community there pastorally. Acts and Galatians indicate that the Christianity coming out of Jerusalem was probably more conservative with regard to the Jewish heritage and the Law than were the Gentiles converted by Paul. Romans is significantly more conservative about the value of the Jewish heritage than was Gal, not only because of the presence of chapters 9-11, but also when individual passages are quoted. For example, whereas in Gal 5:2 Paul writes, "If you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you," Rom 3:1-2 asks, "What advantage is there in being circumcised? Much in all respects." Paul is not inconsistent, for unlike the situation envisioned in Gal (and Phil 3), there are no opponents in Rome proclaiming an anti-gospel about the need to circumcise Gentiles. Rom is also the most "liturgical" of the undisputed Pauline letters in that it employs the language of Jewish worship, e.g., Christ is described as an atoning sacrifice (3:25); people are exhorted to present their bodies as a living sacrifice (12:1); and Paul's own ministry is the priestly service of the gospel (15:16). Could this phraseology have been used with recipients who respected the liturgy of the Jerusalem Temple in mind? Second, Paul was planning to go to Jerusalem, so if Roman Christianity had originated in Jerusalem, then a persuasive letter from Paul to Rome could both help him anticipate what he might say in Jerusalem and persuade Roman Christians to intervene on his behalf with the authorities in Jerusalem.

   Romans is sometimes described as Paul's last testament. This may mean nothing more than that it is the last letter written among Paul's undisputed letters - "last" by accident. Paul surely considered his upcoming trip to Jerusalem to bring the collection a major moment in his missionary career; and he may have decided to send the Roman house churches a thoughtful statement of his gospel. He would have hoped that his gospel, which had implications for both Jews and Gentiles, might heal animosities in the mixed congregation in Rome.

   The most satisfactory interpretation of Rom combines elements of different propositions. Rom was a kind of summary of Paul's thinking, formulated with an air of finality as he gathered his ideas before going to Jerusalem where he would have to defend them. But why was this summary sent to Rome? For several reasons.

   1. At this point in his life, Paul had completed his mission to the eastern Mediterranean, and he hoped to begin a great mission to Spain in the far west. Rome would make an admirable base for this mission (just as Antioch and Philippi had served as the bases from which he had taken his first steps westward on his earlier excursions). Accordingly, Paul thought it important that the Romans have a correct perception of his apostolic ministry, so if Romans served as a letter of commendation for Paul himself, it served even more as a commendation for his gospel.

   2. On a more pastoral level, a careful explanation of Paul's ideas could help improve relations between Christians of different persuasions in Rome (the "strong" and "weak" of 14:1-15:1), thus fulfilling Paul's responsibility to be an apostle to Gentile regions.

   3. Furthermore, the Roman Christians, if convinced that Paul was not prejudiced against Judaism, could serve as intermediaries with their ancestors in Jerusalem, thus paving the way for Paul's favorable acceptance by the Jewish Christian authorities in that city.

   On several fronts, then, Rm wanted to be persuasive, which may explain the extensive use of the diatribe format - a genre used by Greco-Roman philosophers to demonstrate theses and answer objections.

2. General Analysis of the Message
   1. Opening Formula (1: 1-7), Thanksgiving (1: 8-10) and Proem (1: 11-15) about Paul's wish to come to Rome

      The fact that Paul does not use the expression "the church of God which is in Rome" or "the churches of Rome" (cf. 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1) has been interpreted in a pejorative way. Although Paul was willing to welcome a house church in Rome (16:5), it is assumed that he did not consider the Roman community a real church because he had not founded it or because of its theology. This is almost certainly not true: Paul would not be disparaging in a letter intended to curry favor with the Romans; he could hardly call a group he did not consider a church "God's beloved in Rome called to be saints" (Rom 1:7); and the failure to use the word "church" at the beginning of the letter to the Philippians, addressed to a community Paul founded and loved, shows how unreliable silence is.

      In v. 8, Paul testifies to the faith of the Roman Christians, proclaimed throughout the world - a high praise, since it appears from vv. 11-15 that Paul has never seen them, although he has long desired to visit them. In this context, the greeting, the most formal of the Pauline writings, is striking in the way Paul introduces himself to the Roman Christians. He uses only his own name - no co-sender - and shows that he is "an apostle set apart for the gospel of God" (1:1) by spelling it out: "The gospel concerning the Son of God who was born/begotten of the seed of David according to the flesh, appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness as of the resurrection of the dead" (1:3-4). Critical scholarship recognizes that Paul does not use language of his own invention here, but offers a Jewish Christian formulation of the gospel - presumably because such a formulation would be known to and acceptable to Roman Christians. If Paul's gospel has been distorted or slandered, he protects himself from the start by showing that what he preaches is consistent with the preaching of those who evangelized the Romans. Thus, both he and the Romans can be encouraged by the faith of the other (1:12). The transition to the body of the letter (1:10-15) tells of Paul's future plans to come to Rome to preach the gospel of which this missive is an advance statement.

   2. Doctrinal section of the body of the letter: Part I (1: 16 - 4: 25): Uprightness of God revealed through the gospel

      Paul goes on in the main section of his letter to emphasize that this gospel is the power of God for the salvation of every believer, first for the Jew, then for the Greek. A central theme of Romans is that "the righteousness of God" is now revealed (1:17), namely the quality by which, in judgment, God acquits people of their sins through their faith in Jesus Christ. What was the relationship of people to God before the coming of the Gospel of Christ? Speaking first to the Gentiles in this letter to the Christians in the capital of the whole Roman world, Paul (1:18-23) wants to explain that a gracious God was knowable from creation. It is only through human fault and stupidity that the divine image has been obscured in the pagan world, hence the wrath of God. A graphic description of pagan idolatry and the lust and depraved conduct to which it led (1:24-32) reflects Paul's Jewish value standards. In much of the portrait of the Gentiles that opens Romans, Paul can draw on a standard description of the Hellenistic synagogue with which he was raised. But then, in 2:1, in a style that comes to us from the Stoic diatribe, Paul addresses an imaginary Jewish listener, who might pass judgment on what Paul condemned and yet, despite this superior position, do the same things. God does not play favorites: eternal life or punishment will be awarded according to what people do, first the Jews, judged according to the Law, then the Gentiles, judged according to nature and what is written in their hearts and consciences (2:5-16).

      In a remarkable section (2:17-24), Paul mocks the proud claims of Jewish superiority. He does not deny that circumcision has value, but only if one keeps the Law. Indeed, an uncircumcised person who lives according to the requirements of the Law will condemn the circumcised transgressor of the Law (2:25-29). All human beings are guilty before God. So what is the advantage for the circumcised Jews if they are also under the wrath of God (3:1-9) and no one is righteous? Paul answers in 3:21-26: the Jews have received the words of promise from God himself, and God is faithful. The apostle describes what was promised or prefigured in the Law and the Prophets, namely the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ, justifying without distinction Jew and Greek. The integrity of God is justified: God is not unjust, because the sins of all have been atoned for by the blood of Christ. No one has the right to boast, since God has graciously justified the circumcised and the uncircumcised equally by faith, regardless of the deeds/works of the Law (= prescribed by the Law) (3:27-31).

      Paul has quoted the Law and the Prophets, and in chap. 4 he goes back to the first book of the Law and quotes Abraham to show that God acted consistently, for Abraham's righteousness came by faith, not by the Law. We saw earlier that Paul's appeal to Abraham was probably catalyzed by the use of Abraham by those in Galatia who insisted on the necessity of circumcision for salvation. Now the example of Abraham became a formative element in his understanding of God's plan. The Jews of Paul's day would have considered Abraham their ancestor, but for Paul he is "the father of us all" who share his faith (4:16). The section ends with a concise statement of Paul's thesis: the story of righteousness attributed to Abraham was written for us who believe in the Lord Jesus, "who was delivered up for our transgressions and raised for our justification" (4:25). While this saving action is about individuals, Paul envisions individual believers bound together in a community - a religious community or church, just as Israel was a covenant people.

   3. Doctrinal section of the body of the letter: Part II (5:1 - 8:39): Reconciliation to God in Christ and Its benefits

      If people are justified by Christ, they are now reconciled to God. This brings many benefits: peace with God, the hope of sharing God's glory, and an outpouring of God's love (5:1-5). The description of how Christ's death accomplished justification, salvation and reconciliation (5:6-11) contains one of the NT's great explanations of what divine love entails: the willingness to die for sinners who do not deserve such graciousness. After using Abraham as an example of justification by faith in Israel's history, Paul now compares what has been accomplished by Christ with the state of all human beings born of Adam: grace and life compared to sin and death. (For Paul, death is not simply the cessation of life but, because it came through sin, the negation of life.) Just as Adam's sin led to condemnation for all, so Christ's obedient act of righteousness led to justification and life for all. This passage (5:12-21) gave rise to the theology of original sin.

      In 6:1-11, Paul explains that this effect is produced by baptism - this is the longest treatment of the subject in his letters, though even here he never specifies the exact relationship between baptism and faith in this divine work. Our old man was crucified with Christ; we were baptized into his death and buried with him, so that, as he rose from the dead, we too might walk in newness of life. But sin (personified by Paul) remains an active force, even though we are now under grace rather than law, and 6:12-23 warns against being enslaved by sin. Some have thought that the apostle was reusing one of his baptismal sermons here, perhaps to protect himself against any accusation that his gospel of justification apart from the law encouraged licentiousness.

      In chapter 7, Paul returns to the question of the Mosaic law. The basic principle is that the death of Christ has nullified the binding power of this law. The Law cannot be equated with sin, but sinful passions are aroused by the Law: "I would not have known sin if it were not for the Law" (7:5.7). The "I" monologue that runs through 7:7-25 is one of the most dramatic passages of Paul's rhetoric in Romans: "I do not understand what I am doing. I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate.... I delight in the law of God, but I see another law in my members that fights the law of my mind."

      If Christ delivers from death and sin and brings life, how are we to live this life, especially since we are still flesh and the flesh is not subject to the law of God? In chapter 8, Paul answers that we must live, not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit of God who raised Christ from the dead. "If you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live" (8:13). Thus, we become children of God (able to cry "Abba, Father", like Jesus), heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, with the promise that if we now suffer with him, we will also be glorified with him (8:14-17). The people of Israel understood that they were the firstborn or son/child of God (Exodus 4:22; Isaiah 1:2), but this relationship was deepened by the Spirit of the one who was uniquely the Son of God (Paul uses the language of divine "sonship" for "us," language that John limits to Jesus alone). In the OT creation story, the earth was cursed because of Adam's sin (Gen 3:17-19; 5:29); also, in the OT apocalyptic, there is a dream of a new heaven and a new earth (Isa 65:17; 66:22). Logically, then, as part of his contrast between Adam and Christ, Paul (Rom 8:18-23) also speaks of Christ's healing effect on all material creation (including the human body). It will be freed from the bondage of decay and brought to freedom. We do not yet see all this; we hope and wait with perseverance; and to help our weakness, the Spirit intercedes for us with inexpressible sighs (8:24-27). Nothing of this future is left to chance: both justification and glorification are part of the plan of salvation that God has predestined from the beginning (8:28-30). The God "who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all" is on our side, and that is a source of great confidence. In 8:31-39, Paul ends this second part of the doctrinal section of Romans with one of the most eloquent statements in all Christian spiritual writings: "If God is for us, who is against us? I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor principalities, neither the present nor the future, nor any power... will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

   4. Doctrinal section of the body of the letter: Part III (9:1 - 11:36): How is justification through Christ reconcilable with God's promises to Israel?

      If there was a divine plan leading to Christ from the beginning, how is it that the Israelites (Jews), who received the promises through the Law and the Prophets, rejected Christ? The logical necessity of answering this question gives rise to such surprising chapters in Paul that some scholars (from the second century onwards, with Marcion) have judged them to be foreign to the letter and contradictory. The missionary who had spent so many years proclaiming the Gospel to the Gentiles would be ready to be cut off from Christ and be damned for the sake of his Jewish parents! Believing all those who say he denigrates Judaism, he proudly lists the wonderful privileges of the Israelites (9:4-5).

      To explain that God's word did not fail, Paul quotes Scripture to show that not all of Abraham's descendants were considered his children: God chose Isaac and not Ishmael, Jacob and not Esau (9:6-13). God is not unjust in this, but he acts like the potter who chooses to make a good and an ordinary vessel from the same clay (9:14-23). Thus, God cannot be held accountable for his choices. Using another list of testimonia (9:24-29), Paul seeks to show that God had foreseen both Israel's unfaithfulness and the call of the Gentiles. Israel failed because they sought righteousness by deeds, not by faith; and to compound the error, despite their zeal, they failed to recognize that God has manifested righteousness to those who believe in Christ and that, in fact, Christ is the end of the Law (9:30-10:4). Paul goes on to point out the futility of seeking to be righteous before God on the basis of works, when "if you profess with your lips that 'Jesus is Lord' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (10:9). In this "you" there is no distinction between Jew and Greek (10:12); and all this fulfills Joel 3:5 (2:32): "For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

      In 10:14-21, Paul offers few excuses to Israel: the Gospel was already preached by the prophets, but the Israelites did not believe. They cannot even have the alibi of not understanding, for they are a disobedient and defiant people, while the foolish nation of the Gentiles has responded. "Has God then rejected his people?" (11:1). In an indignant negative response to his rhetorical question, Paul speaks as an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham from the tribe of Benjamin, who was chosen by grace. He cites examples from Israel's history where the majority failed, but God preserved a remnant (11:2-10). In fact, Paul predicts that all will turn out well (11:11-32). Israel's fall and partial hardening of her heart was providential in allowing salvation to come to the Gentiles. Then, through reverse psychology, Israel will become jealous, and all Israel will be saved. Gentile believers should not boast; they are but a branch of a wild olive tree that has been grafted into a cultivated tree in place of some of the branches that have been cut off. The regrafting of the natural (Israelite) branches will be easier. The Gentiles of yesterday and Israel of today have been disobedient, and God shows mercy to all. Paul ends this portrait with a hymn praising the depth of God's riches and wisdom: "To him be glory forever. Amen" (11:33-36).

   5. Hortatory section of the body of the letter: Part I (12: 1 - 13: 14): Authoritative advice for Christian Living

      Paul now makes suggestions to the Roman Christians about how they should live in response to God's mercy. On the one hand, this is not surprising, for from the beginning (1:5) Paul made it clear that the grace of his apostleship was to bring about the obedience of faith. On the other hand, it is a courageous undertaking, for Paul had no personal knowledge of most Roman Christians. From 12:3 onwards, therefore, Paul takes up ideas that he had also expressed in 1 Corinthians, written probably less than a year earlier: one body, many members, different gifts/charisms, including prophecy and teaching, and an emphasis on love. Like an Old Testament wisdom writer, he offers in 12:9-21 a series of counsels with a special emphasis on harmony, tolerance and forgiveness - all in order not to be conformed to this age/world (12:2) and to be renewed in a new age or eon ushered in by Christ.

      The directive to submit to the ruling authorities (13:1-7) is particularly appropriate in a letter to a capital city. At that time Claudius, who had driven the Jews out of Rome, was dead, and the new emperor (Nero) had not yet shown hostility toward Christians; therefore, Paul can speak of the (Roman) ruler as a servant of God. The instructions to pay taxes and to respect and honor authority would make Christians model citizens. Was Paul's obedient attitude due to his good personal experience with Roman authority (for example, with Gallion in Corinth in Acts 18:12-17)? Or were his instructions a defensive strategy against the charge that his theology of freedom and otherness promoted dangerous civil irresponsibility? Or was he pastorally concerned that two relatively recent expulsions of Jews (AD 19 and 49) by upset Roman emperors not be repeated in the case of Christians? When we discuss Revelation, we will see that by the end of the century a different Christian attitude toward the Roman emperor had developed, shaped by imperial persecution and harassment of Christians. It is not justified, therefore, to absolutize Pauline instruction as if it were the NT view applicable to government authorities of all times. In 13:8-10, where "Love one another, for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law" is accompanied by the statement that the commandments are "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," Paul comes close to the tradition of Jesus in Matthew 22:38-40. Rom 13:11-14 concludes the first part of the exhortation section by emphasizing how critical the eschatological moment is, that time inaugurated by Christ. (V. 12, with its imagery of night and day, the works of darkness and the armor of light, may reflect a baptismal hymn known to Romans.) The urgency leads to Paul's advice to them to arm themselves against the desires of the flesh: "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ" (13:14).

   6. Hortatory section of the body of the letter: Part II (14: 1 - 15: 13): The strong owe love to the weak

      We are not sure whether the language of "strong" and "weak" that appears here is a Pauline invention or whether it was already in use among the Roman public. These designations seem to cover ways of looking at Christian requirements rather than divided factions, such as those who adhered to different Christian figures in Corinth. The "strong" were convinced that they could eat anything and did not need to consider certain days special; the "weak" were cautious about food, trusted only vegetables, and observed certain holidays. Despite the efforts of some scholars to associate these preferences with Hellenistic gnostic practices or mystery religions, this issue probably reflects observances derived from the purity and worship requirements of the Mosaic law. The "strong" consider these requirements irrelevant, the "weak" (who seem to be equated with the "weak in faith" in 14:1) think they are obligatory. Many scholars consider the "strong" to be the Gentile Christian majority in Rome and the "weak" to be the Jewish Christians, but this goes beyond (or even against) the evidence. It may well be that Gentile Christians were in the majority, hence the warnings that Gentiles should not boast because Jews rejected Christ (11:17-18); but this does not tell us whether or not Gentile Christians observed the Mosaic law. If the first evangelizers in Rome had been missionaries from Jerusalem, it is possible that many Gentiles were converted to the observance of the Law. On the other hand, other Jewish Christians, friends of Paul, whom he mentions in Romans 16, would have been among the "strong".

      Paul is concerned that the two groups not judge or despise each other (14:3-4, 10, 13). Whether they eat or abstain, each group should do so for the Lord: "Whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord" (14:6-8). If Roman Christians, whether "strong" or "weak," have heard that Paul does not force his Gentile Christian converts to observe the Mosaic law, they learn, like the Corinthians before them (1 Cor 8:7-13; 10:23-33), that he would never tolerate this freedom being used to divide a community. In particular, he warns the "strong" that it is better not to eat meat or drink wine if it causes a brother or sister to stumble (14:21). Identifying himself with them, Paul proclaims: "We who are strong must bear the weaknesses of the weak rather than taking pleasure in them" (15:1). Christ did not please himself (15:3), but became a servant of the circumcised to show God's faithfulness, confirming the promises made to the patriarchs, so that the Gentiles could glorify God's mercy (15:8-9a). Paul concludes this section with another list of testimonia (15:9b-12): this time they are passages from the Prophets, the Law and the Writings (the three divisions of the OT) that concern God's plan for the Gentiles.

   7. First Concluding Section (15: 14-33): Paul's future plans

      The apostle ends his letter with two interrelated sections. The first explains his relationship with the Romans. He knows that they are good people, but he wrote to them because he had received the grace of God to be a minister to the Gentiles. Just as a Jewish priest devoted himself to the service of God in the Temple, Paul's preaching of the Gospel is a liturgical service so that the Gentiles may become an acceptable sacrifice dedicated to God (15: 16). In carrying out this service, Paul went from Jerusalem to Illyria (Western Greece). He now hopes to push further west, passing through Rome, whose Christians he has long desired to visit, to preach the Gospel where Christ has not been named, that is, in Spain (15:14-24). But he must first bring the money he had collected in Macedonia and Achaia to the poor in Jerusalem, and this trip worries him. Will he escape the hostility of the unbelievers in Judea (who seem to regard him as a past traitor to the Church he once persecuted), and will his collection be accepted by the Christians in Jerusalem (who, one can assume, have been offended by some of the derogatory comments Paul has made against the "pillars" of the Jerusalem Church - Gal 2:6.9)? Paul wants the Romans to help him on this journey by praying for him (15:25-33). Does he also hope that they will send a good word for him to their friends in Jerusalem?

   8. Second Concluding Section (16: 1-27): Greetings to Roman friends

      But since Paul wants to spend some time in Rome on his way back from Jerusalem to Spain, he also needs someone to speak for him in Rome. First of all, Phoebe, a woman deacon of the church at Cenchreae, a few miles from where Paul is writing and who is of great help to him, goes to Rome (and perhaps carries this letter); she should be well received. If there are Roman Christians who are suspicious of Paul, she can help him as an intermediary, as can various people already in Rome who know him, including twenty-six people he now greets in 16:3-16. We know only a few of them from Acts and the other Pauline letters - although we know more about Paul than about any other NT Christian, we still know relatively little. The references to a house church in 16:5, to households in 16:10-11, and to associated groups in 16:14-15 suggest that the Roman community was composed of a good number of small house churches; and indeed, this pattern is attested to in Rome throughout the second century. Modern attention has been drawn to the fact that Andronicus and Junia (preferable to "Junias") are "notable among the apostles" (16:7). Junia/Junias is most likely a woman's name, and she may have been the wife of Andronicus. This identity would mean that Paul could apply the term "apostle" to a woman. The verse poses a problem especially for those who, contrary to the NT evidence, limit the apostleship to the Twelve.

      The letter ends (16:21-23) with Paul including greetings from other Christians in Corinth. The scribe Tertius introduces himself (the only time a Pauline secretary does so), probably because he was a collaborating disciple of the letter. The doxology (praise of God) in 16:25-27 is absent from many manuscripts and may well be a liturgical addition by the copyist or editor for public reading in church.

3. The Unity of Romans and Chap. 16

   The Beatty II papyrus (P⁴⁶; ca. 200) offers evidence for a 15-chapter form of the letter. In the 19th century, a theory began to gain favor, especially in Germany, that chap. 16 was a formerly separate Pauline letter of commendation addressed to Ephesus on behalf of Phoebe, who was traveling there from Cenchreae (Rom. 16:1-3). Very careful study, however, has shown the weakness of any theory that would dissociate chap. 16 from the whole letter. The textual evidence that chap. 16 as part of Romans is extremely strong. To have the letter end with the last verse of chap. 15, "The God of peace be with you all," would be to propose an ending different from that of any authentic Pauline letter, whereas 16:21-23 is typically Pauline. The number of people Paul greets in Rome in ch. 16 should not be a problem. Paradoxically, Paul, who did not greet many named people when he wrote to a place where he had been for a long time (for example, in his letters to the Corinthians), needed friends to recommend him to others in Rome where he had never been. Many of the names Paul mentions in chap. 16 would fit the Roman scene, for example "Aristobulus" (a grandson of Herod the Great with this name seems to have lived his life in Rome) and "Narcissus" (the name of a powerful Roman freedman under Claudius). Muratori's fragment from the end of the second century sees Rom as one of the Pauline epistles that consider the whole Church. In the same sense, the forms of the letter in 14 and 15 chapters were probably early abbreviations in order to make the letter less particularly intended for one church, so that it could be read easily in churches of other places and times.

4. Justification/Uprightness/Righteousness/Justice

   This key idea in Pauline thought and in Romans is expressed by a number of terms: the verb "to justify"; the nouns "justice" and "justification"; and the adjective "just". A huge literature has been devoted to this, involving remarkably difficult and subtle discussions.

   Paul speaks of "the righteousness of God", but how should the noun complement ("of God") be understood? In the past, it has been understood as a possessive complement, constituting an attribute of God's being, a divine virtue, almost equivalent to "the just or righteous God". However, Paul's notion implies an activity; and to do justice to this, two other understandings have major support today.

   1. The expression can be understood as a possessive complement, describing an active attribute of God, such as God's wrath or God's power, equivalent to God's justifying activity, e.g., Rom 3:25-26, which speaks of God's longsuffering "as a proof of God's righteousness at the present time: that he himself is righteous and justifies the one who has faith in Jesus."

   2. Or the expression can be understood as a complement of source or origin, describing the state of righteousness communicated to human beings as a gift from or by God, e.g., Phil 3:9: "I do not have my own righteousness which comes from the Law, but that which comes from faith in Christ, the righteousness of God which comes from/depends on faith."

   It is of course questionable whether Paul would have made such a precise distinction in the implication of his noun complements, since both ideas are found in his thought. What we need to remember is a legal background in the root of the word, as if people were brought before God to be judged and God acquitted them and thus showed divine benevolence. In this just and merciful divine judgment, there is also a sense that God is asserting his authority and power, that he is triumphing over the forces that want to lead people astray, that he is setting things right and saving the world. While such a notion of God's justice, often in another terminology, was a reality for OT Israel, for Paul there was a greater, eschatological manifestation of God's justice in Jesus, extended to all.

   The term "justification" is also used by Paul to describe an effect on those who believe what God has done in Christ. Since God acquitted the people at the judgment, they are now justified. This acquittal took place not because the people were innocent, but because, although they were sinners, the truly innocent Jesus became a sinner for others (2 Cor 5:21). By an act of love, Christ died for sinners (Rom 5:8); "he was delivered up for our transgressions and raised for our justification" (4:25). For Paul, this justification or righteousness took the place of the righteousness of the Law (Phil 3:6). Although Paul did not create the Christian use of this vocabulary of justification, he made it a major motif in several of his letters and emphasized that it was a grace or gift received by faith (Rom 3:24-25). Whether Paul understood this theology at the first revelation of Christ by God or whether he understood it gradually, especially from his experience with the Galatians, is a matter of debate. The latter hypothesis would explain why the theology and language of justification appear mainly in Galatians, Philippians and Romans. Another major debate among biblical scholars is whether, for Paul, God merely declares people righteous by a kind of judicial sentence (forensic or declarative justification) or whether he actually changes people and makes them righteous (causative or factitive justification). But is a clear distinction possible since God's justificatory declaration has a power element that is also causative? Can one be reconciled to God without being transformed?

5. Paul's View of Jewish Observance of the Law

   Once again, we will have to confine ourselves to preliminary observations, for an enormous amount of scholarship has been devoted to this very difficult subject. In the aftermath of the Reformation, the dominant interpretation was that the Judaism of Paul's day was legalistic, insisting that people were justified only if they performed the acts prescribed by the Mosaic law. Paul's condemnation of such Judaism was used to refute a legalistic Roman Catholicism that held that people could be saved by the good works they did or had done in their name. Catholics were quick to protest that, although the function of indulgences may have been distorted in popular practice and preaching in the sixteenth century, in rigorous Catholic theology justification was a free gift from God that could not be earned by good works. However, both sides assumed that the Jews of Paul's day believed that justification could be earned by good works, so the challenge to the accuracy of this image by Christians has been slower. Modern sensitivity to this issue has developed in several ways:

   1. a growing awareness that Reformation issues were often projected into Paul's understanding;
   2. an awareness that Paul was often arguing, not against Jewish thought, but against Jewish Christian thought, e.g., those who argued that Gentile converts to Judaism could not be justified by Christ if they did not accept circumcision;
   3. a request for greater precision on what Paul actually says about works and the Law;
   4. and a protest from Jewish scholars and Christian experts on Judaism that the Jews had no simple theology for earning salvation by works.

   The last two points need to be discussed.

   On point c), Romans illustrates the complexity of Paul's attitude to the Law. He supports the Law (3:31), considers it holy (7:20) and fulfilled (8:4), and insists on the commandments (13:8-10; 1 Cor 7:19; also Gal 5:14). Yet no human being will be justified in God's eyes by the works of the Law (Rom 3:20); the Law brings wrath (4:15); it has increased sin (5:20; Gal 3:19). Some scholars distinguish between two different understandings of the Law, or two different parts of the Law, with the ethical commandments (against idolatry and sexual behavior) binding on all, including Gentile Christians, but not the cultic requirements (circumcision, calendar festivals). According to some biblical scholars, Paul rejected those aspects of the Law that were contrary to his own mission, those that separated Jews from Gentiles in the people of God called in Christ. This assessment recognizes that Paul's response to the Law stems from his experience of God's goodness in Christ rather than from systematic theorizing.

   Regarding (d), what is the relevance of Paul's remarks to what we know about the Jewish attitude toward justification by works of the Law? According to some biblical scholars, God had freely chosen Israel who had made a covenant to live as God's people, and this grace could not be earned. Rather, keeping the law provided a God-given way of living within the covenant, so that one should not speak of the righteousness of works but of the righteousness of keeping the covenant. But in a passage like Phil 3:6-7, Paul clearly contrasts his blameless state in the righteousness of the law with what he has found in Christ.

   If Paul's objections to the righteousness of the Law were more substantial, could it be that Paul misunderstood or, in his newfound enthusiasm for Christ, even polemically exaggerated the role of works in his description of the Jewish concept of righteousness? In discussing the first century and Paul, one must ask whether the subtleties of the relationship between the Law and covenant keeping were understood at the popular level (just as a subtle Catholic theology on indulgences has always been understood at the popular level). Early rabbinic statements virtually identify the covenant and the Law (or more accurately, the Torah); and such features as circumcision, dietary laws and Sabbath observance had become visible lines of distinction between Jews and Gentiles. Thus, observance of the works of the Law could easily be the object of pride and understood by the people as what made a Jew "right" with God. When writing about the thinking of the Jews (as opposed to that of his Jewish-Christian opponents), Paul could have protested against such a legalistic view of God's covenant with Israel, not because he misunderstood it, but because he rightly saw it as the view of many Jews.

6. Original Sin and Rom 5:12-21

   Paul argues that sin entered the world through one man, and through sin death, and so death spread to all human beings (5:12). He never uses the expression "original sin," nor does he refer to a previous fall from grace. But it was in reflecting on this verse that Augustine developed the theology of original sin in the fourth century, partly in a debate with Pelagius. Augustine argued that by his sin Adam had fallen from his original supernatural status and that through human propagation, which involved concupiscence, the lack of grace was passed on to every human being descended from Adam. This discussion belongs to the realm of systematic theology, but some observations on Paul's thought may serve as a clarification:

   1. For some parts of the story in Gen 2:4b-3:24, Adam is not an individual man but a representative figure of humanity. For Paul, however, Adam is an individual figure like Jesus; and so the apostle compares the first man and the man of the last times.

   2. Paul's interpretation of Gen may have been shaped in part by the interpretations of his day, but what dominates his picture of Adam is his theology of Jesus. In other words, he did not read Gen to come to an understanding of Jesus; he understood Jesus and read Gen in that light. This retrospective approach means that Paul really has nothing new to teach us about the historical origins of the human race.

   3. Paul's view of the universality of sin and death stems from observation of the existing world, and he uses the account in Genesis to explain it. In fact, the author of Genesis, even though he drew on earlier legends, wrote his story in a similar way, starting from the world he knew and imagining its origins.

   4. To some, the idea of human sin that goes beyond personal wrongdoing is strange. The total human experience, however, compels many others to recognize a mystery of evil that has collective overtones. Paul sought to give voice to this by appealing to the imagery of human origins.

   5. Paul's primary interest is not Adam's sin but Christ's superabundant grace. He argues that Christ's act of righteousness has led to justification and life for all - something much more difficult to observe than universal sin. Indeed, some might argue for universal salvation from this passage!

7. Issues and Problems for Reflection
   1. Biblical scholars do not agree on how to subdivide the letter to the Romans. Some subdivide the doctrinal section (1:16 - 11:36) into three parts (1:16 - 4:25; 5:1 - 8:39; 9:1 - 11:36). Others see in this letter an epidictic or demonstrative rhetoric, and find four parts (1:16/18 - 3:20 [negative argument]; 3:21 - 5:21 [positive argument]; 6:1 - 8:39; 9:1 - 11:36). Still others argue that Rom 5 has a hinge function, closing 1:18 - 5:21 and opening 6:1 - 8:39. Since scholars are convinced that Rom 5 was carefully planned, a diagnosis of its structure sometimes amounts to a diagnosis of its theology.

   2. Rom 9:5 has two clauses attached: "Of them [i.e., the Israelites] is Christ according to the flesh, the one who is above all, God blessed forever. Amen." To whom do the italicized words refer?
      1. A period can be placed after "flesh" so that the following words become a separate sentence blessing God.
      2. A comma can be placed after "flesh" and a period after "forever". This punctuation would mean that Paul calls Christ "God blessed forever. Grammar favors this, even though the verse then becomes the only example in the undisputed Pauline letters of calling Jesus "God" and the earliest example of this usage in the NT.

   3. Many Pauline terms have been the subject of endless debate. For example, many take for granted that in Romans "law" means the Mosaic law with relative consistency. Yet, for the passages in chap. 7, for example, other suggestions are the Roman law, the law in general, all of God's precepts, or the natural law. The "I" in chap. 7 is presumably unregenerate humanity as seen by a Christian Jew, but others have thought it refers to Paul personally, or to a Jewish boy speaking psychologically, or to the Christian struggling after being converted, or even to Adam.

   4. There have been debates about how Paul is to be understood independently of the question of original sin. The majority would understand the death caused by sin as a spiritual death, not simply a physical death (even if it goes beyond the story of Adam). A Greek prepositional combination in 5:12 was particularly difficult: "So death spread to all human beings, eph hō all sinned." Is there a reference to Adam "in whom" or "by whom" or "because of whom" all sinned? Or, unrelated to Adam, does Paul mean "inasmuch as all have sinned," or "with the result that all have sinned."

   5. In the OT, Spirit is a way of describing God's action in creating (Gen 1:2; Ps 104:30), enlivening (Ezek 37:5) and making people representatives of the divine plan (Isa 11:2; Joel 3:1 [2:28]) - an action that comes from without but also works within people. In the dualism of the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is a great Spirit of Truth - a kind of angelic force that rules over people from above but also dwells within them and guides their lives. Some of these same ideas appear in Paul's image of the Spirit, a term he uses nineteen times in chapter 8. Other examples of frequent use in Paul's chapters are provided by 1 Cor 2, 12:14, 2 Cor 3, and Gal 5. It is worthwhile to look for a total Pauline image and compare it to other concepts of the Spirit in the NT.

   6. In Romans 8:29-30, Paul says that those whom God foreknew he also "predestined" (from proorizein, "to decide beforehand") and that those whom God predestined he also called. Throughout theological history, this passage has fueled important debates about God's predestination of those who would be saved. Without entering into these discussions, we must be aware that, despite its wording, this passage is not necessarily intended to cover God's relationship with all human beings of all times. First, it is motivated by a specific problem, namely, that most of the Jews who had been confronted with the revelation in Christ had rejected it. Second, the purpose of predestination is salvific. Paul believes that the ultimate purpose of Israel's hardening is "that the Gentiles may come in in great numbers and so all Israel may be saved" (11:25-26). Likewise, "God gave all men over to disobedience, so that he might have mercy on all" (11:32). This is a far cry from predestining some people to damnation. Third, it is important to recognize the way the Jews thought about divine causality. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, we hear that God sets up the whole plan before things exist, yet other texts make it clear that people act freely. It is not easy to impose on Paul the Western logic that if God has decided in advance, it must mean that human beings are predetermined.

   7. In 11:25-26, Paul speaks of Israel's fate as a mystery: a hardening until the full number of Gentiles has arrived, and then all Israel will be saved. Is Paul implying that he has had a revelation about the future fate of Israel, or is he expressing a hope? It is more likely that he is thinking of a revelation, for he is speaking of a mystery in the mind of God. But then one could debate whether God is committed to Paul's interpretation of revelation. Jeremiah's complaint in 17:15; 20:7-18 implies that God did not support Jeremiah's interpretation of the word of God that he had authentically received. Furthermore, Paul speaks in the language of an apocalyptic sequence, which always has a figurative element that should not be confused with linear history.

   8. It is interesting to note that Romans, which speaks so eloquently about sin and justification, is relatively silent on repentance. In Luke 24:47 there must be a proclamation that people should repent and be forgiven in Jesus' name. Many interpreters would explain that for Paul, divine forgiveness is not a response to human repentance, but is purely gracious, for God acts without prior human initiative. Is the contrast between Paul and Luke so sharp? Do the NT authors who insist on repentance propose a purely human initiative; or is repentance itself a grace of God? Luke's proclamation could imply a double grace: being open to God's impulse to repent, and receiving God's forgiveness. Would Paul disagree with this approach?