Romans Preliminary essay by Stott

>

> Preliminary essay
>
> Paul's letter to the Romans is a kind of Christian manifesto. To
> be sure, it is also a letter, whose contents were determined by the
> particular situations in which the apostle and the Romans found the
> mselves at that time. Nevertheless, it remains a timeless manifesto,
> a manifesto of freedom through Jesus Christ. It is the fullest, pla
> inest and grandest statement of the gospel in the New Testament. Its
> message is not that 'man was born free, and everywhere he is in cha
> ins', as Rousseau put it at the beginning of The Social Contract (17
> 62); it is rather that human beings are born in sin and slavery, but
> that Jesus Christ came to set us free. For here is unfolded the goo
> d news of freedom, freedom from the holy wrath of God upon all ungod
> liness, freedom from alienation into reconciliation, freedom from th
> e condemnation of God's law, freedom from what Malcolm Muggeridge us
> ed to call 'the dark little dungeon of our own ego', freedom from
> the fear of death, freedom one day from the decay of the groaning cr
> eation into the glorious liberty of God's children, and meanwhile fr
> eedom from ethnic conflict in the family of God, and freedom to give
> ourselves to the loving service of God and others.
> It is not surprising that the church in every generation has
> acknowledged the importance of Romans, not least at the time of the
> Reformation. Luther called it 'really the chief part of the New Test
> ament, and … truly the purest gospel'. He continued: 'It is
> worthy not only that every Christian should know it word for word, b
> y heart, but also that he should occupy himself with it every day, a
> s the daily bread of the soul.'1 Calvin wrote similarly, declaring t
> hat 'if we have gained a true understanding of this Epistle, we have
> an open door to all the most profound treasures of Scripture'.2
> The same appreciation of Romans was expressed by British
> Reformers. William Tyndale, for example, the father of English Bible
> translators, in his prologue to Romans, described it as 'the princip
> al and most excellent part of the New Testament, and most [Romans, P
> age 20] pure Euangelion, that is to say, glad tidings … and also a l
> ight and a way in unto the whole Scripture'. He went on to urge his
> readers to learn it by heart. For, he assured them, 'the more it is
> studied, the easier it is; the more it is chewed, the pleasanter it
> is'.3
>
> 1. The influence of the letter
>
> Several notable church leaders have testified, in different
> centuries, to the impact which Romans has made on their lives, in
> some cases being the means of their conversion. I mention five of
> them, in order to encourage us to take our study seriously.
> Aurelius Augustinus, known to the world as Augustine of Hippo,
> destined to become the greatest Latin Father of the early church,
> was born on a small farm in what is now Algeria. During his
> turbulent youth he was both the slave of his sexual passions and the
> object of his mother Monica's prayers. As a teacher of literature an
> d rhetoric he moved successively to Carthage, Rome, and then Milan,
> where he came under the spell of Bishop Ambrose's preaching. It was
> there during the summer of the year 386, when he was thirty-two year
> s old, that he went out into the garden of his lodging, seeking soli
> tude. 'The tumult of my heart took me out into the garden', he
> wrote later in his Confessions, 'where no-one could interfere with t
> he burning struggle with myself in which I was engaged … I was twist
> ing and turning in my chains … I threw myself down somehow under a c
> ertain fig tree, and let my tears flow freely.'
>
> Suddenly I heard a voice from the nearby house chanting as if it
> might be a boy or a girl … saying and repeating over and over again
> 'Pick up and read, pick up and read.'… I interpreted it solely
> as a divine command to me to open the book and read the first chapte
> r I might find … So I hurried back to the place where … I had put
> down the book of the apostle when I got up. I seized it, opened it a
> nd in silence read the first passage on which my eye lit: 'Not in ri
> ots and drunken parties, not in eroticism and indecencies, not in st
> rife and rivalry, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provi
> sion for the flesh in its lusts' (Rom. 13:13–14). I neither
> wished nor needed to read further. At once, with the last words of t
> his sentence, it was as if a light of relief from all anxiety floode
> d into my heart. All the shadows of doubt were dispelled.4
>
> In 1515 another professor was overtaken by a similar spiritual
> crisis. Like everybody else in medieval Christendom, Martin Luther
> had been brought up in the fear of God, death, judgment and hell.
> [Romans, Page 21] Because the surest way to gain heaven (it was
> thought) was to become a monk, in 1505 at the age of twenty-one he
> entered the Augustinian cloister at Erfuhrt, where he prayed and
> fasted, sometimes for days on end, and adopted other extreme
> austerities. 'I was a good monk,' he wrote later. 'If ever a
> monk got to heaven by his monkery, it was I.'5 'Luther probed
> every resource of contemporary Catholicism for assuaging the anguish
> of a spirit alienated from God.'6 But nothing pacified his tormente
> d conscience until, having been appointed Professor of Bible at Witt
> enberg University, he studied and expounded first the Psalms (1513–1
> 5) and then Romans (1515–16). At first he was angry with God, he lat
> er confessed, because he seemed to him more a terrifying judge than
> a merciful saviour. Where might he find a gracious God? What could P
> aul mean in Romans 1:17 when he stated that 'the righteousness of Go
> d was revealed in the gospel'? Luther tells us how his dilemma was r
> esolved:
>
> I had greatly longed to understand Paul's letter to the Romans, and
> nothing stood to the way but that one expression 'the righteousness
> of God', because I took it to mean that righteousness whereby God is
> righteous and acts righteously in punishing the unrighteous … Night
> and day I pondered until … I grasped the truth that the righteousne
> ss of God is that righteousness whereby, through grace and sheer mer
> cy, he justifies us by faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn a
> nd to have gone through open doors into paradise. The whole of Scrip
> ture took on a new meaning, and whereas before 'the righteousness of
> God' had filled me with hate, now it became to me inexpressibly swe
> et in greater love. This passage of Paul became to me a gateway into
> heaven.7
>
> Some 200 years later, it was Luther's own God-given insight into
> the truth of justification by grace through faith which led to the
> similar illumination of John Wesley. His younger brother Charles had
> with some Oxford friends founded what came to be nicknamed 'the Hol
> y Club', and in November 1729 John joined it and became its acknowle
> dged leader. Its members engaged in sacred studies, self-examination
> , public and private religious [Romans, Page 22] exercises, and phil
> anthropic activities, apparently hoping to win salvation by such goo
> d works. Then in 1735 the brothers Wesley sailed for Georgia as chap
> lains to the settlers and missionaries to the Indians. Two years lat
> er they returned in a profound disillusionment, which was mitigated
> only by their admiration for the piety and faith of some Moravians.
> Then on 24 May 1738, during a Moravian meeting in Aldersgate Street,
> London, to which John Wesley had gone 'very unwillingly', he
> turned from self-confidence to faith in Christ. Somebody was reading
> Luther's Preface to … Romans. Wesley wrote in his journal:
>
> About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change
> which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my
> heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone,
> for salvation; and an assurance was given me that he had taken away
> my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.8
>
> Coming now into our own era, two other Christian leaders may be
> mentioned. Both were Europeans, one Romanian, the other Swiss. Both
> were clergy, one Orthodox, the other Protestant. Both were born in
> the 1880s, although they never met and may never even have heard of
> each other. Yet, despite their different countries, cultures and
> churches, both were transformed by their study of Romans. I am
> referring to Dumitru Cornilescu and Karl Barth.
> While studying at the Orthodox Theological Seminary in
> Bucharest, Dumitru Cornilescu9 longed to experience a greater
> spiritual reality and depth. During his search he was introduced to
> some books by evangelical authors, who themselves directed him to
> the Bible. So he determined to translate the Bible into modern
> Romanian, began the work in 1916 and almost six years later
> completed it. Through his study of Romans he came to believe truths
> which previously had been unfamiliar and even unacceptable to him:
> that 'there is no-one righteous, not even one' (3:10), that
> 'all have sinned' (3:23), that 'the wages of sin is
> death' (6:23), and that sinners may be 'justified freely'
> through Christ (3:24), because 'God presented him as a sacrifice of
> atonement through faith in his blood' (3:25). Through these and othe
> r texts of Romans he came to see that God through Christ had done ev
> erything necessary for our salvation. 'I took this forgiveness for m
> yself,' he said; 'I accepted Christ as my living Saviour.'
> 'From that point on,' writes Paul Negrut, 'Cornilescu was
> assured that he belonged to God, and that he was a [Romans, Page 23]
> new person.' His translation, published in 1921, became the standar
> d Bible Society text. But he himself was exiled by the Orthodox Patr
> iarch in 1923, and died some years later in Switzerland.
> Switzerland was also the home of Karl Barth. During his pre-war
> theological studies he came under the influence of some of the
> leading liberal scholars of the day and shared their utopic dream of
> human progress and social change. But the horrific carnage and
> bestiality of the First World War, and his reflection on the message
> of Romans, were enough in combination to shatter the illusions of
> liberal optimism. Even while writing his exposition, he said that 'i
> t required only a little imagination … to hear the sound of the guns
> booming away in the north.'10 The publication of the first edition
> of his commentary in 1918 marked his decisive break with theological
> liberalism. He had come to see that the kingdom of God was not a re
> ligious brand of socialism, achieved by human prowess, but a radical
> ly new beginning initiated by God.11 In fact, the bedrock he had com
> e up against was 'the Godness of God', that is, 'God's
> absolutely unique existence, power and initiation'.12 Simultaneously
> he came to perceive the depths of human sin and guilt. He entitled
> his exposition of Romans 1:18f.. (Paul's exposé of Gentile
> depravity) 'The Night', and wrote about verse 18: 'Our relation
> to God is ungodly … We assume that … we are able to arrange our
> relation to him as we arrange our other relationships … We dare to d
> eck ourselves out as his companions, patrons, advisers and commissio
> ners … This is the ungodliness of our relation to God.'13
> Barth confessed that he wrote 'with a joyful sense of
> discovery'. For, he added, 'the mighty voice of Paul was new to
> me: and if to me, no doubt to many others also'.14 But his uncomprom
> ising emphasis on the sinner's absolute dependence on the sovereign,
> saving grace of God in Jesus Christ created what Sir Edwyn Hoskins
> (his English translator) described as a 'hubbub and commotion'.15
> Or, as the Roman Catholic theologian Karl Adam put it, using appropr
> iate wartime imagery, Barth's commentary dropped 'like a
> bombshell on the theologians' playground'.16
> F. F. Bruce, who drew attention—ratter more briefly than I have
> done—to the influence of Romans on four of these five men, wisely ad
> ded that its impact has not been confined to such giants, since 'ver
> y ordinary men and women' have been affected by it too. Indeed,
> 'there is no saying what may happen when people begin to study the l
> etter to the Romans. So, let those who have read thus far [Romans, P
> age 24] be prepared for the consequences of reading farther: you hav
> e been warned!'17
>
> 2. New challenges to old traditions
>
> It has long been taken for granted, at least since the Reformation,
> that the apostle's chief emphasis in Romans is on God's
> justification of sinners by grace, in Christ, through faith. For exa
> mple, Calvin wrote in his introductory essay on 'The Theme of the Ep
> istle of Paul to the Romans' that 'the main subject of the whole
> Epistle … is that we are justified by faith'.18 This is not to
> deny that Paul goes on to handle the further themes of assurance (ch
> apter 5), sanctification (chapter 6), the place of the law (chapter
> 7), the ministry of the Spirit (chapter 8), God's plan for both Jews
> and Gentiles (chapters 9–11) and the varied responsibilities of the
> Christian life (chapters 12–15). Nevertheless, the assumption has b
> een that Paul's main preoccupation was with justification, and that
> he developed those other topics only in relation to justification.
> During this century, however, and in particular during the last
> thirty years, this thesis has been challenged. In 1963 an article by
> Professor Krister Stendahl, who later served as Lutheran Bishop of
> Stockholm, appeared in the Harvard Theological Review, entitled 'The
> Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West', which w
> as subsequently incorporated in his book Paul Among Jews and Gentile
> s.19 He maintained that the traditional understanding of Paul in gen
> eral and of Romans in particular, namely that their focus is on just
> ification by faith, is wrong. This mistake, he continued, is due to
> the western church's morbid conscience,20 and specially to the moral
> struggles of Augustine and Luther, which the church has tended to r
> ead back into Paul. Justification, according to Bishop Stendahl, is
> not 'the pervasive, organizing doctrinal principle or insight of Pau
> l',21 but 'was hammered out by Paul for the very specific and
> limited purpose of defending the rights of Gentile converts to be fu
> ll and genuine heirs to the promises of God to Israel'.22 Paul's
> concern was not his own salvation, for he himself had a 'robust cons
> cience',23 claimed to be 'blameless',24 and experienced 'no
> troubles, no problems, no qualms of conscience, no feelings of short
> comings',25 but rather the salvation of the Gentiles, that they coul
> d come to Christ directly and not through the law. Consequently, 'th
> e climax of Romans is actually chapters 9–11, i.e. his reflections o
> n the relation between church and synagogue, the [Romans, Page 25] c
> hurch and the Jewish people',26 and chapters 1–8 are 'a
> preface'.27 Romans is 'about God's plan for the world and about
> how Paul's mission to the Gentiles fits into that plan'.28
> To some degree this is a necessary corrective. For justification
> is certainly not Paul's exclusive preoccupation, as we have seen. Ne
> vertheless, Romans 1–8 cannot be downgraded to the status of a mere
> 'preface'. Bishop Stendahl seems to have set up an unnecessarily
> sharp antithesis. Paul was indeed deeply exercised, as the apostle t
> o the Gentiles, about the place of the law in salvation and about th
> e unity of Jews and Gentiles in the one body of Christ. But he was a
> lso evidently concerned to expound and defend the gospel of justific
> ation by grace alone through faith alone. In fact, the two concerns,
> far from being incompatible, are inextricably interwoven. Only loya
> lty to the gospel can secure unity in the church.
> Whether Paul's pre-conversion conscience was as cloudless as Dr
> Stendahl makes out, and whether we in the West have unduly introspec
> tive consciences which we have projected on to Paul, only careful ex
> egesis of the crucial texts can settle. But in 1:18–3:20 it is Paul
> (not Augustine or Luther) who establishes universal and inexcusable
> human guilt. And Paul's own claim to have been 'blameless' in
> law-righteousness29 must have referred to an external conformity to
> the law's demands. For in those revealing autobiographical verses in
> the middle of Romans 7 (if that is what they are) h e tells how it
> was the commandment against covetousness, being an internal sin of h
> eart, not action, which provoked in him 'every kind of evil
> desire' and so brought him to spiritual death. Professor Stendahl do
> es not refer to this passage. Besides, it is not necessary to polari
> ze between a 'morbid' and a 'robust' conscience. A truly
> healthy conscience disturbs our security and shames our pride, espec
> ially when the Holy Spirit comes to 'convict the world of guilt in r
> egard to sin and righteousness and judgment'.30 We should not theref
> ore expect any unregenerate person to have a completely clear consci
> ence.
> In 1977 the major work of the American scholar Professor E. P.
> Sanders was published, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Describing the
> prevailing picture of Palestinian Judaism as 'a religion of legalist
> ic works-righteousness',31 and of Paul's gospel as self-
> consciously antithetical to Judaism, he declared that his purpose wa
> s to 'destroy that view' as being 'completely wrong' and to
> show that it 'is based on a massive perversion and misunderstanding
> of the material'.32 He conceded that his thesis was not altogether n
> ew, since, as Dr N. T. Wright has written, G. F. Moore 'set out subs
> tantially the same [Romans, Page 26] position' in the three volumes
> of his Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (1927–30)
> .33 Nevertheless, Professor Sanders went further. He surveyed with i
> mmense erudition the rabbinic, Qumranic and apocryphal literature of
> Judaism from 200 BC to AD 200. And the religion which emerged from
> this study he characterized as 'covenantal nomism'. That is, God
> had brought Israel into a covenant relationship with himself by his
> grace, and had then asked for obedience to his law (nomism) as their
> response. This led Professor Sanders to portray Judaism's
> 'pattern of region' in terms of 'getting in' (by God's
> gracious election) and 'staying in' (by obedience). 'Obedience
> maintains one's position in the covenant, but it does not earn
> God's grace as such.'34 Disobedience was atoned for by repentance.
> Part II of Professor Sanders' book is simply headed 'Paul'.
> Even though it is only about a quarter the length of Part I, it is o
> f course impossible to do it justice in a single paragraph. Highligh
> ts of Professor Sanders' thesis are as follows: (1) that Paul's
> starting-point was not the belief that all human beings are guilty s
> inners before God, but rather that Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour
> of both Jews and Gentiles, so that 'for Paul the conviction of a uni
> versal solution preceded the conviction of a universal plight';35 (2
> ) that salvation is essentially a 'transfer' from the bondage of
> sin to the lordship of Christ; (3) that the means of transfer is 'pa
> rticipation' with Christ in his death and resurrection;36 (4) that t
> he reason salvation must be 'by faith' is not to obviate human
> pride, but that if it were 'by law' the Gentiles would be
> excluded and Christ's death would have been unnecessary ('the
> argument for faith is really an argument against the law');37 and (5
> ) that the resulting saved community is 'one person in Christ'.38
> Professor Sanders calls this way of thinking 'participationist escha
> tology'.39 It will readily be seen, however, that in this attempted
> reconstruction of Paul's gospel the familiar categories of human sin
> and guilt, the wrath of God, justification by grace without works,
> and peace with God in consequence, are conspicuous by their absence.
> In his second book, Paul, the Law and the Jewish People,40
> Professor Sanders replies to some of his critics and seeks to
> clarify and develop his thesis. He is surely right, in general, that
> Paul's 'argument concerns the equal standing of Jews and Gentiles
> —both are under the power of sin—and the identical ground on
> which they [Romans, Page 27] change that status—faith in Jesus Chris
> t.'41 But he then insists that 'the supposed objection to Jewish
> self-righteousness is as absent from Paul's letters as self-righteou
> sness itself is from Jewish literature.'42 That is a much more quest
> ionable statement. At least five issues need to be raised.
> First, the evidence is plain that the language of 'weighing',
> that is, of 'balancing merits against demerits',43 does not occur
> in the literature of Palestinian Judaism. But does the absence of th
> is imagery of the scales prove the absence of the concept of merit?
> Cannot works-righteousness exist even when it is not 'weighed'?
> Paul was not mistaken to describe some Jews as 'pursuing'
> righteousness and not attaining it (9:30f..), and others as 'trying
> to be justified by law'.44
> Secondly, in Judaism entry into the covenant was understood as
> depending on God's grace. This is hardly surprising, since in the Ol
> d Testament itself God is seen to take the initiative in his grace t
> o establish his covenant with Israel. There could be no question of
> 'deserving' or 'earning' one's membership. Yet Professor
> Sanders goes on to show that 'the theme of reward and punishment is
> ubiquitous in the Tannaitic literature',45 specially with regard to
> gaining life in the world to come. Does this not mean that human mer
> it, while not the basis (in Judaism) of entering the covenant, was y
> et the basis of remaining in it? But Paul would have been vehement i
> n his rejection of this. To him 'getting in' and 'staying in'
> are both by grace alone. Not only have we been justified by grace th
> rough faith (5:1), but we continue to stand in this grace into which
> we have been granted access by faith (5:2).
> Thirdly, Professor Sanders concedes that 4 Ezra was the one
> exception to his thesis. For in this apocryphal book, he writes, 'on
> e sees how Judaism works when it actually does become a religion of
> individual self-righteousness'. Here 'covenantal nomism has
> collapsed. All that is left is legalistic perfectionism.'46 If one l
> iterary example has survived, may there not have been others which d
> id not survive? May not the lapse into legalism have been more wides
> pread than Professor Sanders admits? Besides, he has been criticized
> for reducing the complexity of first-century Judaism into 'a single
> , unitary, harmonious, and linear development'.47 Professor Martin H
> engel makes the same point. He writes that 'in contrast to the progr
> essive "unification" of Palestinian Judaism under the leadership
> of the rabbinic scribes after AD 70, the spiritual face of Jerusalem
> before its destruction was a markedly "pluralistic" one'.
> After listing nine different groups he concludes: 'Jerusalem and its
> [Romans, Page 28] environs must have presented the contemporary vis
> itor with a confusingly varied picture.'48 Again, 'perhaps there
> was no such thing as this one Palestinian Judaism with the one bindi
> ng view of the law'.49
> Fourthly, the case developed by E. P. Sanders and others rests
> on the meticulous examination of the relevant literature. But is it
> not well known that popular religion may diverge widely from the
> official literature of its leaders? It is this very distinction
> which leads Professor Sanders to write: 'The possibility cannot be c
> ompletely excluded that there were Jews accurately hit by the polemi
> c of Matthew 23 … Human nature being what it is, one supposes that t
> here were some such. One must say, however, that the surviving Jewis
> h literature does not reveal them.'50 A parallel could be drawn with
> Anglicanism. The Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-nine Articles
> , that is, the official literature of the church, insist that 'we ar
> e accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and
> Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservin
> gs',51 and that we may not 'presume' to approach God
> 'trusting in our own righteousness'.52 Nothing could be clearer
> in the literature. Yet is it unfair to conjecture that the actual fa
> ith of many Anglicans remains one of works-righteousness?
> Fifthly, it is clear that Paul had a horror of boasting. This
> has traditionally been taken as a rejection of self-righteousness.
> We are to boast in Christ and his cross,53 not in ourselves or each
> other.54 Professor Sanders, however, interprets Paul's antipathy to
> Jewish boasting (e.g. 3:27f..; 4:1f..) as being directed against pri
> de in their favoured status (2:17, 23), which would be incompatible
> with the equal standing of Jews and Gentiles in Christ, not against
> pride in their merit,55 which would be incompatible with a due humil
> ity before God. But one wonders if this distinction can be maintaine
> d as neatly as Professor Sanders does. Paul seems to bracket them in
> Philippians 3:3–9, where he contrasts 'glorying in Christ
> Jesus' with 'putting confidence in the flesh'. And the context
> shows that in 'the flesh' (what we are in our unredeemed self-
> centredness) Paul included both his status as 'a Hebrew of
> Hebrews' and his obedience to the law: 'in regard to the law a
> Pharisee … as for legalistic righteousness [that is, external confor
> mity to the requirements of the law] faultless'. In other words, the
> boasting which Paul had himself renounced, and now condemned, was a
> self-righteousness compounded of both status-righteousness and work
> s-righteousness. In [Romans, Page 29] addition, the apostle twice wr
> ites of a righteousness which can be described as our 'own'
> either because we think we 'have' it or because we are seeking to
> 'establish' it.56 Both passages indicate that this righteousness
> of our own (i.e. self-righteousness) is based on law-obedience, and
> that those who 'pursue' it thereby indicate that they are
> unwilling to 'submit' to God's righteousness. In Romans 4:4–5
> Paul also makes a sharp contrast between 'working' and
> 'trusting', and so between a 'wage' and a 'gift'.
> Finally, I am grateful for Professor Sanders' reference, quoted
> in paragraph 4 above, to 'human nature being what it is'. For our
> fallen human nature is incurably self-centred, and pride is the elem
> ental human sin, whether the form it takes is self-importance, self-
> confidence, self-assertion or self-righteousness. If we human beings
> were left to our own self-absorption, even our religion would be pr
> essed into the service of ourselves. Instead of being the vehicle fo
> r the selfless adoration of God, our piety would become the base on
> which we would presume to approach God and to attempt to establish a
> claim on him. The ethnic religions all seem to degenerate thus, and
> so does Christianity. In spite of the learned literary researches o
> f E. P. Sanders, therefore, I cannot myself believe that Judaism is
> the one exception to this degenerative principle, being free from al
> l taint of self-righteousness. As I have read and pondered his books
> , I have kept asking myself whether perhaps he knows more about Pale
> stinian Judaism than he does about the human heart.
> Certainly Jesus included 'arrogance' among the evils which
> issue from our hearts and defile us.57 In consequence, he found it n
> ecessary in his teaching to combat self-righteousness. For example,
> in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax-collector he emphasized d
> ivine mercy, not human merit, as the proper object of justifying fai
> th; in the parable of the labourers in the vineyard he undermined th
> e mentality of those who demand payment and resent grace; and he saw
> little children as models of the humility which receives the kingdo
> m as a free, unmerited gift.58
> As for the apostle Paul, since he was well acquainted with the
> subtle pride of his own heart, could he not sniff it out in others,
> even when it hid under the cloak of religion?
> In the end, however, it comes back to the question of exegesis.
> It is universally agreed that Paul's gospel in Romans was antithetic
> al. He was expounding it over against some alternative. But what was
> this? We must allow Paul to speak for himself, and not make him say
> what either old traditions or new perspectives want him to say. [Ro
> mans, Page 30] It is hard to see how any interpretation of Paul can
> explain away either his negative conclusion that 'no-one will be dec
> lared righteous in his sight by observing the law' (3:20), or his po
> sitive affirmation that sinners are 'justified freely by his
> grace' (3:24).
> The debate about Paul in general and Romans in particular is now
> focused on the purpose and place of the law. A note of pessimism
> characterizes the writing of some contemporary scholars, since they
> are not persuaded that Paul knew his own mind on this topic.
> Professor Sanders is prepared to concede that Paul was 'a coherent t
> hinker', while adding immediately that he was 'not a systematic
> theologian'.59 Dr Heikki Räisänen, the Finnish theologian, is a
> good deal less complimentary. 'Contradictions and tensions have to b
> e accepted', he writes, 'as constant features of Paul's
> theology of the law.'60 In particular, Paul is said to have been inc
> onsistent about the present status of the law. On the one hand, he s
> tates 'in unambiguous terms that the law has been abolished',61
> while on the other he claims that it is fulfilled in the lives of Ch
> ristians. Thus Paul contradicts himself, asserting 'both the aboliti
> on of the law and also its permanently normative character'.62 Also,
> 'we find Paul struggling with the problem that a divine institution
> has been abolished through what God has done in Christ …'. Most
> of Paul's difficulties are attributable to this. He even 'tries
> to hush up the abolition' by insisting that his teaching
> 'upholds' and 'fulfils' the law. But how can it be fulfilled
> by being set aside?63
> The difficulties which Dr Räisänen finds, however, seem to be mo
> re in his own mind than in Paul's. It is true of course that, when P
> aul is responding to different situations, he makes different emphas
> es. But it is not impossible to resolve the apparent discrepancies,
> as I hope will become clear in the exposition of the text. Our deliv
> erance from the law is a rescue from its curse and its bondage, and
> so relates to the two particular functions of justification and sanc
> tification. In both areas we are under grace, not law. For justifica
> tion we look to the cross, not the law, and for sanctification to th
> e Spirit, not the law. It is only by the Spirit that the law can be
> fulfilled in us.64
> Professor James Dunn seems to have accepted the main theses of
> K. Stendahl, E. P. Sanders and H. Räisänen, and has sought to develo
> p them further, especially in relation to the law. In a famous paper
> entitled. The New Perspective on Paul' (1983), summarized in the in
> troduction to his commentary, he portrays Paul in Romans as being in
> dialogue with himself, the Jewish rabbi with the [Romans, Page 31]
> Christian apostle. When he declared that nobody could be justified '
> by the works of the law', he was not referring to 'good works'
> in a general and meritorious sense. He was thinking rather of circum
> cision, the sabbath and the food laws, which 'functioned as an
> "identity marker" and "boundary", reinforcing Israel's
> sense of distinctiveness and distinguishing Israel from the surround
> ing nations'. Further, this 'sense of distinctiveness' was
> accompanied by a 'sense of privilege'. The reason Paul was
> negative to 'the works of the law' was not that they were thought
> to earn salvation, but that (a) they led to a boastful pride in Isra
> el's favoured status, and (b) they fostered an ethnic exclusiveness
> incompatible with the inclusion of the Gentiles, to which he was com
> mitted.65
> There can be no doubt that Paul saw these two dangers clearly.
> But Dr Stephen Westerholm is right, in his fine survey Israel's Law
> and the Church's Faith (1988), to question aspects of this reconstru
> ction. For Paul, he argues, used 'law' and 'works of law'
> interchangeably, so that his reference was wider than to particular
> Jewish rituals; it was boasting in good works, not just in favoured
> status, which Paul opposed, as is clear from the case of Abraham (3:
> 27; 4:1–5); and 'the fundamental principle affirmed by Paul's
> thesis of justification by faith, not works of the law, is that of h
> umanity's dependence on divine grace …'.66
> Clearly the last word has not yet been spoken or written about
> these controversial issues in Romans. We may not feel able to agree
> that Paul's pre-conversion conscience was as cloudless as is now bei
> ng claimed, or that he was as muddled over the law, and as preoccupi
> ed with its ritual regulations, as some are arguing; or that first-c
> entury Judaism was completely free from notions of merit and of work
> s-righteousness. But we can be profoundly thankful for the scholarly
> insistence that the Gentile question is central to Romans. The rede
> finition and reconstitution of the people of God, as comprising Jewi
> sh and Gentile believers on equal terms, is a critical theme which p
> ervades the letter.
>
> 3. Paul's purposes in writing
>
> The older commentators tended to assume that Paul was providing in
> Romans what Philip Melanchthon termed 'a compendium of Christian doc
> trine', somewhat detached from any particular socio-historical conte
> xt. Contemporary scholars, on the other hand, have tended to over-re
> act to this, and to focus entirely on the transient situation of wri
> ter and readers. Not all have made this mistake, however. Professor
> Bruce called Romans 'a sustained and coherent [Romans, Page 32] stat
> ement of the gospel'.67 Professor Cranfield has described it as
> 'a theological whole from which nothing at all substantial can be ta
> ken away without some measure of disfigurement or distortion'.68 And
> Günther Bornkamm could refer to Romans as 'the last will and
> testament of the apostle Paul'.69
> Nevertheless, all the New Testament documents (the gospels, the
> Acts and the Revelation as well as the letters) were written from
> within a particular situation. And this situation concerned partly
> the circumstances in which the author found himself, partly those of
> his intended readers, and usually a combination of both. It is these
> which help us to grasp what prompted each author to write and why he
> wrote what he did write. Romans is no exception to this general
> rule, although Paul nowhere spells out his reasons in detail. So
> different reconstructions have been attempted.
> In his helpful monograph The Reasons for Romans Dr Alexander
> Wedderburn has urged that three pairs of factors need to be borne in
> mind—both the epistolary framework of Romans (its beginning and end)
> and its theological substance in the middle, both Paul's situation
> and the Roman church's, both the Jewish and the Gentile sections of
> the church, and their particular problems.70
> What, then, were Paul's own circumstances? He is probably writin
> g from Corinth during those three months which he spent 'in
> Greece'71 just before sailing east. He mentions three places which h
> e is intending to visit. The first is Jerusalem, taking with him the
> money which the Greek churches have contributed for the poverty-str
> icken Christians in Judea (15:25f.). The second is Rome itself. Havi
> ng been frustrated in his previous attempts to visit the Christians
> in Rome, he is confident that this time he will be successful (1:11f
> ..; 15:23f..). Thirdly, he plans to go on to Spain, in order to cont
> inue his pioneer missionary work 'where Christ was not
> known' (15:20, 24, 28). His most obvious purposes in writing were re
> lated to these three destinations.
> Indeed, Paul thought of Rome, being situated between Jerusalem
> and Spain, as a place of refreshment after he had been to Jerusalem
> and a place of preparation en route for Spain. In other words, his
> visits to Jerusalem and Spain were of special significance to him
> because they expressed his two continuing commitments: to the
> welfare of Israel (Jerusalem) and to the Gentile mission (Spain).
> Paul was evidently apprehensive about his forthcoming visit to
> Jerusalem. He had invested much thought, time and energy in
> promoting his collection, and had staked his personal prestige on
> it. [Romans, Page 33] It was to him more than an expression of
> Christian generosity.72 It was a symbol of Jewish-Gentile solidarity
> in the body of Christ, and of an appropriate reciprocity (Gentiles
> sharing with Jews their material blessings, having first shared in
> their spiritual blessings, 15:27). So he urged the Roman Christians
> to join him in his prayer-struggle (15:30), not only for his
> personal safety, that he might be 'rescued from the unbelievers in J
> udea', but especially for the success of his mission, that his servi
> ce might be 'acceptable to the saints there' (15:31). Humanly
> speaking, its acceptability was in doubt. Many Jewish Christians reg
> arded him with deep suspicion. Some condemned him for disloyalty to
> his Jewish heritage, since in his evangelization of Gentiles he cham
> pioned their freedom from the necessity of circumcision and law-obse
> rvance. For such Jewish Christians, to accept the offering which Pau
> l was taking to Jerusalem would be tantamount to endorsing his liber
> al policy. The apostle felt the need of support from Rome's mixed Je
> wish-Gentile Christian community; he wrote to them to solicit their
> prayers.
> If Paul's immediate destination was Jerusalem, his ultimate dest
> ination was Spain. The fact was that his evangelization of the four
> provinces of Galatia, Asia, Macedonia and Achaia was now complete, s
> ince 'from Jerusalem all the way around to
> Illyricum' (approximately modern Albania), he had fully preached the
> gospel (15:19b). So what next? His ambition, which indeed had becom
> e his fixed policy, was to evangelize only 'where Christ was not kno
> wn', so that he would 'not be building on someone else's
> foundation' (15:20). Now, therefore, he put these two things togethe
> r (the fact and the policy) and concluded that there was 'no more pl
> ace' for him 'to work in these regions' (15:23). In
> consequence, his sights were set on Spain, which was regarded as par
> t of the western frontier of the Roman Empire, and to which, so far
> as he knew, the gospel had not yet penetrated.
> But he could have decided to go to Spain without either visiting
> Rome on the way or even telling the Romans his plans. So why did he
> write to them? Surely because he felt the need of their fellowship.
> Rome was about two-thirds of the way from Jerusalem to Spain. He
> asked therefore if they would 'assist' him on his journey there
> (15:24), presumably with their encouragement, financial support and
> prayers. Indeed, he wanted 'to use Rome as a base of operations in t
> he Western Mediterranean, much as he had used Antioch (originally) a
> s a base in the East'.73
> So Paul's intermediate destination, between Jerusalem and Spain,
> was to be Rome. A church had already come into being there, perhaps
> through Jewish Christians who had returned home from [Romans, Page
> 34] Jerusalem after Pentecost.74 But who the pioneer, church-plantin
> g missionary may have been is not known. If Paul's planned visit see
> ms inconsistent with his policy not to build on another's foundation
> , we can only guess that Rome was not regarded as any one person's t
> erritory and/or that he was influenced by the countervailing truth t
> hat as the specially appointed apostle to the Gentiles (1:5f.; 11:13
> ; 15:15f.) it would be appropriate for him to minister in the metrop
> olis of the Gentile world (1:11f..), although he tactfully added tha
> t he would visit them only 'while passing through' (15:24, 28).
> We still have to ask why he should write to them, however. It
> was partly no doubt to prepare them for his visit. More than that,
> because he had not visited Rome before, and because most of the
> church members there were not known to him, he saw the need to
> establish his apostolic credentials by giving a full account of his
> gospel. How he did this was determined in the main by 'the inner log
> ic of the gospel',75 but at the same time he was addressing his read
> ers' concerns and responding to criticism, as will emerge in the nex
> t paragraphs. Meanwhile, with regard to his own situation, he sent t
> hem a threefold request—to pray that his service in Jerusalem would
> be acceptable, to help him on his way to Spain, and to receive him d
> uring his stopover in Rome as the apostle to the Gentiles.
> Paul's purposes in writing to the Romans are not traceable only
> to his own situation, however, and in particular to his plans to tra
> vel to Jerusalem, Rome and Spain. His letter also arose from the sit
> uation in which the Roman Christians found themselves. What was that?
> Even the most casual reading of Romans betrays the fact that the
> church in Rome was a mixed community consisting of both Jews and
> Gentiles, with Gentiles in the majority (1:5f., 13; 11:13), and that
> there was considerable conflict between these groups. It is further
> recognized that this conflict was primarily not ethnic (different
> races and cultures), but theological (different convictions about
> the status of God's covenant and law, and so about salvation). Some
> scholars suggest that the house churches in the city (see 16:5, and
> also verses 14 and 15 which refer to the Christians 'with them')
> may have represented these different doctrinal positions. It may als
> o be that the 'disturbances' made by the Jews in Rome 'at the
> instigation of Chrestus' (probably meaning Christ), which were menti
> oned by Suetonius,76 and which led to their expulsion from Rome in A
> D 49 by the Emperor Claudius,77 were due to this same conflict betwe
> en Jewish and Gentile Christians.
>
> [Romans, Page 35]
>
> What then was the theological issue which lay beneath the ethnic
> and cultural tensions between Jews and Gentiles in Rome? Dr
> Wedderburn refers to the Jewish Christians in Rome as
> representatives of 'Judaizing Christianity', since they regarded
> Christianity 'as simply part of Judaism' and required their
> followers to 'observe the Jewish law',78 while the Gentile
> Christians he calls 'supporters of a law-free gospel'.79
> Moreover, he and many other scholars have also seen in the former gr
> oup 'the weak' and in the latter 'the strong' whom Paul
> addresses in chapters 14–15, although this may well be an over-simpl
> ification. The 'weak in faith', who scrupulously observed the
> ceremonial regulations like the food laws, condemned Paul for not do
> ing so. They may also have regarded themselves as the sole beneficia
> ries of God's promises, and were not at all in favour of Gentile eva
> ngelization unless the converts were prepared to be circumcised and
> observe the law in full.80 To them Paul was both a traitor to the co
> venant and an enemy of the law (that is, an 'antinomian'). The
> 'strong in faith', on the other hand, who like Paul himself were
> champions of a 'law-free gospel', made the mistake of despising
> the weak for being still in unnecessary bondage to the law. Thus the
> Jewish Christians were proud of their favoured status, and the Gent
> ile Christians of their freedom, so that Paul saw the need to humble
> them both.
> Echoes of this controversy, in both its theological and its
> practical implications, may be heard rumbling throughout Romans. And
> Paul is seen from beginning to end as an authentic peacemaker,
> pouring oil on troubled waters, anxious to preserve both truth and
> peace without sacrificing either to the other. He himself had, of
> course, a foot in both camps. On the one hand, he was a patriotic
> Jew ('I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ
> for the sake of my brothers … the people of Israel', 9:3). On
> the other hand, he had been specially commissioned as the apostle to
> the Gentiles ('I am talking to you Gentiles … as I am the
> apostle to the Gentiles …', 11:13; cf. 1:5; 15:15f.). So he was
> in a unique position to be an agent of reconciliation. He was determ
> ined to make a full and fresh statement of the apostolic gospel, whi
> ch would not compromise any of its revealed truths, but which would
> at the same time resolve the conflict between Jews and Gentiles over
> the covenant and the law, and so promote the unity of the church.
> In his ministry of reconciliation, therefore, Paul develops two
> paramount themes, and interweaves them beautifully. The first is the
> justification of guilty sinners by God's grace alone in Christ alone
> through faith alone, irrespective of either status or works. This i
> s the most humbling and levelling of all Christian truths and [Roman
> s, Page 36] experiences, and so is the fundamental basis of Christia
> n unity. In fact, as Martin Hengel has written, 'although people now
> adays are fond of asserting otherwise, no-one understood the real es
> sence of Pauline theology, the salvation given sola gratia, by grace
> alone, better than Augustine and Martin Luther.'81
> Paul's second theme is the consequent redefinition of the people
> of God, no longer according to descent, circumcision or culture, bu
> t according to faith in Jesus, so that all believers are the true ch
> ildren of Abraham, regardless of their ethnic origin or religious pr
> actice. So 'there is no difference' now between Jews and
> Gentiles, either in the fact of their sin and guilt or in Christ's o
> ffer and gift of salvation (e.g. 3:21f.., 27f.; 4:9f..; 10:11f..). I
> ndeed, 'the single most important theme of Romans is the equality of
> Jews and Gentiles'.82
> And linked with this is the continuing validity both of God's co
> venant (which now embraces Gentiles and demonstrates his faithfulnes
> s) and of his law (so that, although 'released' from it as the
> way of salvation, we yet through the Spirit 'fulfil' it as the
> revelation of God's holy will).
> A brief overview of the letter and its argument will throw
> further light on the intertwining of these related themes.
>
> 4. A brief overview of Romans
>
> Paul's two main themes—the integrity of the gospel committed to
> him and the solidarity of Jews and Gentiles in the messianic communi
> ty—are already apparent in the first half of the letter's first
> chapter.
> Paul calls the good news 'the gospel of God' (1) because he
> is its author, and 'the gospel of his Son' (9) because he is its
> substance. In verses 1–5 he focuses on the person of Jesus Christ, D
> avid's son by descent and powerfully declared God's Son by the
> resurrection. In verse 16 he focuses on his work, since the gospel i
> s God's power for the salvation of everyone who believes, 'first
> for the Jew, then for the Gentile'.
> In between these succinct statements of the gospel, Paul seeks
> to establish a personal relationship with his readers. He is writing
> to 'all in Rome' who are believers (7), irrespective of their
> ethnic origin, although he knows that the majority of them are Genti
> les (13). He thanks God for all of them, he prays for them constantl
> y, he longs to see them, and he has tried many times (so far unsucce
> ssfully) to visit them (8–13). He feels under obligation to preach t
> he gospel in the capital city of the world. Indeed, he is [Romans, P
> age 37] eager to do so, because in the gospel God's righteous way of
> 'righteoussing' the unrighteous has been revealed (14–17).
>
> The wrath of God (1:18–3:20)
>
> The revelation of God's righteousness in the gospel is necessary bec
> ause of the revelation of his wrath against unrighteousness (18). Th
> e wrath of God, his pure and perfect antagonism to evil, is directed
> against all those who deliberately suppress what they know to be tr
> ue and right, in order to go their own way. For everybody has some k
> nowledge of God and of goodness, whether through the created world (
> 19f.), or through conscience (32), or through the moral law written
> on human hearts (2:12f..), or through the law of Moses committed to
> the Jews (2:17f..).
> The apostle thus divides the human race into three sections—depr
> aved pagan society (1:18–32), critical moralizers whether Jews or Ge
> ntiles (2:1–16), and well-instructed, self-confident Jews (2:17–
> 3:8). He then concludes by accusing the whole human race (3:9–20). I
> n each case his argument is the same, that nobody lives up to the kn
> owledge which he or she has. Even the special privileges of the Jews
> do not exempt them from divine judgment. No, 'Jews and Gentiles ali
> ke are all under sin' (3:9), 'for God does not show
> favouritism' (2:11). All human beings are sinful, guilty and without
> excuse before God. The picture is one of unrelieved darkness.
>
> The grace of God (3:21–8:39)
>
> The 'But now' of 3:21 is one of the great adversatives of the
> Bible. For into the universal darkness of human sin and guilt the li
> ght of the gospel has shone. Paul again calls it 'the righteousness
> of [or from] God' (as in 1:17), that is, his just justification of t
> he unjust. This is possible only through the cross, in which God has
> demonstrated his justice (3:25f.) as well as his love (5:8), and it
> is available to 'all who believe' (3:22), whether Jews or
> Gentiles. In explaining the cross, Paul resorts to the key words 'pr
> opitation', 'redemption' and 'justification'. And then, in
> responding to Jewish objections (3:27–31), he argues that because ju
> stification is by faith alone, there can be no boasting before God,
> no discrimination between Jews and Gentiles and no disregard for the
> law.
> Romans 4 is a brilliant essay in which Paul proves that Abraham,
> the founding father of Israel, was himself justified neither by his
> works (4–8), nor by his circumcision (9–12), nor by the law (13–
> 15), but by faith. In consequence, Abraham is now 'the father of all
> who believe', irrespective of whether they are Jews or Gentiles (11
> , 16–25). The divine impartiality is evident.
>
> [Romans, Page 38]
>
> Having established that God justifies even the wicked by faith
> (4:5), Paul affirms the great blessings enjoyed by his justified
> people (5:1–11). Therefore, he begins, we have peace with God, we ar
> e standing in his grace, and we rejoice in the prospect of seeing an
> d sharing his glory. Even suffering does not shake our confidence, b
> ecause of God's love which he has both poured into our hearts throug
> h his Spirit (5) and proved on the cross through his Son (8). Becaus
> e of what God has already done for us, we dare to say that 'we shall
> be saved' on the last day (9–10).
> Two human communities have now been portrayed, the one
> characterized by sin and guilt, the other by grace and faith. The
> head of the old humanity is Adam, the head of the new is Christ. So
> then, with almost mathematical precision, Paul compares and
> contrasts them (5:12–21). The comparison is simple. In both cases th
> e one deed of one man has affected enormous numbers of people. The c
> ontrast, however, is much more significant. Whereas Adam's disobedie
> nce brought condemnation and death, Christ's obedience has brought j
> ustification and life. Indeed, Christ's saving work will prove far m
> ore successful than Adam's destructiveness.
> In the middle of this antithesis between Adam and Christ, Paul
> introduces Moses: 'the law was added so that the trespass might incr
> ease. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more' (20). B
> oth statements will have sounded shocking in Jewish ears, because th
> ey will have seemed incorrigibly antinomian. The first appeared to b
> lame sin on the law, and the second to minimize sin by magnifying gr
> ace. Did Paul's gospel both disparage the law and encourage sin? Pau
> l answers the second charge in Romans 6, and the first in Romans 7.
> Twice in Romans 6 (verses 1 and 15) we hear Paul's critic asking
> whether Paul meant that we may go on sinning so that God's grace ma
> y go on forgiving. Both times Paul responds with an outraged 'God fo
> rbid!' For Christians to ask such a question shows that they have ne
> ver understood the meaning of either their baptism (1–14) or their c
> onversion (15–23). Did they not know that their baptism signified un
> ion with Christ in his death, that his death was a death 'unto
> sin' (meeting its demand, paying its penalty), and that they had sha
> red in his resurrection too? By union with Christ they were themselv
> es 'dead unto sin and alive unto God'. How then could they go on
> living in what they had died to? It was similar with their conversio
> n. Had they not decisively offered themselves to God as his slaves?
> Then how could they contemplate lapsing into their old slavery to si
> n? Our baptism and conversion have both closed the door on to the ol
> d life, and opened a door on to a new life. It is not impossible for
> us to go back, but it is inconceivable that we should. Far from enc
> ouraging sin, grace prohibits it.
>
> [Romans, Page 39]
>
> Paul's critics were also disturbed by his teaching on the law. S
> o he clarifies it in Romans 7. He makes three points. First (1–6), C
> hristians have 'died to the law' in Christ, just as they have
> 'died to sin'. Consequently, they are 'released' from the
> law, that is, from its condemnation, and are now free not to sin but
> to serve in the new way of the Spirit. Secondly, writing (I believe
> ) out of his own past (7–13), Paul argues that, although the law rev
> eals, provokes and condemns sin, it is not responsible for sin or de
> ath. No, the law is holy. Paul exonerates the law.
> Thirdly (14–25), Paul describes in vivid terms a painful, contin
> uing, inner moral struggle. Whether the 'wretched man' who cries
> for deliverance is a regenerate Christian or unregenerate (I take a
> third position), and whether he is Paul himself or somebody Paul is
> impersonating, his purpose in this paragraph is to demonstrate the w
> eakness of the law. His defeat is due neither to the law (which is h
> oly), nor even to his true self, but to 'sin living in me' (17,
> 20), and this the law has no power to control. But now (8:1–4) God h
> as done through his Son and Spirit what the law, weakened by our sin
> ful nature, was unable to do. In particular the remedy for indwellin
> g sin is the indwelling Spirit (8:9), who has not been mentioned in
> chapter 7, apart from verse 6. Thus for both justification and sanct
> ification we are 'not under law but under grace'.
> As Romans 7 is full of the law, so Romans 8 is full of the
> Spirit. During the first half of the chapter Paul describes some of
> the very varied ministries of the Holy Spirit—liberating us, indwell
> ing us, giving us life, leading us into self-control, witnessing wit
> h our spirit that we are God's children, and interceding for us. The
> fact that we are God's children reminds Paul that we are therefore
> also his heirs, and that suffering is the only road to glory. He the
> n draws a parallel between the sufferings and glory of God's creatio
> n and the sufferings and glory of God's children. The creation has b
> een subjected to frustration, he writes. But one day it will be libe
> rated from its bondage. Meanwhile the creation is groaning as in the
> pains of childbirth, and we groan with it. We also wait with eager
> yet patient expectation for the final redemption of the universe, in
> cluding our bodies.
> In the last twelve verses of Romans 8 the apostle rises to
> sublime heights of Christian confidence. He expresses five
> convictions about God at work for our good, that is, for our final
> salvation (28). He outlines five stages of God's purpose from a past
> to a future eternity (29–30). And he flings out five defiant questi
> ons to which there is no answer. He thus fortifies us with fifteen a
> ssurances of God's steadfast love, from which nothing can ever separ
> ate us.
>
> [Romans, Page 40]
>
> The plan of God (9–11)
>
> Throughout the first half of his letter Paul has forgotten neither
> the ethnic mix of the Roman church nor the tensions which kept
> surfacing between the Jewish Christian minority and the Gentile
> Christian majority. The time has come for him to address head-on the
> underlying theological problem. How is it that the Jewish people as
> a whole had rejected their Messiah? How could their unbelief be
> reconciled with God's covenant and promises? How also did the inclus
> ion of the Gentiles fit in with God's plan? It is notable that each
> of these three chapters begins with a personal and emotional stateme
> nt of Paul's love for Israel—his anguish over their alienation
> (9:1f..), his longing for their salvation (10:1) and his own continu
> ing Jewishness (11:1).
> In chapter 9 Paul defends God's covenant loyalty on the ground t
> hat his promises were not addressed to all Jacob's descendants, but
> to Israel within Israel, a remnant, since he has always worked accor
> ding to his 'purpose of election' (11). This can be seen not only
> in his choosing Isaac rather than Ishmael, and Jacob rather than Esa
> u, but also in his having mercy on Moses, while hardening Pharaoh (1
> 4–18), even though this was a judicial surrender of Pharaoh to the w
> ilful hardening of his own heart. If we still have problems over ele
> ction, we must remember that it is always inappropriate for human be
> ings to talk back to God (19–21), that we must let God be God in his
> resolve to make known his power and mercy (22–23), and that Scriptu
> re itself foretold the calling of Gentiles as well as Jews to be his
> people (24–29).
> It is plain from the end of chapter 9 and from chapter 10,
> however, that Israel's unbelief cannot be explained tout simple by G
> od's purpose of election. For Paul goes on to affirm that Israel
> 'stumbled over the stumbling-stone', namely Christ and his cross.
> This is to accuse Israel of a proud unwillingness to submit to God's
> way of salvation, and of a religious zeal which was not based on kn
> owledge (9:30–10:4). Paul goes on to contrast 'the righteousness
> that is by the law' with 'the righteousness that is by faith',
> and to emphasize from a skilful use of Deuteronomy 30 the ready acce
> ssibility of Christ to faith. There is no need for anybody to go in
> search of Christ, since he has come and died and risen, and is close
> to any who will call on him (5–11). Moreover, there is no differenc
> e in this between Jew and Gentile, since the same Lord is Lord of al
> l and richly blesses all who call on him (12–13). But, for this, eva
> ngelism is necessary (14–15). Why then did Israel not accept the goo
> d news? It is not that they had not heard it or understood it. Why t
> hen? It is that all day long God had stretched out his hands to welc
> ome them, but they were 'disobedient and obstinate' (16–21).
> [Romans, Page 41] So then, the unbelief of Israel, which in Romans 9
> is attributed to God's purpose of election, in Romans 10 is attribu
> ted to her pride, ignorance and stubbornness. The tension between di
> vine sovereignty and human responsibility constitutes an antinomy wh
> ich the finite mind cannot fathom.
> With chapter 11 Paul looks into the future. He declares that
> Israel's fall is neither total, since there is a believing remnant (
> 1–10), nor final, since God has not rejected his people and they wil
> l recover (11). If through Israel's fall salvation has come to the G
> entiles, now through the Gentiles' salvation Israel will be made env
> ious (12). Indeed, Paul sees his evangelistic ministry in terms of a
> rousing his own people to envy, in order to save some of them (13–14
> ). And then Israel's 'fulness' will bring 'much greater
> riches' to the world. Paul goes on to develop his allegory of the ol
> ive tree, and teaches two lessons from it. The first is a warning to
> the Gentiles (the wild olive shoot which has been grafted in) not t
> o presume or boast (17–22). And the second is a promise to Israel (t
> he natural branches) that if they do not persist in unbelief, they w
> ill be grafted back in again (23–24). Paul's vision for the
> future, which he calls a 'mystery' or revelation, is that when
> the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, 'all Israel will be
> saved' as well (25–27). And the ground of his assurance is that
> 'God's gifts and call are irrevocable' (29). So we may
> confidently expect the 'fulness' of both Jews and Gentiles to be
> gathered in (12, 25). Indeed, God will 'have mercy on them
> all' (32), meaning not everybody without exception but rather both J
> ews and Gentiles without distinction. It is not surprising that this
> prospect leads Paul to break out into a doxology, in which he prais
> es God for the depth of both his riches and his wisdom (33–36).
>
> The will of God (12:1–15:13)
>
> Calling the Roman Christians his 'brothers' (the old ethnic
> distinctions having been abolished), Paul now addresses to them an e
> loquent appeal. He bases it on 'the mercies of God' which he has
> been expounding, and he calls for both the consecration of their bod
> ies and the renewal of their minds. He sets before them the stark al
> ternative which has always and everywhere confronted the people of G
> od, either to conform to the pattern of this world or to be transfor
> med by renewed minds which discern God's 'good, pleasing and
> perfect will'. The choice is between the world's fashion and the
> Lord's will.
> In the chapters which follow it becomes clear that God's good wi
> ll is concerned with all our relationships, which are radically chan
> ged by the gospel. Paul treats eight of them, namely, our [Romans, P
> age 42] relationship to God, ourselves, each other, our enemies, the
> state, the law, the last day and the 'weak'. Our renewed minds,
> which begin by seeking God's will (1–2), are also to evaluate
> ourselves and our gifts soberly, and not to have either too high or
> too low an opinion of ourselves (3–8). Our relationship to one anoth
> er follows naturally from the mutual ministries which our gifts make
> possible. The love which binds members of the Christian family toge
> ther will include sincerity, affection, honour, patience, hospitalit
> y, sympathy, harmony and humility (9–16).
> Our relationship to our enemies or to evildoers comes next (17–2
> 1). Echoing the teaching of Jesus, Paul writes that we are not to re
> taliate or take revenge, but rather to leave the punishment of evil
> to God, since it is his prerogative, and meanwhile to seek peace, se
> rve our enemies and overcome evil with good. Our relationship with t
> he governing authorities (13:1–7) may well have been suggested to Pa
> ul's mind by his reference to God's wrath (12:19). If the
> punishment of evil is God's prerogative, one of the ways in which he
> does it is through the state's administration of justice, since the
> magistrate is God's 'minister' to punish the wrongdoer. The
> state also has a positive role to promote and reward good in the com
> munity. Our submission to the authorities is certainly not unconditi
> onal, however. If the state misuses its God-given authority, to comm
> and what God forbids or forbid what God commands, our clear Christia
> n duty is to disobey the state in order to obey God.
> Verses 8–10 revert to love, and teach that loving our neighbour
> is both an unpaid debt and the fulfilment of the law. For though we
> are 'not under law', in the sense that we look to Christ for
> justification and to the Holy Spirit for sanctification, we arc stil
> l called to 'fulfil the law' in daily obedience to God's
> commandments. In this sense we must not set the Spirit and the law o
> ver against each other, since the Holy Spirit writes the law in our
> hearts. And this primacy of love is the more urgent as the day of Ch
> rist's return approaches. We are to wake up, to get up, to dress, an
> d to live as those who belong to the day (verses 11–14).
> Our relationship with the 'weak' is the one Paul treats at
> greatest length (14:1–15:13). They are evidently weak in faith or co
> nviction, rather than in will or character. They must have been main
> ly Jewish Christians, who believed they should still observe both th
> e food laws and the feasts and fasts of the Jewish calendar. Paul hi
> mself is one of the 'strong' and identifies with their position.
> His educated conscience tells him that foods and days are matters of
> secondary importance. But he refuses to ride roughshod over the sen
> sitive consciences of the weak. His overall exhortation to the churc
> h is to 'accept' the weak as God has done (14:1, 3) and to
> 'accept' one another as Christ has done (15:7). If they welcome
> the [Romans, Page 43] weak into their hearts and their fellowship, t
> hey will not despise them, or condemn them, or damage them by persua
> ding them to go against their consciences.
> The most notable feature of these practical instructions is that
> Paul grounds them on his Christology, and in particular on the
> death, resurrection and parousia of Jesus. The weak are brothers and
> sisters for whom Christ died. Christ rose to be their Lord, and we
> have no right to interfere with his servants. He is also coming to
> be our judge; so we should not play the role of judge ourselves. We
> should also follow the example of Christ who did not please himself
> but became a servant—indeed a servant of both Jews and Gentiles. So
> Paul leaves his readers with a beautiful vision of the weak and the
> strong, Jewish believers and Gentile believers, who are bound togeth
> er by such a 'spirit of unity' that 'with one heart and
> mouth' they glorify God together (15:5–6).
> In his conclusion Paul describes his ministry as apostle to the
> Gentiles, together with his policy to preach the gospel only where
> Christ is not known (15:14–22); he shares with them his travel plans
> to visit them on his way to Spain, but first to take the offering t
> o Jerusalem as a symbol of Jewish—Gentile solidarity (15:23–29);
> and he asks for their prayers (15:30–33). He then commends Phoebe to
> them, who is assumed to be the bearer of the letter to Rome (16:1–2
> ); he sends greetings to twenty-six named individuals (16:3–16), men
> and women, slaves and free, Jews and Gentiles, who help us to grasp
> the extraordinary unity-in-diversity enjoyed by the church in Rome;
> he warns them against false teachers (16:17–20); he sends messages
> from eight individuals who are with him in Corinth (16:21–24); and h
> e expresses a final doxology. Although the doxology's syntax is a li
> ttle complex, its content is marvellous. It enables the apostle to e
> nd where he began (1:1–5), since the letter's introduction and
> conclusion both refer to the gospel of Christ, the commission of God
> , the outreach to the nations and the summons to the obedience of fa
> ith.
>