Reading Romans Missiologically, William B. Barclay, 1999 3
On the
other hand, there are, it seems to me, insurmountable problems with this view:
a.
Paul never explicitly addresses a problem of
division. When reading Romans in light of 1 Corinthians or Galatians, this omission seems
glaring. In addition, Paul only comes to his exhortation to welcome one another
at
the end of the letter. If this were the central
concern, why does he wait so long to address it? 13
b.
The ethnic tensions view causes interpreters
either to overplay the problem of divisions in the Roman churches and to give the problem an undue emphasis
that seems out of line with the weight that Paul affords to it. Or, it causes
interpreters to waffle on precisely how serious the divisions were in Rome.
Thomas Schreiner, for instance, in his otherwise outstanding commentary,
seemingly contradicts himself on this issue within the space of only two pages. On the one
hand, on p. 20, he states judiciously that “the tensions in Rome should not be exaggerated.” But then on p.
22, when describing that Paul wanted a unified church in Rome so that they
could be a base for his mission to
Spain, Schreiner writes, “Rome could scarcely be a sending base if the churches
were torn apart by
strife.” It seems to me that one is forced to engage in this kind of back and
forth maneuver if one places an undue emphasis on division. I agree with Moo’s
judgment that ethnic problems within the Roman churches should not be exaggerated but rather
(if they existed) reflected some of the normal tensions of churches in the
first
century.14 But these tensions can not be
seen as a central concern of the letter.
c.
Positing the lapse of Claudius’ edict and the
return of Jewish Christians to Rome is itself beset with innumerable historical
difficulties. A typical reading of the historical situation goes as follows: We
know historically,
both from Acts (18:2) but also from Suetonius (Life of Claudius 25.2), that the emperor Claudius issued an edict that expelled Jews
from Rome. According to Suetonius, this edict was the result of “the constant
rioting of Jews because of the instigation of Chrestos,” whom many historians agree
to be Christ. Jewish Christians, therefore, would have been forced to
leave Rome, evidenced by the presence of Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth,
leaving Gentiles in
charge of the Roman churches. When Jews returned approximately five years
later, the situation would have been much different. After a period of Gentile
dominance, the Jewish distinctives had been diminished and the Gentiles turned proud in their
attitudes toward their Jewish brothers and sisters. Thus, Paul exhorts the
Gentiles not to be arrogant and not to boast over the Jewish branches (11:18).
There are many problems, however, with this historical
reconstruction. Many historians doubt that all, or even a majority, of Jews were
expelled from Rome. Indeed, a number of facts seem to preclude this. According
to
Mary Smallwood15 and more recently Mark Nanos,16
the omission of this incident by Tacitus indicates that
Reading Romans Missiologically,
William B. Barclay, 1999 4
Claudius’ action was relatively small
scale. 17 This incident is also not recorded in Josephus, although
Orosius asserts that
Josephus does mention it. Josephus could have referred to it in a non-extant
writing, but it is equally
possible that Orosius is in error. 18 Is
it possible that Tacitus and probably also Josephus failed to make mention of such a monumental incident as
one in which all the Jews were expelled from Rome? Furthermore, as Robert Hoerber and Smallwood both
point out, it is much more in line with Roman policy of the day toward the Jews
to
punish the perpetrators, not expel entire
communities. 19 We should probably, therefore, read the panta
in Acts 18:2, which says that Claudius ordered all Jews to leave Rome, as we do in
many other contexts in Acts, as “many” or
perhaps even “some.”20 It is difficult
to imagine, for instance, all the four-footed animals of the earth being on Peter’s sheet in Acts 10:12.
(See the convincing discussion of Hoerber on Luke’s use of “all” in Acts;
692-694.) We can seriously
doubt, therefore, whether the ethnic make-up of the Roman churches would have
changed all that much, at least to the point that it would have
caused significant upheaval when Jews like Aquila and Priscilla returned after Claudius died.
To read Romans, then,
as a response to Jew/Gentile tensions which arose due to Claudius’ edict does
not do justice either to
the text of Romans or the historical situation.
The Missiological
Message of Romans
In his book Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul, O’Brien
points out that there has been a paradigm
shift among
biblical scholars toward understanding Paul as both a missionary and a
theologian.21 This shift has
affected interpretations of Romans, as
its missiological thrust has increasingly been recognized. In an influential
article, Nils Dahl argued that we need to
understand Paul’s theology in Romans as being a “missionary theology.”22 Robert Jewett, likewise,
through a series of articles has brought attention to Paul’s “missionary
strategy” in
Romans.23
In his article, “Paul, Phoebe and the Spanish Mission,” he states, “the
awareness is dawning in current scholarship that Paul should be understood not simply as a theologian
and writer of letters but as a self-supporting missionary actively engaged in cooperative
projects with a number of groups and individuals” (142). The recent commentaries of Gruenler, Dunn and Moo
also highlight this missions emphasis. Gruenler asserts that Romans is “a
quintessential missionary document.”24
Dunn argues that, in addition to apologetic and pastoral purposes, a
Reading Romans Missiologically, William B. Barclay, 1999 5
missiological purpose is central to
understand Paul’s reason for writing Romans. 25 And Moo writes that
the various
purposes of Paul for writing Romans share a common
denominator, namely, Paul’s missionary situation.26
There is little debate, in fact, that Romans reflects Paul’s own
missionary situation and is written in part to achieve his missiological goals. He clearly wants to use Rome as a base
of missions operation to Spain (15:24). He looks forward to his trip to Jerusalem
where much of his missionary activity will come to a head, and wants at the very least the prayer support of the
Romans for that endeavor (15:25-32). It is also possible that Paul looks
forward to coming to Rome
in part to win converts there who can be added to the church in Rome (as some
understand
Paul’s desire to have “fruit” among them in 1:1327).
There are numerous other clues in the
letter that indicate that Paul’s purpose in Romans is primarily missiological. I will briefly mention several.
a.
First, the expression “to bring about the obedience
of faith among the Gentiles” is repeated almost word for word in the salutation at the
beginning of the letter (1:5) and in the doxology at the end (16:26), forming
an inclusio. A similar phrase, “to bring about the obedience of the Gentiles” is also
found in 15:18 in the midst of Paul’s discussion of his own ministry. Thus,
Paul’s goal of taking the gospel to the Gentiles frames the discussion of the
entire letter.
b. Second, the two times where Paul comes closest to giving us a clue as to
his purposes--1:14-15 and 15:15 (where he says that he has written boldly as a
reminder)--also come in contexts dealing with Paul’s preaching of the gospel and his ministry to the Gentiles.
c.
Third, Paul’s use of the Old Testament indicates that
he continually gravitates to those passages that highlight the gospel going to the Gentiles
or that reflect Paul’s understanding of his own mission in light of salvation
history. Richard Hays
states, “Isaiah offers the clearest expression in the Old Testament of a
universalistic, eschatological vision
in which the restoration of Israel in Zion is accompanied by an ingathering of
Gentiles to worship the Lord;
that is why the book is both statistically and
substantively the most important scriptural source for Paul.”28 Many of those references are in
Romans. I would argue, along with James Scott and others, that Paul’s use of
Deuteronomy in Romans reflects a similar
eschatological understanding of his ministry. 29
d.
Fourth, Roger Aus in an article twenty years ago
argued persuasively that Spain in Paul’s day is the equivalent of Tarshish in the Old Testament.
Thus, Paul’s desire to take the gospel to Spain would fulfill the vision of
Isaiah 66
of
the gospel going to Tarshish, which was symbolically “the ends of the earth.”30
I would disagree with Aus that
Reading Romans Missiologically,
William B. Barclay, 1999 6
Paul expected the Parousia immediately after taking
the gospel to Spain. Nonetheless, Aus’s study highlights for us the importance of Rome in
Paul’s missiological and eschatological understanding.
The missiological thrust of Romans, then, seems
clear. Yet, there are still lingering questions: 1) Did Paul write Romans only with a view
to his own missiological purposes, or were there also circumstances in Rome
that Paul was
addressing? 2) Is a missiological purpose sufficient to account for the
totality of the argument in Romans? 3) Is the missiological thrust of Romans related
simply to Paul’s own ministry and his desire for their support, or is Paul also
attempting to spur the Roman believers on to actively engage in their own
evangelistic work?
Another Look at the Historical Setting
I propose that we return to the edict of Claudius
and look afresh at this event as a possible backdrop for Romans. I have already argued
that there are major problems with seeing the edict as the cause of tensions in
the Roman churches.
A more plausible route of inquiry, it seems to me, is to ask the question, What
effect did the edict have on the Roman Christians’ vision and zeal for
evangelistic activity? This is an important question for a number of reasons: First, it seems
clear that the edict was a response to zealous Christian evangelism and the
disturbance it caused among a certain Jewish sector or sectors in Rome. The language of
Suetonius is strong: The rioting among Jews was the result of “the instigation
of Chrestus” (impulsore Chresto). Suetonius’ understanding seems to have
been that Christ himself was the instigator,31
which is clearly wrong (and also right, I suppose). But his description does point to the fact that
someone is doing the instigating. Mary Smallwood (211) suggests that the
“instigators” were Jewish Christian missionaries from outside Rome, which is possible,
but given the fact that Aquila and Priscilla were among those expelled, it seems
likely that many from within Rome were involved in proclaiming Christ. Second, Robert
Hoerber, drawing on texts from Josephus, Philo, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, and
others, makes the point that Roman policy at this time was benevolent
toward Judaism, yet drew the line when it came to zealous proselytism (694).
In light of the Jewish rioting and the expulsion of some Jews that was
the result of Christian evangelism, the Christians in Rome would have faced some daunting questions: Should
we continue to evangelize? What should be our attitude and response toward unbelieving Jews, given our
past experience with them? These are the precise questions that Paul addresses in
Romans, giving them a somewhat unique response (though with plenty of Old Testament support and precedent):
While the Jews have place of primacy in terms of God’s original call and
Reading Romans Missiologically,
William B. Barclay, 1999 7
purposes, and so are not to be despised, God’s
purposes for the Jews can now best be accomplished by the gospel going to the
Gentiles. The salvation of the Gentiles will lead to the salvation of Jews, as
the Jews are made jealous and so come to faith in Christ. So Paul in Romans
lays out not only for Gentiles, but especially for Jews who may have been hesitant to embrace
it, a justification for Gentile missionary activity. Furthermore, by preaching
the gospel to them
he attempts to instill in them a missions vision.
In many ways,
Paul’s mission strategy in Romans reflects his own experience of taking the
gospel first to Jews, being largely rejected by them, and then turning to the Gentiles.
The mission to the Gentiles does not preclude all evangelistic activity among Jews. In
Acts, Paul continued to go to synagogues even after declaring his intent to turn to the Gentiles. In the same way, Romans leaves open the door for
evangelism among the Jews. But the primary vision that Paul gives to the Romans is one of world missions,
taking the gospel to the ends of the inhabited earth.
This reading
brings into focus what many have seen in Romans who have referred to it in one
way or another as “Paul’s dialogue with
Judaism.”32 Contrary to many who understand Paul to be battling or
warding off Judaizing tendencies in Rome,33 there is little evidence of
this type of problem. Indeed, Paul’s rhetoric in Romans is much more positive with regard to the
law and circumcision than it is in Galatians.34 On the other hand,
Paul
may indeed be battling a certain sense of Jewish
superiority. But it is instructive to see how Paul addresses this. Paul’s frames his discussion
with a Jew in Romans 2 with decided missiological overtones:
If you call yourself a Jew...if you
know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the
law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those
who are in the dark, an instructor
of the foolish... (2:18-20).
One can not help but hear in this passage echoes of
Paul’s own words that he has been appointed to be a light to the Gentiles.
In a soon-to-be-released book, Walt Kaiser argues that God’s call to
Israel includes a call to active evangelism among the Gentiles, that their mission was not to be
centripetal--inward-moving and therefore passive in their role of spreading the Good News,
but rather centrifugal--outward-moving and active in sharing their faith.35
If he is correct,
then Paul in Romans very well could be calling Jewish Christians back to the
mission that many Jews had neglected, namely, that of actively taking the gospel to the
Gentiles. In fact, Paul’s interesting quotation of Isaiah 59:20 in Romans 11:26--“The
deliverer will come FROM Zion,” not TO Zion--may reflect this idea. The purpose of the Redeemer’s coming is not
for Zion alone, but also that the good news may radiate from Zion.
Reading Romans Missiologically,
William B. Barclay, 1999 8
But Paul’s exhortation goes both ways. Just as the
Jewish believers may be loathe to embrace a mission to Gentiles, so Gentile
believers, especially in light of recent history in Rome, may despise the
thought of Jewish converts. So Paul exhorts the Gentile ingrafted
branches not to boast over the broken-off Jewish branches (11:18). This passage is often
interpreted today as an indication of ethnic tension in Rome--upity Gentiles
boasting over their
Jewish Christian brothers and sisters.36
But this reading rips Paul’s statement out of its context. Paul in chapters 9-
1 1 is dealing with the status of UNbelieving Jews, not Jewish believers. It
makes more sense then to interpret the root and branch section in light of Paul’s missiology, rather than to
read in disputes among believers.
Summary
Let me sum up at this point by saying that the
missiological thrust of Romans makes sense not only in light of Paul’s own missionary
activities and goals, but also in light of the situation in Rome itself.
Indeed, the missiological purpose of Romans gives coherence to the entire letter. It
puts into proper perspective Paul’s references
to Jews and Gentiles, and especially his wrestling with the status of Israel in
chapters 9-11. In addition, Romans
serves as a written substitute for what Paul desired to do in person--preach
the gospel to the Roman believers. Why do believers need to hear the
gospel? The lofty language of Romans suggests that Paul is seeking to instill in his addressees a
vision for the gospel and its effects. His explication of the gospel begins
with a focus on God’s wrath in 1:18-3:20. The fac t that Paul
highlights the wrath of God, and not simply the universality of sin, draws the reader’s attention not to the idea of
unity, but rather to the need for provision for deliverance from God’s wrath. Paul’s own example as
one who wishes that he himself could be accursed for the sake of his people
displays his missionary
passion. It is this passion for his people and the knowledge of their lost
state that leads him to missionary zeal in preaching the gospel among the
Gentiles so that Jews may be made jealous and come to
salvation.
In chapters 5-8 Paul expounds the gospel further in terms of its effects
in the lives of believers. Paul’s clear intent here is to build confidence in
the gospel. The gospel brings release from slavery to sin, confidence of pardon
from God’s condemnation, and hope of
future glory. Chapters 9-11, in the midst of wrestling with the status of unbelieving Israel, continues to instill
confidence in the gospel. Paul asks the question, Why have more Jews not believed the messa ge? The answer: It is
not because God’s Word has failed, but rather is due to the fact that God is his sovereignty has mercy on whom he
wants to have mercy and hardens whom he wants to harden. These chapters
Reading Romans Missiologically,
William B. Barclay, 1999 9
also contain one of the most decidedly
missiological passages in all of Scripture (10:14-21). The paraenetic section in 12:1-15:13, furthermore,
continually points outward, never losing its missiological focus even while
discussing internal relationships. I would direct you, for example, to Philip
Towner’s recent article in the Fee Festschrift on the
missiological perspective of Romans 13:1-7.37
The entire parenetic section, in fact, concludes in 15:7-13 with OT quotations depicting the
salvation of the Gentiles.
Conclusion
This leads to a final and more difficult question, which I only have time
to touch on briefly. The question is, Does Paul in his letter call the Romans to active engagement in the
evangelistic task? Explicitly, no; implicitly, yes. The gospel message compels its
proclamation. For those who have been gripped by the gospel of grace, they are
endebted, as Paul is (1:14), to making it known to others. As O’Brien states,
the gospel “serves as the bridge
between Paul’s own missionary activity and that of
others.”38 He continues, ÒThe dynamic of the gospel’s logic meant for those believers in
Rome and for other Christians...a deeper commitment to its ongoing, powerful
advance....” 39 I would
suggest a number of avenues for study that point to Paul implicitly encouraging
the Romans
to evangelistic engagement: His use of autobiography
in detailing his own missionary goals;40 his use of the negative to begin his thesis
statement, ÒI am not ashamed of the gospel”; his call to the Roman believers to
present their bodies
as living sacrifices, especially in light of Paul’s own use of cultic
terminology in chapters 1 and 15 when discussing his own missions endeavors. Even the
historical situation leads us to conclude that Paul is attempting to spur the
Roman Christians to missions work. This historical situation includes not just
the situation in Rome post Claudius, but also Paul’s uncertainty about
whether he will be delivered from the unbelievers in Jerusalem. The Roman Christians, who
occupied such a strategic place in terms of geography and prominence, must have
an
evangelistic zeal
to take the gospel to the ends of the earth if Paul is unable to complete his
journey. 41 Ultimately, I agree with Thomas SchreinerÕs assessment that what is
ultimate in Romans is the glory of
God.42 As John Pipe r points
out, missions is not the primary task of the church, be it the first or the
twentieth
century. Rather,
worship is primary. Missions exists because worship does not.43
Those who are passionate for God’s glory will also be passionate for the task of making known the good
news of Jesus Christ, and of taking his gospel to the ends of the earth.
Reading Romans Missiologically,
William B. Barclay, 1999 10
Notes
1Donfried states, “Up to the time of F. C. Baur,
virtually all scholars would have agreed with Melanchthon’s evaluation of Romans as a christianae religionis compendium.”
Donfried, ed., The Romans Debate (revised and expanded edition; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), xli. Of the 20th century
writers who espouse this position, see especially the works of T. W. Manson, “St.
Paul’s Letter to the Romans--and Others,” in The Romans Debate, 3-15,
and G. Bornkamm, “The Letter to the Romans as Paul’s
Last Will and Testament,” The Romans Debate, 16-28. For a survey of
Romans as an exposition and summary of Paul’s theology, see L. Ann Jervis, The Purpose of
Romans: A Comparative Letter Structure Investigation (JSNTSS 55; Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1991), 15-17.
2For this interpretation of Romans, see W. S.
Campbell, Paul’s Gospel in an Intercultural Context: Jew and Gentile in the
Letter to the
Romans (Frankfurt: Peter Lang,
1991); N. T. Wright The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in
Pauline Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1992), 193-257; J. C. Walters, Ethnic Issues in Paul’s Letter to the
Romans: Changing Self-Definitions in
Earliest Roman Christianity
(Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press, 1993); and A. T. Lincoln, “From Wrath to
Justification: Tradition, Gospel and Audience in the Theology of Romans
1:18-4:25” in Society of Biblical Literature 1993 Seminar
Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 225. See also the article by J. P.
Sampley, “The Weak and the Strong: Paul’s Careful and
Crafty Rhetorical Strategy in Romans 14:1-15:13,” in L. M. White and O. L.
Yarbrough, eds., The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A.
Meeks (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1995), 40-52. Sampley states, “All of Romans, from beginning to end, is an apostolic
intervention, pastoral in style, in an intramural, ethnically-grounded struggle
over leadership and position in the
Roman house churches. The entire letter is directed towards helping all of
Paul’s readers and hearers to recognize and affirm their unity in the powerful gospel of
God” (49-50). See also the recent commentary by T. Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1998). Schreiner refers to this view as the current “majority position” (19 n.
42).
3D. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 14. R. N. Longenecker, “On the Form, Function, and Authority of the New Testament Letters,” in
Scripture and Truth (ed. D. A. Carson and J. Woodbridge; Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1983), 104.
4Moo, 20.
5See Moo, 14; Schreiner,
15-16.
6See the questions
Donfried poses of the essays by Manson and Bornkamm; Romans Debate,
xliii-xliv. Cf. Schreiner, 17.
7Donfried, “False Presuppositions in the Study of
Romans,” Romans Debate, 103-4. Schreiner basically endorses Donfried’s “methodological
principle,”but points to Ephesians as a possible exception (Romans, 20).
8In what follows, I have adapted the scheme set
forth by J. P. Sampley, “Romans in a Different Light: A Response to Robert Jewett,” in D. Hay and E. Johnson, eds., Pauline
Theology, Volume III: Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995),121-125; see also Sampley, “Weak and Strong,” 49-52. I set
forth a slightly more expanded discussion of what follows in my work, ‘Christ in You’: A Study in Paul’s Theology and
Ethics (Lanham, MD: University
Press of America, 1999), 33, though my position on Paul’s purpose in
Romans has changed since that work was originally written.
9On this passage, see the work of J.
Bassler who argues that the theme of God’s impartiality dominates Paul’s
thought in Romans
1-4; Divine Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom (SBL
Dissertation Series 59; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982). In particular, Bassler argues
that God’s impartiality shows itself in its disregard for the distinctions
between Jews and Gentiles (135- 1 37 , 139-160). With regard to 2:1-16, Bassler
argues that Paul’s words in 2:1, w\ a[nqrwpe pa§§ of krivnwn, are an expression
of “the broadest generic terms possible,”
indicating that both Jews and Gentiles are included in the indictment (136).
Therefore, 2:1-16 deal with the moralist in general, not the Jew in
particular. Moo, on the other hand, argues that all of 2:1-3:8 is Paul’s indictment of Jews (Romans,
125-127).
10On Romans 12-15 and arguments for healing
divisions between Jewish and gentile believers in Rome, cf. W. S. Campbell, “The Rule of Faith in Romans 12:1-15:13: The
Obligation of Humble Obedience to Christ as the Only Adequate Response to the Mercies of God” in D. Hay and E. Johnson, ed., Pauline
Theology, Volume III: Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 259-286.
11See Moo, 826-833.
12In support of this position, see the works of
Walters, Campbell, and Schreiner, 12-14. See also W. Marxsen, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. G. Buswell;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 100; and F. F. Bruce, “The Romans
Debate--Continued,” in Donfried, The Romans Debate, 175-194.
13See the discussion of
Moo, 14, 18-22.
14Moo, 20.
15E. Mary
Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1976), 212. 16Mark Nanos, The
Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1996), 380. 17See also Robert
O. Hoerber, “The Decree of Claudius in Acts 18:2,” Concordia Theological
Monthly 31 (1960), 692.
Reading Romans Missiologically,
William B. Barclay, 1999 11
18Smallwood, 210-11.
19Hoerber, 694; Smallwood, 215-16.
20Nanos, 376.
21P. T. O’Brien, Gospel and Mission in the
Writings of Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), xi.
22N. A. Dahl, “The Missionary Theology in the
Epistle to the Romans,” in Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977),70-94.
23See especially “Ecumenical Theology for
the Sake of Mission: Romans 1:1-17 + 15:14-16:24” in Pauline Theology,
Volume III: Romans (ed. D. M. Hay and E. E. Johnson; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1995), 89-108, and “Paul, Phoebe, and the Spanish Mission,” in The Social World of Formative
Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee (ed. P.
Borgen et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 144-64.
24R. Gruenler, “Romans,” in Evangelical
Commentary on the Bible (ed. W. A. Elwell; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 926,
954. 25J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC; Waco, TX:
Word, 1988), lv.
26Moo, 20.
27See Moo, 61; Schreiner,
54.
28R. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven:
Yale, 1989), 162.
29James M. Scott, “Paul’s Use of the Deuteronomic
Tradition” in Journal of Biblical Literature 112 (1993), 645-665.
30Roger D. Aus, “Paul’s Travel Plans to Spain and
the ‘Full Number of the Gentiles’ of Rom. XI.25” in Novum Testamentum 21 (1979),
232-62.
31F. F. Bruce,
“Christianity Under Claudius,” BJRL 44 (1962), 316.
32E.g., J. Jeremias, “Zur Gedankenführung in den
paulinischen Briefen,” in Abba: Studien zur Neutestamentlichen Theologie und Zeitgeschichte
(Gšttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1966), 269-71.
33See,
e.g., A. J. M. Wedderburn, The Reasons for Romans (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1991), esp. 50-54. Wedderburn lists Judaizing tendencies as one
of several problems Paul battles against in Romans.
34See J.
P. Sampley, “Romans and Galatians: Comparison and Contrast” in Understanding
the Word: Essays in Honor of Bernhard W. Anderson (ed. J. T. Butler, E. W.
Conrad and B. C. Ollenburger; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985),315-339.
35Walter C. Kaiser, Mission in the Old
Testament: Israel as a Light to the Nations (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000). I
am endebted to Dr. Kaiser for making a copy of his manuscript available to me.
36See, e.g., F. F. Bruce, “The Romans
Debate--Continued,” in The Romans Debate, 180; Dunn, Romans 1-8,
liii; etc. This seems
to be the dominant reading of this passage in current biblical
scholarship.
37P. H. Towner, “Romans 13:1-7 and Paul’s
Missiological Perspective: A Call to Political Quietism or Transformation?” in Romans and the People of God: Essays in Honor of Gordon D. Fee on the
Occasion of His 65th Birthday
(ed. S. K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999),149-169.
38Gospel and Mission, 55.
39Ibid., 76. For an opposing view, see the works of
P. Bowers: “Fulfilling the Gospel: The Scope of the Pauline Mission,” JETS 30/2 (1987), 185-198; and “Church and Mission in
Paul,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 44 (1991), 89-111.
40Numerous recent works attempt to show
that the use of autobiography in the ancient world, and in Paul’s letters,
serve the rhetorical function of exemplification. See,
e.g., G. Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding (SBLDS 73; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985); B. R. Gaventa,
“Galatians 1 and 2: Autobiography as Paradigm,” Novum Testamentum 28 (1986), 309-26; more recently, see the work of
Brian Dodd, Paul's Paradi gmatic "I": Personal Example as Literary
Strategy (JSNTSS 177; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).
41See R. Mounce, Romans
(NAC; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1995), 27.
42Romans,
23.
43J. Piper, Let
the Nations Be Glad! The Supremacy of God in Missions (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1993), 11