Looking Westward:
St. Paul to the Romans

Background: Paul in Corinth

Textual Problems Of Romans

Planning For The Future

A Mission to Spain

A Winter in Greece

The Writing Of Romans

Jews and Gentiles in Rome

Sin, Law, and Death

The Salvation of the Jews

Background: Paul in Corinth

The messengers who had brought the bad news from Corinth returned there with 2 Corinthians 10-13. In it Paul promised a visit in the near future (2 Cor. 12:14; 13:1-2). Anxiety for the Corinthians raged in his heart, but he was not free to leave Illyricum immediately. His experience had taught him that he could not simply abandon new converts to the care of the Holy Spirit. God acted through human agents (1 Cor. 3:5-9), and it was Paul's responsibility to set the infant community on a secure foundation. It is easy to imagine the redoubled fervour with which he worked, attempting to pack in as much as possible before the onset of winter obliged him to start the long journey to the south. His need to capitalize on the shock effect of 2 Corinthians 10-13 makes it unthinkable that he should have postponed his visit to Corinth until the following spring. It would have been out of character for him to leave one of his co-workers to direct the nascent church. Certainly Timothy travelled with him to Corinth (Rom. 16:21).

Of Paul's reception at Corinth we know nothing, but it would seem that 2 Corinthians 10-13 had a salutary effect. If the Corinthians in fact contributed to the collection for the poor of Jerusalem (Rom. 15:26), it is unlikely that the community as a whole, or even a majority, was alienated from Paul. Moreover, during the winter of ad 55-56, he had the leisure to compose his most developed theological argument, which was part of his preparations for the future. After accompanying the collection to Jerusalem, he planned to go to Rome, first, and then to Spain (Rom. 15:24,28). One has the impression that he had no intention of returning to Corinth. He had given what he could, and the future of the believers there was in their hands and God's. Since Paul never took a boat going west, his natural route from Palestine to the capital of the Empire ran through Asia Minor to Troas, and then along the Via Egnatia. Before he left the north he may even have promised the Illyrians that he would return as soon as possible.

Textual Problems Of Romans

Our knowledge of the next steps in Paul's career come from the epistle to the Romans but, before it can be used as evidence, note must be taken of a number of textual problems. The manuscript tradition attests eight different forms of Romans. In essence these are created by the presence or absence of chs. 15 and 16, and the positioning of the doxology (Rom. 16:25- 7). In addition, a number of manuscripts lack the italicized words in 1:7, 'To all God's beloved in Rome who are called to be saints', and in 1:15, 'I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.' Without the specific address, and the highly personal list of greetings in ch. 16, the rest of the letter is so generic that it could have been addressed to any and every church.

There is now virtual unanimity among scholars that the letter which Paul wrote contained 1:1 to 16:23. There is some doubt about 16:24, but none about the concluding doxology (16:25-7). Considerations of content, style, and epistolary practice conspire to make it unlikely that Paul was the author. He does not end his letters in this way. The absence of any mention of Christ in 'the revelation of the mystery concealed for long ages, but now made manifest through the prophetic scriptures' (16:25b-26a) betrays its un-Pauline character, even though the language evokes Colossians 1:26-7.

As regards the varying lengths of the letter in different manuscripts, it is most probable that the elements which related the letter to a specific community were deliberately edited out in order to give the letter greater universality. It is known that the particularity of the Pauline letters created certain difficulties in the second century, and the easiest solution to this type of problem is to eliminate the causes. Thus the words 'in Rome' were excised from 1:7 and 15. Were Romans the only case, this hypothesis would lose much of its appeal. But Ephesians is certainly a generic letter, and Dahl has plausibly suggested that the two different positions for the phrase 'which is in Corinth' (1 Cor. 1:2) in the manuscript tradition is due to the phrase having been excised in certain manuscripts to generalize the letter, and then restored but in the wrong place. Similarly certain scribes considered that the personal details about Paul which ch. 15 contained threatened the universality of the letter, whereas others did not. The highly specific greetings of ch. 16 were a much graver cause for concern. And they have remained so for modern critical scholars. {page 325}

Doubts that 16:1-23 belonged to a Pauline letter addressed to Rome arose in the eighteenth century, and eventually evolved into the hypothesis that these verses originally constituted a separate letter destined for Ephesus. Since then the hypothesis has both won influential support and encountered vigourous criticism. The publication in 1937 of P, which is the only manuscript attesting a 15-chapter version of Romans, was greeted with delight by those who had detached ch. 16 from Romans on purely literary grounds. It appeared to provide objective verification of their theory. It was the first manuscript confirmation of a literary analysis. Regretably P does not contain the original text of Romans. In consequence, it is not surprising that its publication failed to put an end to the controversy, which continues unabated.

In my view 16:1-23 cannot be an independent letter, and must be an integral part of Romans. The chapter opens with the words 'now I commend to you'. The particle de indicates that 16:1 is not a beginning but a continuation. Moreover, without ch. 16 Romans would contain only one of the three elements with which Paul regularly concludes his letters, namely, the peace wish (15:33). The greeting, particularly that expressed by the kiss (16:16), and the final blessing (16:20b) would be lacking. If ch. 16 has the characteristic features of a conclusion, it cannot have been an independent letter, and must always have been associated with chs. 1-15, which otherwise would be incomplete. The only possible objections, namely, that Paul arbitrarily departed from his consistent practice, or that ch. 16 was the conclusion to another now lost letter, are unworthy of serious consideration.

Admittedly the recommendation of Phoebe (16:1-2) is an unusual feature in a Pauline conclusion. The only comparable element in the conclusions to Paul's other letters is the praise of Tychicus and Onesimus in Colossians 4:7-9. The formal differences in expression diminish the force of the parallel, but the uniqueness of 16:1-2 should not be exaggerated. Cicero occasionally slipped a note of commendation into the conclusion of his letters, sometimes in reference to the bearer, but not always. In consequence, this element cannot be used to prove that ch. 16 was originally independent.

Two of the groups greeted in Romans 16 were almost certainly domiciled at Rome. 'Those among the [slaves] of Aristobulus' worked for the grandson of {page 326} Herod the Great who died in Rome in the latter part of the 40s ad. By his will they would have been incorporated into another great household while retaining their distinctive name. In the imperial household we know, for example, of Maecenatiani and Germaniciani, who had been the slaves of Gaius Maecenas (d. 8 bc) and Germanicus Julius Caesar (d. ad 19), respectively. In this perspective Paul's formula would translate Aristobuliani. This interpretation is made virtually certain by the name of the next individual singled out. 'Herodion' unambiguously suggests a connection with the family of Herod since freed slaves took the name of their patron.

In the light of the foregoing, 'those among the [slaves] of Narcissus' can be identified plausibly as the slaves of the influential freedman of Claudius, who was killed shortly after his patron died in ad 54. They, together with his vast wealth, passed into the household of Nero as Narcissiani, for which there is inscriptional evidence.

If these identifications are correct-and they are widely accepted-both of these groups can be sought only in Rome. One cannot conceive such 'legacies' being moved en bloc outside the Eternal City, let alone to Ephesus.

Paradoxically the extensive list of persons greeted in 16:1-23 proves that Paul was writing to a community in which he had not lived and worked. It was Paul's normal practice not to name the recipients of greetings, presumably because it would have been invidious to single out individuals in a group all of whose members were known to him. Romans 16, therefore, is a radical departure from Paul's normal practice, and unambiguously indicates that he was writing to a church in which he was not known personally. This conclusion is confirmed by Colossians, in which Paul singles out 'Nympha and the church in her house' (4:15). Paul was not the founder of the churches in the Lycus valley and had never visited them. Individuals are also named in 2 Timothy where Paul salutes 'Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus' (4:19), but this is a letter to a private individual, and the couple were among Paul's oldest friends and closest collaborators. {page 327} The identifying notes attached to some individuals also militate against the Ephesian hypothesis. The description of Epaenetus as 'the first convert to Christ in Asia' makes more sense if he were now outside the province. Surely the fact would be as well known to the church of Ephesus, as Timothy's status as Paul's 'co-worker' (16:21). The need for such clarification implies non-acquaintance.

In the body of the letter, Paul praises the Romans for their obedience 'to the form of teaching to which you were committed' (6:17). In 16:17 he evokes 'the teaching which you learned'. In both cases didache connotes the common body of Christian 'teaching'. The unusual verb form in 6:17 suggests that Paul did not know who had instructed the Romans. The same is true in 16:17. Had Paul taught the recipients, as the Ephesian hypothesis demands, he would have used the first-person singular (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:1; Gal. 1:8).

Finally we return to the manuscript tradition associating ch. 16 with chs. 1-15. This simple fact is a serious objection to the Ephesian hypothesis, but the ingenuity of Manson has been equal to the challenge. After Paul had completed Romans 1-15, he suggests, and was preparing to send the letter to Rome, he realized the contents would also be of interest to the Ephesians. While in residence there, as we know from Galatians, he had begun to deal with the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, and now thought it appropriate that they should have his mature reflections. Thus he had a copy made for Ephesus, and attached to it greetings to friends, and a recommendation for Phoebe, who was presumably the bearer.

Clever as this hypothesis may be, it fails to answer the obvious question: if the 16-chapter version is the Ephesian version, why is that church not mentioned in the address rather than Rome? The only way out of this difficulty is to maintain that the association of ch. 16 and chs. 1-15 is entirely accidental, and came about when the collection of Paul's letters was being assembled at Ephesus. For reasons of piety and local pride, we are told, the Ephesians wanted to include their letter, namely, ch. 16, but it looked so unimpressive beside the other letters that they feared it might get lost or be neglected. To preserve it they decided to tack it on to Romans. This hypothesis is attractive in its naive Romanticism, but it embodies so many highly speculative components that no discussion is possible. It suffices to note that nowhere else in the Pauline corpus are letters to different churches combined. {page 328} Although certitude is not possible, it is far more probable that ch. 16 was the original conclusion to Paul's letter to the Romans.

Planning For The Future

In ch. 16 Paul greets 26 individuals, 24 of whom are named. In addition mention is made of three house-churches (vv. 5, 14, 15), and two groupings of (ex-) slaves (w. 10, 11), which may also have been house-churches. Some of these he certainly knew personally. Prisca and Aquila were with him at Corinth, and later at Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:19). The qualification of Epaenetus, Ampilatus, and Stachys as 'my dear friend' (NJB) cannot be an empty formula. If the mother of Rufus had also 'mothered' Paul, he must have known both her and her son. An element of doubt clouds the case of Andronicus and Junia because 'my fellow prisoners' could mean only that they had suffered imprisonment as Paul had done. In Colossians 4:10 and Philemon 23 the context indicates that Aristarchus and Epaphras were imprisoned with Paul, but such is not the case here. There is nothing in the least surprising that Paul, during his ministry in Greece and Asia Minor should have known a minimum of seven and a maximum of nine Christians who had ended up in Rome.

What is significant is that Paul knew where these individuals were and had learned the names and praiseworthy achievements of many others in the Roman church. The conclusion that he had contacts with Rome prior to writing the letter is inescapable. Were these accidental or intentional? The presence of Prisca and Aquila in Rome argues for careful advance planning. This couple, as we have seen, had provided Paul with a base in Corinth, and had prepared the ground for his ministry in Ephesus. If they now appear in Rome, the obvious inference is that they had been sent by Paul in anticipation of his arrival there.

A Mission to Spain

Rome, however, was not the sort of virgin missionary territory in which an advance guard had proved its value. It had a well-established church, many of whose members had been formed in the cultural ethos of the eastern Mediterranean. For such people, hospitality to travellers was second nature. They did not need to be placated or warned. Paul could rely confidently on their generosity. Why then did he prepare the ground so carefully by sending close collaborators, and assiduously collecting information on members of the Roman church? He must have had in mind something much more important than a friendly visit.

What Paul was thinking of emerges, if close attention is paid to his exact wording, 'I hope to see you as I pass through [Rome] and to be helped on my way there [Spain] by you' (Rom. 15:24), Rome is not his goal; it is merely a staging-point (Rom. 15:28) en route to Spain, which was only four days away by sea. But he wants something from the Roman believers. The way the verb propempai is used in the New Testament makes it 'almost a technical term for the provision made by a church for missionary support'. Commentators generally think exclusively in terms of of a material contribution, and this aspect cannot be excluded, as we shall see. It is unlikely, however, to have been the only consideration. If all Paul needed was financial support, it would have been much more prudent to have collected funds from the communities he had founded in Asia Minor and Greece. These churches would have been on his route west from Jerusalem and they owed him everything. Philippi at least had helped him before. Why should Paul wait until the last stage of his journey, and risk everything on the problematic generosity of a community, which did not know him?

Even though Michael Prior makes it clear that he is thinking in logistical terms, he formulates Paul's desire in a way which permits a broader and more complete interpretation, 'Paul hoped that the Roman community would "own" the mission to Spain, in the way the Antioch community did his earlier ones.' Antioch, however, had commissioned Paul (Acts 13:1- 3), and this was the reason why it supported him. After the incident with Peter (Gal. 2:11-14), Paul felt that he could no longer represent a church which took such an erroneous {page 330} stance with respect to its Gentile members. Ever since, he had been without a legitimizing home base, a point on which his opponents at Corinth and Galatia had capitalized. Paul, they had insisted, was an unrepresentative maverick. His retort was to draw out the implications of his conversion, and to insist that he had been commissioned by God through Christ (Gal. 1: i). While theologically valid, this claim could be verified only indirectly and with hindsight (1 Cor. 9:1-2; 2 Cor. 3:2). He had no credentials to produce. Similar difficulties in the future could be avoided if he were 'sent' to Spain by the church of Rome. Once again he would be integrated into the Christian movement.

Why did Paul choose Spain? While no definite answer can be given, it has been suggested that he was inspired by the eschatological vision of Isaiah, 'I am coming to gather all nations and tongues, and they shall come and see my glory, and I will set a sign among them. From them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Put, and Lud-which draw the bow-to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands far away that have not heard of my fame or seen my glory' (66:18-19). Although no certain location is ever given for Tarshish, the hints of the Old Testament point to the western end of the Mediterranean (Jonah 1:3; 4:2). It would be perfectly in keeping with Paul's Messianic understanding of his vocation to understand this prophecy as outlining his responsibility to extend the kingdom of God to the limits of the known world. In Galatians 1:15 Paul makes it clear that he considered himself to be prefigured in the Servant Song (Isa. 49:1), which contains the words, 'I will make you a light of the nations to bear my salvation to the end of the earth' (Isa. 49:6). For Paul's contemporaries, Cape St Vincent on the west coast of Spain was the end of the world.

Some such powerful theological motive must be postulated, because in practical terms Spain had little to recommend it. In the eastern Mediterranean Paul moved in a world whose language he spoke, and which had a network of Jewish institutions of which he could avail himself. In Spain both these advantages were lacking, and an entirely new missionary strategy would have to be developed. The Jewish Diaspora did not extend westward beyond Italy. Hence, there were no God-fearers whose minds had been prepared for the gospel by the reading of the Scriptures. Nor were there many who spoke Greek. The language survived in the few old Greek colonies along the east coast, but {page 331} the hinterland was dominated by a bewildering number of Iberian dialects. Latin was the language of the Roman administration, but not of any significant portion of the population. To what extent Paul was aware of these difficulties is impossible to say with any precision, but he must have known that the western end of the Mediterranean would be dissimilar to what he had previously experienced. Paul realized that he needed the expertise of those closer to that strange land.

A Winter in Greece

When did Paul determine to go to Spain? It may have been when he anticipated being forced out of Ephesus in the late summer of ad 54. He had prepared a fallback ministry in Troas and might have advised Prisca and Aquila to return to Rome, with a view to linking up with them later. At that particular time, however, his relationship with Corinth was so tense that it is unlikely that he looked very far into the future. One question monopolized his attention: how would the Corinthians respond to the Painful Letter?

The summer of ad 55 is a more realistic candidate for the decision to go to Spain. As far as Paul was concerned, he had made his peace with the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians 1-9, and at last was free to undertake a new mission. When he reached Illyricum, Rome was just over the horizon. The pull of an ambition long frustrated (Rom. 1:13; 15:22) must have been very strong. True he had to go to Corinth to pick up the collection and then to Jerusalem, but that was a formality. Then he could look forward to a voyage to the other end of the Mediterranean. It is in this brief moment of euphoria that the formulation of the plan to send Prisca and Aquila to Rome is most plausible.

Then came the bombshell. Far from improving, the situation at Corinth had deteriorated. Bearers of bad news shattered Paul's Illyrian idyll. In frustration his resolve hardened. He would spend the winter in Corinth as planned, but after that would devote no more time to the childishness (1 Cor. 3:1; 14:20) of what should have been the most brilliant of his churches. It was time to devote his energies to something more profitable. Rome, as a springboard to Spain, was no longer a vague future hope; it became the next item on Paul's agenda. The visit to Rome was firmly fixed for the following summer (ad 56). He would head west as soon as he had deposited the collection in Jerusalem. This made it all the more urgent that Prisca and Aquila should go to Rome immediately. It may have been at this moment that Paul, or one of his entourage, conceived the idea of writing a letter to the Romans.

Obviously Prisca and Aquila could speak of him, and detail his qualities, but would not a personal letter in which he revealed something of himself be so {page 332} much effective as an introduction? Paul, of course, had never written such a letter. All his previous writings had been in response to particular problems in communities whose members he knew. What would he say to members of a strange church in the capital of the empire? Moreover, right now he had much more urgent matters on his mind. Illyricum and Corinth demanded all his attention. There was no time to compose such a letter. Hence, it could not be sent before the following spring. The realization that he had the winter in Corinth to work out what to say may have been a factor in Paul's acceptance of the idea. The breathing space also meant that he had time to acquire some information about the membership of the Roman church. The sensible course was to ask Prisca and Aquila to send him a report as soon as possible, certainly no later than the spring of ad 56, when he had to leave Corinth for Jerusalem with the collection for the poor.

The Writing Of The Letter To The Romans

The assumption that Romans had a single purpose has given rise to a long and inconclusive debate. Recent commentators have drawn the correct inference from the conflicting observations; the letter was written to achieve a number of different goals. Paul's basic problem was to find a topic which would be of interest to the Romans, and at the same time serve as an introduction to his person and his gospel. Thus he had to know something of the composition of the community. The minimum he needed to know in order to write Romans 1-12 was that the members of the community were predominantly God-fearers. This he could have learnt from Prisca and Aquila prior to their departure for the Eternal City. Their recollections of the church they had left some fifteen years earlier may have been brought up to date by travellers passing through Corinth or Ephesus. Paul could also have extrapolated from his own experience of other European churches. The writing of Romans 13-16, however, demanded detailed knowledge of the contemporary Roman ecclesiastical scene. Hence I suspect that Paul worked on the material in Romans 1-12 during the winter of ad 55-56, and added the rest of the letter when information arrived from Prisca and Aquila in the spring of ad 56. {page 333}

Jews and Gentiles in Rome

The origins of the church in Rome, like those of Damascus, are shrouded in obscurity. Despite the lack of any evidence putting Rome in a special relationship with Jerusalem, it would seem none the less that Rome had been evangelized by Christians of Jewish origin. The earliest mention of missionary activity is the remark of Suetonius, 'He expelled from Rome the Jews constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus' (Claudius 25. 4). This imperial action has become the key element in a reconstruction of Roman Christianity which has profoundly influenced the interpretation of the letter in recent years.

The essence of the scenario is that Christianity in Rome grew out of the synagogue. Missionaries converted a number of Jews and a greater number of God-fearers, who had attached themselves to the synagogue. Already attracted by the ethos of Judaism, these latter would have had little difficulty in adopting Jewish practices, circumcision excepted. Pre-Claudian Christianity, therefore, was very much a Judaizing version of the faith, and one which proved increasingly intolerable to the various Roman synagogues in which it sought to find a home. Opposition became progressively more violent, and the Roman authorities had to step in. The lack of any centralized Jewish leadership left Claudius no option but to expel all Jews. Believers of Gentile origins, in consequence, ended up as the sole representatives of Christianity in Rome. Inevitably they became gradually less Jewish, particularly as they attracted new converts. Their institutional focus was no longer the synagogue but the house-church. With the accession of Nero, the ban was lifted. Jews and Christians of Jewish origins were permitted to return to the city, but not to assemble. The latter discovered a version of Christianity which they hardly recognized. Distributed among the various house-churches, inevitably they resented their minority position and their second-class status.

As I argued above, however, there is little chance that this scenario corresponds to reality. In all probability the action of Claudius affected only one synagogue, which is why the expulsion order is not noted in any Jewish source as a disaster for the Jews of Rome. Only a tiny proportion of the 2o,ooo or 40,000 to 5o,ooo Jewish inhabitants of the city were involved. The Jewish vacuum, which is essential to the theory that the content of Romans was determined by a unique feature of Christianity in the Eternal City, is a myth. {page 334} Paul's focus on the relationship between Judaism and Christianity is more likely to have been directly inspired by the problems he encountered with the Judaizers during the winter in Corinth, and by his concern as to how the collection would be accepted in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:30-1). The Jewish and Christian issue was forced upon him by circumstances. Why should he sacrifice time to the development of another subject in his introductory letter to Rome, when a central problem for the future of Christianity claimed his attention?

A salient feature of the style of Romans 1-11 confirms that Paul had only a generic understanding of the church in Rome. He addresses an interlocutor, deals with objections and false conclusions, and expresses himself in a dia-logical exchange complete with an example. This combination of censure and persuasion is typical of the diatribe, a teaching technique whose setting is the classroom of a philosophical school. The choice of the technique reveals another facet of the quality of Paul's education, and the sophisticated fashion in which he exploits it betrays the give and take of many discussions. A further inference is that the questions and objections do not articulate the specific problems of those to whom he is writing, but synthesize the experiences of many new converts. Paul had had to deal with many Jews and Gentiles, as they struggled to understand their past and present. Paul would not have had to use imaginary, typical, interlocutors if he were aware of what was actually being said and done in Rome. The absence of the diatribe technique in other letters is due to his detailed knowledge of the local scene. The way, for example, in which Paul handles the concrete and highly specific slogans of the Corinthians has nothing in common with the stylized objections in Romans.

Sin, Law, and Death

The fundamental thrust of Romans is that God, not only desires the salvation of all, but has put a plan into effect whereby grace can reach each and every individual (3:29). The general propositio, which commands the whole development of the letter is: 'The gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first but also the Gentile' (1:16). This insight had been the guiding principle of Paul's life since the moment of his conversion, and in this sense Romans crystallizes his gospel. How the power of the gospel produced its effect, however, was much more adequately presented in his earlier letters. Their insights must be kept in the forefront of the mind, if the full scope {page 335} of the Pauline gospel as hinted at in Romans is to be properly understood. What the earlier letters did not spell out adequately was Paul's perception of humanity's need for salvation. The originality of Romans is not its teaching on the how of salvation (save in its insight into the ultimate salvation of the Jews), but its explanation of the why of salvation.

One of the most distinctive features of Romans is its use of hamartia in an unusual sense. It first appears in Romans 3:9, 'all, both Jews and Gentiles, are under sin'. Clearly Paul is not thinking in terms of the personal sins of individuals, and in order to underline the difference 'Sin' should be capitalized. The same usage is found in a whole series of texts, which can be classified under three heads:

Sin

'Sin came into the world through one man' (5:12a).

'That we might no longer be enslaved to Sin' (6:6).

'Do not present your members to Sin' (6:13).

'You were slaves of Sin' (6:16, 17, 20).

'Having been set free from Sin' (6:18).

'Sold under Sin' (7:14).

'Sin dwells within me' (7:20).

Sin and Law

'Sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under Law, but under grace' (6:14).

'Apart from the Law Sin lies dead' (7:8).

'I am captive to the Law of Sin' (7:23, 25).

'Has set me free from the Law of Sin and Death' (8:2).

Sin and Death

'Death (came into the world) through Sin' (5:12b).

'Sin reigned in Death' (5:21).

'The wages of Sin is Death' (6:23).

Manifestly Sin functions as a myth or symbol. What is the meaning of the myth? What is hidden behind the symbol? When taken out of context Sin could easily appear to be but another name for Satan, of whom Paul sometimes speaks. Not only has this hypothesis nothing to recommend it, but it is positively excluded by the way Paul uses the two names. Satan is invariably mentioned in connection with those who are already believers, whereas Sin is exclusively associated with unbelievers.

Paul first used the term in Galatians 3:22 ('The Scripture shut up all under Sin'). In Romans 3:9-18 he clarifies this enigmatic statement by citing a catena of Old Testament passages, in which humanity appears as unrighteous, {page 336} ignorant of God, evil-working, deceitful, murderous (cf. Rom. 1:29-31). In opposition to his Jewish forebears, however, Paul refuses to see this situation as one in which human responsibility is engaged. The failure of individuals is not their personal responsibility. It is ascribed to the power of Sin. The human race is twisted and distorted by a power greater than any of its members. The basis of this insight was Paul's own experience. As a traveller he found himself forced to be other than he wished to be. His commitment was to be another Christ, totally dedicated to the service of others. But if he was to survive on the road, he had to look after his own interests first. The conditions under which he lived obliged him to be selfish, to mistrust others instead of loving them.

Paul chose the word Sin to crystalize his vision of society as the victim of a massive disorientation, because its origins were to be traced back to the sin of one person (5:12a; cf. 5:19). The point of Genesis 3 is that, at some point in the history of humanity, a false decision was made. From then on, according to Genesis 4-11, evil developed exponentially (Gen 6:5). Wickedness became endemic, as sinners interacted with each other. All those born into a warped society inherit its defects. They have no choice but to internalize its values, and to pass them on reinforced to the next generation. They are enslaved to Sin, which dwells within them. Sin, for Paul, was not an extra-terrestrial force, but a reality within humanity, the accumulated power of lived assent to a false value system. 'God has imprisoned all human beings in their own disobedience' (Rom. 11:32).

As far as Paul was concerned, one of the false values which Jews inherited was a particular attitude towards the Law, which distorted its true purpose (Rom. 7: io). The fundamental component of the theological system of all Jews of Paul's time was belief in their election by a gratuitous divine act. God's giving of the Law established the covenant. Membership in the covenant was necessary for salvation, and involved obedience to its regulations as expressed in the precepts of the Law. The tricky point for Jewish theologians was the precise relationship of divine initiative and human response. How were unmoti-vated mercy and the demands of the Law reconciled? The solution proposed by E. P. Sanders - that 'Obedience to the commandments was not thought of as earning salvation, which came rather by God's grace, but was nevertheless required as a condition of remaining in the covenant; and not obeying the commandments would damn' - is certainly justified by documents contemporary with Paul, {page 337} but its subtlety highlights the practical problem. The human mind instinctively simplifies. If disobedience to the commands of the Law caused damnation, then it seemed logical that obedience to such precepts won salvation. Thus, while lip-service was paid to the fundamental concept of gratuitous grace in election, in practice all attention was concentrated on observance of the commandments. A religion of grace which expresses itself in covenant form quickly becomes a religion of meritorious achievement, certainly in the popular mind, if not in the dissertations of theologians. What concerned Paul, however, was less the objectionable idea of buying salvation, than the inversion of values consequent on the importance attached to obedience to the Law.

This distinction between what is true in principle and what is real in fact is_, nowhere more graphically illustrated than in the the extraordinary inversion of the positions of God and the Law in the rabbinic writings. According to the rabbis, 'There are twelve hours in the day; during the first three the Holy One, blessed be He, occupies Himself with the Torah.' As a student it is not surprising that God should take his place with other scholars, 'Now they were disputing in the Heavenly Academy ... the Holy One, blessed be He, ruled, "He is clean"; whilst the entire Heavenly Academy maintained, "He is unclean". Who shall decide it? said they.-Rabbah b. Nahmani; for he said, "I am pre-eminent in the laws of leprosy and tents".' Divine authority gives way before rabbinic expertise. Elsewhere when questioned God can only reply, 'My son Abiathar says So-and-so, and my son Jonathan says So-and-so. Said R. Abiathar: "Can there be uncertainty in the mind of the Heavenly One?"' God takes a position on the problem of the Red Heifer by citing a ruling of R. Eliezer.

On another occasion, R. Eliezer is supported by direct divine intervention,

A Heavenly Voice cried out: 'Why do you dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halachah agrees with him!' But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: 'It is not in heaven (Deut. 30:12).' What did he mean by this?-Said R. Jeremiah: 'That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sina1: we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because Thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai; After the majority must one incline (Exod. 23:2).' R. Nathan met [the prophet] Elijah and asked him: 'What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do in that hour?-He laughed [with joy], he replied, saying, 'My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me.'

A good loser, God recognizes that he has been side-lined. He had failed to realize that, once he had given the Law to the Jewish people, it was out of his hands. { page 338} Now only the voice of the rabbis counted. God himself is bound by their decisions!

Whatever their date, and even when given their most benign interpretation as assertions of the freedom of human reason, these quotations unambiguously illustrate what happens when intangible grace is confronted with the concrete specificity of the Law. Jews debated points of Law, not the mystery of grace; manipulation of the controllable supplanted contemplation of the ineffable. Gratitude for election could not be expressed merely in psalms of praise; performance of the works of the Law was necessary.

Dunn denies that Paul criticized the concept of earning salvation through obedience, and instead asserts that 'Paul's negative thrust against the law is against the law taken over too completely by Israel, the law misunderstood by a misplaced emphasis on boundary-marking ritual, the law become a tool of sin in its too close identification with matters of the flesh, the law side tracked into a focus for nationalistic zeal'. Were this correct, Paul would have the same objection. However it was conceived, be it as a means of guaranteeing salvation or as a nationalistic imperative, the Law absorbed everybody and everything in its orbit. It left no real space for God or grace or faith. It had room only for obedience.

In order to ensure that the gracious gift of God in Jesus Christ would retain its primacy in practice Paul had to insist that the Law was completely irrelevant for all believers, both Jews and Gentiles. His fundamental objection to the Law was that, once admitted into a community, it inevitably created an attitude which monopolized the religious perspective. To focus on the Law was necessarily to ignore Christ. There could not be two ways of salvation. The authentic response to God's grace is revealed in the self-sacrifice of Christ, which was in no way anticipated in the Law. If anything, Christ is the New Law (Gal. 6:2). Understandably, therefore, Paul insists that Christ had written finis to the Law as far as humanity is concerned (Rom. io:4). Once the goal (the probable sense of telos here) of the Law had been achieved definitively in and through Christ, the means thereto (the Law) no longer had any raison d'etre.

The condition of Gentiles, distorted by the egocentric values of the society {page 339} into which they were born, and that of the Jews, made 'captive to the Law of Sin' (7:23), is summed up by Paul in one and the same word, Death. This vision of the human condition is derived from Paul's conviction-already hinted at in Galatians-that the criterion of authentic humanity is the self-sacrificing love revealed in Jesus who 'did not please himself (Rom. 15:3) but suffered on behalf of all human beings (8:17), to the point of dying for the godless (5:6). Lacking this creative outreach, a life turned inward on itself by society or the Law can only be imaged as the existence of a corpse. The unloving are the walking dead.

This brief synthesis of what Paul meant by Sin, Law, and Death reveal how deeply he had reflected on the circumstances of his ministry. An analysis of the human condition was essential, if he was to give a precise focus to his preaching. His recognition that his hearers had to be freed from Sin before they could respond to the gospel, and thus be raised from Death to Life, flowered into a commitment to be for others the Christ who was the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24; 2 Cor. 4:10-11).

The Salvation of the Jews

Although the tentacles of Sin reached out into every section of humanity, Paul considered his own people to be its greatest victim. He, and others, had freed multitudes of Gentiles from the power of Sin, but nothing like as many Jews (although there were some) had accepted Christ as the Messiah. Why those who had been the most privileged by God in terms of preparation for the advent of the Messiah should have been the most adamant in their refusal of Jesus was a mystery with which Paul struggled during all his apostolic life. What was going to happen ultimately? The urgency of this question was enhanced by his apprehension regarding his reception in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:31), with its implicit recognition of the increasing hostility of Jews to the Jesus movement. It seemed most improbable that Christian missionaries to Jews would be more successful in the future. The winter in Corinth gave him the leisure to bring together the partial insights which had occurred to him over the years, and to formulate a comprehensive answer.

The intricate argumentation of Romans 9-11 is impressive evidence of the depth of Paul's knowledge of the Jewish scriptures. The sophistication of his interpretation once again betrays the strength of his intellectual formation. The quality of the writing is also remarkable, and the hymn, in which he sings out his adoration with extraordinary eloquence (Rom. 11:33-6), is arguably his greatest literary achievement. {page 340}

The outpouring of gratitude is a fitting conclusion to the summation of the argument in Romans 11:25-32, in which Paul reveals his solution to the problem of the salvation of Israel. He had never wavered in his conviction that God could not deny himself, and abandon those whom he had chosen and gifted (Rom. 11:1-2). Paul recognized the truth of this in his own ministry. The book of Isaiah had always played a key role in his understanding of his apos-tolate to the Gentiles. He saw himself as part of the faithful remnant, which proclaimed salvation to the nations, thereby fulfilling the eschatological obligation laid upon Israel. Not surprisingly, it was in reading Isaiah that he realized the means whereby the Jews would be saved. In Romans 11:26 in order to support his thesis that 'all Israel will be saved', he quotes 'From Sion will come the Redeemer, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob, and this will be my covenant with them' (Isa. 59:20-1); 'when I take away their sins' (Isa. 27:9). The allusion is to the Parousia of Christ. The Jews, in other words, will be saved in exactly the same way as Paul was. His commitment to the Law had not only blinded him to the true role of Christ, but it had engendered bitter hostility. That attitude was changed by a completely unexpected encounter on the road to Damascus, where Christ took the initiative. So will it be for all Israel, at the Parousia when Christ appears in glory. Then the Jews will no more be capable of rejecting him than Paul had been.