Acceptance Motif in Paul: Revisiting Romans 15:7–13 (New Testament Studies in Contextual Exegesis. Neutestamentliche Studien zur kontextuellen Exegese) [New ed.] 9783631723104, 9783631723111, 9783631723128, 9783631723135, 3631723105

Citation preview

New Testament Studies in Contextual Exegesis Neutestamentliche Studien zur kontextuellen Exegese

Zakali Shohe

Acceptance Motif in Paul: Revisiting Romans 15:7–13

This book investigates the “acceptance motif” by reading Romans 15:7–13 as directed to a specific situation. Having situated Romans 15:7–13 within its historical setting, the study also locates Romans 15:7–13 within the argument of the entire epistle. The author then examines the syntax and the semantics of Romans 15:7–9a and interprets it within the Christological setting, in an attempt to establish the acceptance motif. The book also shows that Paul further appeals to the Jewish Scriptures in 15:9b–12 and demonstrates that the Scripture bears witness to the relationship between the Jews and the Gentiles. Such modus operandi allows a picture of Paul’s concept of acceptance in its distinctiveness.

Zakali Shohe is Associate Professor of New Testament and the Academic Dean at Trinity Theological College, affiliated to the Senate of Serampore College (University), Dimapur, Nagaland.

www.peterlang.com

Acceptance Motif in Paul: Revisiting Romans 15:7–13

NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES IN CONTEXTUAL EXEGESIS NEUTESTAMENTARISCHE STUDIEN ZUR KONTEXTUELLEN EXEGESE Edited by / Herausgegeben von Johannes Beutler, Thomas Schmeller und Werner Kahl

Vol./Bd. 10

Zu Qualitätssicherung und Peer Review der vorliegenden Publikation Die Qualität der in dieser Reihe erscheinenden Arbeiten wird vor der Publikation durch einen Herausgeber der Reihe geprüft.

Notes on the quality assurance and peer review of this publication Prior to publication, the quality of the work published in this series is reviewed by one of the editors of the series.

Zakali Shohe

Acceptance Motif in Paul: Revisiting Romans 15:7–13

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Shohe, Zakali, author. Title: Acceptance motif in Paul : revisiting Romans 15:7-13 / Zakali Shohe. Description: New York : Peter Lang, 2017. | Series: New Testament studies in contextual exegesis, ISSN 1616-816X ; Vol. 10 | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2017017254 | ISBN 9783631723104 Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Romans, XV, 7-13--Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Acceptance in the Bible. | Responsibility in the Bible. Classification: LCC BS2665.52 .S56 2017 | DDC 227/.106--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017017254 Printed by CPI books GmbH, Leck ISSN 1616-816X ISBN 978-3-631-72310-4 (Print) E-ISBN 978-3-631-72311-1 (E-PDF) E-ISBN 978-3-631-72312-8 (EPUB) E-ISBN 978-3-631-72313-5 (MOBI) DOI 10.3726/b11289 © Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften Frankfurt am Main 2017 Alle Rechte vorbehalten. All rights reserved. Peter Lang Edition is an Imprint of Peter Lang GmbH. Peter Lang – Frankfurt am Main · Bern · Bruxelles · New York · Oxford · Warszawa · Wien All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. This publication has been peer reviewed. www.peterlang.com

Acknowledgements This work is a revised version of a doctoral dissertation submitted to the Faculty of ATESEA Theological Union in 2015. I want to express my deepest gratitude to those who have helped to bring this work to its completion. To my supervisor, Professor Dr. Kim Huat Tan, Chen Su Lan Professor of New Testament, without whose careful and critical reading, guidance and commitment, this research would not have been what it is. To Professor Dr. Lester Edwin Ruiz for his input during the ATESEA Theological Union research methodology seminar and for his careful reading of this dissertation and critical comments. To Professor Dr. Werner Kahl for his careful and critical reading in preparing this research for publication. To Dr. Jerry Reisig who offered his insightful diagrams of the solutions to the syntax in chapter four. To my examiners Professor Dr. Lung-Kwon Lo and Dr. Leonard Wee for their feedback. To ATESEA Theological Union under the leadership of Dr. Limuel Equina for the opportunity to study at ATESEA Theological Union and also for the methodology seminar. To Trinity Theological College, Singapore for the community of learning and the financial assistance during my stay in Singapore. To ScholarLeaders International, Queenstown Baptist Church, Singapore and American Baptist International for the financial assistance for my doctoral program. To the Board of Governors and the Principal of Trinity Theological College, Dimapur, Nagaland for granting me study leave to pursue my studies. To the Missionsakademie an der Universität Hamburg for the opportunity of research exposure and the rich experiences and learning opportunities. To Professors Dr. J. Beutler, Dr. Thomas Schmeller and Dr. Werner Kahl for including this research under the series New Testament Studies in Contextual Exegesis of Peter Lang. To Peter Lang publishers for publishing this research. To all my friends, and especially to Loliro Kuotsu for her willingness to read my work and comment on it.

5

To my mother, my brothers and sister and their families for supporting me financially and spiritually, and without whose encouragement I would never have come this far in life and in my career. At the same time, I take full responsibility for any shortcomings of the research. Zakali Shohe

6

Contents Foreword...................................................................................................................13 Abstract.....................................................................................................................15 List of Abbreviations...........................................................................................17 Chapter One: Introduction...............................................................................19 I.

Method of Research............................................................................................20

II. Review of Research.............................................................................................21 A. Research during the Pre-critical Period.................................................... 21 B. The Scholarly Turn to Romans 12:1–15:13............................................... 23 C. Treatments of Romans 15:7–13.................................................................. 37 III. Concluding Remarks..........................................................................................42

Chapter Two: Romans and its Historical Context.................................43 I. Introduction.........................................................................................................43 II. Roman Jews and Believers in Christ.................................................................44 A. Jewish Community in Rome....................................................................... 44 B. Origin of Christian Faith in Rome............................................................. 51 III. The Texts of Claudius’ Roman Edict.................................................................55 A. The Acts of the Apostles 18:2........................................................................ 56 B. Suetonius in Claudius (Vita Divi Claudii) 25.4......................................... 58 C. Dio Cassius in Roman History (Historiae Romanae) 60.6.6.................... 58 D. Paulus Orosius in History against the Pagans (Historiae Adversum Paganos) 7.6.15–16.................................................. 61

7

E.

Conclusions Drawn from the Reports....................................................... 63 1. Single Event or Different Events....................................................... 63 2. Conclusion on Date............................................................................ 65

IV. Suetonius Report.................................................................................................67 A. The Expulsion in Relation to Roman Policy............................................. 67 B. Identity of Chrestus...................................................................................... 69 C. Scope of the Expulsion................................................................................ 73 D. The Effect of Expulsion on Jews and Gentile Sympathizers................... 75 E. Summary of the Analysis of the Report by Suetonius............................. 77 V. Reading Romans within the Historical Context..............................................77 A. The Impact of the Claudian Edict on the Development of the Believing Communities in Rome.................................................... 77 B. Romans 14:1–15:6 within the Historical Context.................................... 80 VI. Summary..............................................................................................................81

Chapter Three: Romans 15:7–13 in the Argument of the Epistle.....................................................................................83 I. Introduction.........................................................................................................83 II. The “Weak” and the “Strong” in Romans 14–15...............................................84 A. Characteristics of Identification in Romans 14........................................ 85 1. Identity of the “Strong” (Romans 14)............................................... 85 2. Identity of the “Weak” (Romans 14)................................................. 86 B. Categories of Identification in Modern Scholarship................................ 86 III. The Immediate Context of Romans 15:7–13...................................................92 A. The Preceding Context................................................................................ 93 B. The Subsequent Context.............................................................................. 96 C. Context of the Call for Acceptance in Romans 14:1–15:13.................... 97 1. Evidence for Home Gatherings........................................................ 98 2. Worship and Meal Setting............................................................... 100

8

IV. Romans 15:7–13 within the Argument of the Epistle.................................. 102 A. Romans 15:7–13 and the Argument of 14:1–15:6.................................. 102 B. Romans 15:7–13 and the Argument of 12:1–15:6.................................. 106 C. Romans 15:7–13 and the Argument of 1:1–15:6.................................... 108 D. Summary on the Three Hypotheses......................................................... 111 V. Thematic Parallels between Romans 15:7–13 and Romans 1:1–15:6....................................................................................... 112 A. God’s Faithfulness and Mercy................................................................... 113 B. Praise of God............................................................................................... 116 C. Jewish Priority............................................................................................. 117 D. God’s Promises............................................................................................ 119 E. The Envisioning of a Future Hope........................................................... 120 F. The Empowering of the Spirit................................................................... 122 VI. Summary........................................................................................................... 123

Chapter Four: Syntactical and Semantic Analysis of Romans 15:7–9a.......................................................................... 125 I. Introduction...................................................................................................... 125 II. The Structure of Romans 15:7–13.................................................................. 125 A. προσλαμβάνεσθε ἀλλήλους (Rom. 15:7)................................................ 126 B. Use of καθώς (Rom. 15:7)......................................................................... 128 C. ὁ Χριστός (Rom. 15:7)............................................................................... 130 D. εἰς δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ (Rom. 15:7)................................................................ 131 E. Use of λέγω γάρ (Rom. 15:8).................................................................... 133 F. Διάκονον (Rom. 15:8)................................................................................ 134 G. Χριστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς (Rom. 15:8)......................... 135 H. τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων (Rom. 15:8).............................................. 140 I. Language of Praise (Rom. 15:9–12)......................................................... 140

9

III. The Syntactical Relation between Romans 15:8 and 9a: Solutions Proposed..................................................................... 142 A. Solution One: δοξάσαι as Aorist Optative............................................... 143 B. Solution Two: Infinitives as Governed by εἰς τό..................................... 144 C. Solution Three: Infinitives as Dependent on λέγω................................. 148 D. Solution Four: Servant to the Jews-Servant to the Gentiles.................. 151 E. Summary of the Solutions......................................................................... 154 IV. An Alternative Reading: Jewish Origin and the Two-fold Purpose of Christ............................................................................ 155 A. Syntactical Consideration......................................................................... 156 B. Contextual Consideration......................................................................... 157 C. Thematic Consideration............................................................................ 158 V. Translation of Romans 15:7–13...................................................................... 159 VI. Summary........................................................................................................... 160

Chapter Five: Scripture Bears Witness: A Universal Call to Praise in Romans 15:9b–12............................................................ 161 I. Introduction...................................................................................................... 161 II. The Influence of Scripture on Paul’s Proclamation of the Gospel and his Mission......................................................................... 162 III. Catena of Citations in Romans 15:9b–12...................................................... 166 A. The first Scriptural Proof: Psalm 17:49 LXX (18:50 MT)...................... 166 1. The Context of Psalm 17:49 (LXX)................................................ 167 2. The Citation Formula....................................................................... 170 3. The Identity of “I” in the Context of Romans............................... 172 4. Reception in Romans 15:9b in the Context of Glorifying God among the Nations............................................... 175 B. The Second Scriptural Proof: Deuteronomy 32:43................................ 176

10

1. 2. 3.

The Context of Deuteronomy 32:43............................................... 177 The Citation Formula....................................................................... 179 Reception in Romans 15:10 in the Context of Gentiles Praising God with Jews.................................................... 180 C. The Third Scriptural Proof: Psalms 116:1 LXX (117:1 MT)................. 182 1. The Context of Psalms 116:1 LXX.................................................. 183 2. The Citation Formula....................................................................... 186 3. Reception in Romans 15:11 in the Context of ἔθνη and οἱ λαοί Praising God................................................................. 186 D. The Fourth Scriptural Proof: Isaiah 11:10............................................... 188 1. The Context of Isaiah 11:10............................................................. 188 2. The Citation Formula....................................................................... 191 3. Reception in Romans 15:12 in the Context of the Gentile’s Hope in the “Shoot” of Jesse............................................ 191 IV. The Citations: Structure and Progression...................................................... 197 A. Introductory Formula................................................................................ 197 B. Logical Progression.................................................................................... 198 C. Catena of Citations and its Connection to Romans 15:7–9a................ 199 V. Summary........................................................................................................... 202

Chapter Six: An Interpretive Framework of the Acceptance Motif in Romans 15:7–13...................................................... 205 I. Introduction...................................................................................................... 205 II. Interpretive Framework................................................................................... 205 A. Acceptance and Obligation....................................................................... 205 1. The Notion of Obligation in Romans............................................ 205 2. Acceptance and Obligation in Romans 14:1–15:13..................... 207 B. Acceptance and Redefining Relationship................................................ 210 1. Redefining Boundaries.................................................................... 210 2. Community-Oriented and Christian Faith................................... 213

11

C. Acceptance and Relational Eschatology.................................................. 216 1. The Eschatological Language of Hope........................................... 217 2. Present Worship Anticipates Eschaton.......................................... 220 3. Universal Worship............................................................................ 222 III. Summary........................................................................................................... 225

Chapter Seven: Conclusion............................................................................ 227 I.

Our Findings from the Study.......................................................................... 227

II. Research Results for the Churches in India.................................................. 229

Bibliography......................................................................................................... 233

12

Foreword This is a courageous work, which examines all the pertinent evidence relating to Paul’s concluding paraenesis in Romans 15.7–13, and challenges some prominent scholarly theories associated with its interpretation. While Dr. Shohe’s judicious and enlightening treatment of this passage is reason enough to read the book, the unique bonus comes in her application of the passage to her context in India. Here we see arduous scholarship coming alive to provide us with wisdom on how we may live together in community. I have the enviable privilege of seeing the progress of this wonderful and significant work from its conception to birth, and it gives me great pleasure to commend it now to a larger audience. K. H. Tan Chen Su Lan Professor of New Testament Trinity Theological College, Singapore

13

Abstract This study is an attempt to highlight the acceptance motif by reading Romans 15:7–13 as being directed to a specific situation. In order to achieve this end, this study integrates insights from historical, social, linguistic and inter-textual approaches. I hope such an amalgamated approach can bring about a deeper understanding of a multilayered text like Romans 15:7–13. The introductory chapter surveys the interpretation of the pericope in scholarly discussions. In the history of research, we find two opposing viewpoints that have a direct impact on this study: the position that Romans is a general epistle and the position that Romans is directed to a specific situation in Rome. This study takes the latter view and regards Paul’s call for acceptance as being directed to the Jewish and the Gentile believers in Christ. Chapter two employs the historical approach to investigate Romans within its historical context. It argues that Suetonius’ fragmentary report on the edict of expulsion provides critical information on the policy of the Roman authorities pertaining to the Jews during the reign of the Emperor Claudius. This particular fragment is also an important source for our understanding of the believers in Christ in first century Rome. It also examines the relationship between the Jewish community and the believers in Christ, as it is generally accepted that the earliest believers in Rome were members of the synagogue. This connection between the synagogue and the earliest believers in Christ is important for understanding the impact of the imperial edict of Claudius in the context of a community comprising both of the non-believing Jews and the believers in Christ. It is in this historical context that the study situates Romans 15:7–13. By considering the social forces that were at work in Romans, chapter three locates Romans 15:7–13 within the argument of the entire epistle. The study argues that Romans 15:7–13 is brought out within the ecclesial context of the Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ. Furthermore, it argues that this pericope is not only connected to the immediate context of Romans 14–15, or to the issues discussed in 12:1–15:6, but that it is deeply interwoven with the entire epistle, for it incorporates themes from the entire epistle. The study shows that the key themes relating especially to the Jew-Gentile relationship and the inclusion of the Gentiles in the salvific plan of God are recapitulated in Romans 15:7–13. Thus, Paul widens the scope of the pericope to incorporate some of the prominent themes that contribute to the acceptance motif.

15

Chapter four of this study is devoted to the syntax and the semantics of Romans 15:7–9a and interprets them within the Christological setting. Christ is presented as coming from the Jewish people and his service is both to the Jews as well as the Gentiles. God in Christ remains faithful to his promises to the fathers for which the Jews give glory to God, and the covenantal promises of God are fulfilled in the inclusion of the Gentiles who glorify God because of His mercy. Chapter five employs an inter-textual approach by examining the scriptural citations in Romans 15:9b–12 from the Law, the Prophets and the Writings in order to demonstrate that Scripture bears witness to the relationship between the Jews and the Gentiles, especially in their common praise of God. Paul does not intend to unite the Jews and the Gentiles from a sociological perspective alone, but it is also the goal of his mission to bring the Jews and the Gentiles to a common worship and praise. It is an eschatological unity of all people, both Jews and Gentiles, and this theme is already established in Scripture. Drawing upon the results of the previous chapters, chapter six offers three interpretive frameworks for the acceptance motif. First, acceptance of each other is an obligation. As the believers experience the saving act of God in Christ, they are obligated to God to bear witness to it in their relationship with one another. Second, it redefines the believer’s relationship with one another, where there is an openness to accept one another in the context of a faith community. Third, it actualizes an implicit relational eschatology, for this relationship does not end with the initial experience. The believers in their coming together as a worshipping community contribute to building and strengthening this relationship with a hope for future glorification. The concluding chapter briefly highlights the challenges for the churches in India.

16

List of Abbreviations ABD The Anchor Bible Dictionary BDAG A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature BDB Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament BJS Brown Judaic Studies CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament ExpT The Expository Times ICC International Critical Commentary JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JDDS Jian Dao Dissertation Series JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha LXX The Septuagint MT Masoretic Text NICNT The New International Commentary on the New Testament NICOT The New International Commentary on the Old Testament NRSV The New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha NovT Novum Testamentum NTS New Testament Studies SBL Society of Biblical Literature SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Study Series SNTSMS Society for the New Testament Studies Monograph Series TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament VT Vetus Testamentum WBC Word Biblical Commentary WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

17

Chapter One: Introduction An important contribution in the history of research to the understanding of Romans appeared in 1971 with the publication of The Obedience of Faith by Paul Minear. The work of Minear awakened modern scholarship to the importance of Romans 14–15, especially in relation to the context of the whole epistle. As William S. Campbell has rightly observed, with Minear’s book, “a full-blown situational approach to the interpretation of the letter emerged.”1 However, most studies since then were confined to a discussion of the internal division within the Roman Christ believing communities in Romans 14:1–15:6, and not many have attempted to investigate in detail Paul’s exhortation in Romans 15:7–13. The issue of the “weak” and the “strong” in Romans 14:1–15:13 or the issue of the identity of Roman believers in 12:1–15:132 has rightly been given importance in Pauline scholarship. Yet, Romans 15:7–13, which may be considered the climactic part, is often neglected. As Robert Jewett remarks, While sifting through the studies on Romans I discovered a remarkable gap in interpreting the twofold admonition to “welcome” one another in Romans 14:1 and 15:7 and in understanding the twenty-one repetitions of the formula “greet so and so” in chapter 16. In the vast scholarly literature on Romans, there is not a single article devoted to either of these terms.3

1 William S. Campbell, Paul’s Gospel in an Intercultural Context: Jew and Gentile in the Letter to the Romans (Berlin: Peter Lang, 1992), p. 5. 2 Paul Sevier Minear, The Obedience of Faith: The Purpose of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (London: SCM Press, 1971); Robert J. Karris, “Romans 14:1–15:13 and the Occasion of Romans,” The Roman Debate, Revised and Expanded Edition, ed. Karl P. Donfried (1977; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Pub. 1991); Mark Reasoner, Strong and Weak. Romans 14:1–15:13 in Context, SNTS MonographSer. 103 (Cambridge: University Press, 1999); James C. Miller, The Obedience of Faith, the Eschatological People of God and the Purpose of Romans (Atlanta: SBL, 2000); Philip Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003); Carl N. Toney, Paul’s Inclusive Ethic. Resolving Community Conflicts and Promoting Mission in Romans 14–15, WUNT 2 Reihe- 252 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). 3 Robert Jewett, “Paul’s Letter to Rome and Beyond,” From Rome to Beijing: Symposia on Robert Jewett’s Commentary on Romans, ed. K. K. Yeo (Lincoln, NE: Kairos Studies, 2013), p. 20.

19

Usually, Romans 15:7–13 is simply viewed as a summary of Paul’s exhortation in Romans 14:1–15:6 or 12:1–15:6. Few scholars did attempt to focus on Romans 15:7–13, but none has treated this section as an object of inquiry at great length, or considered the “acceptance motif.” Hence, this study hopes to liquidate this shortcoming and is thus devoted to carefully examining Romans 15:7–13. It will not simply rehash the views of interpreters in the past. These will indeed be examined, but with a view to offering some fresh interpretations. Consequently, the study intends to examine the language, concepts and citations in the text. I will look at how these aspects illuminate Paul’s thinking, especially on the key motif, which is about acceptance.

I.  Method of Research The aim of this study is to take a closer look at Romans 15:7–13 within its historical and ecclesial context. Furthermore, it argues that the syntax, themes and the citations bring to the forefront the acceptance motif. To achieve this aim, this study employs a number of approaches and draws insights from them: historical, ecclesial, linguistic and intertextual. I hope by utilizing such an integrated approach that I will be able to draw out insights from the text, contributing to a deeper understanding of the acceptance motif. This study attempts to look at the epistle of Romans within its historical context and so to achieve this aim it employs a historical approach. By a historical approach I mean the interpretation of the text in the light of its specific historical context. Along with the historical approach, this study also takes into consideration the sociological approach in situating Romans 15:7–13. The use of sociology and anthropology diverts our attention to the different realities of the social groups in the synagogues or within the church rather than to only look at the theological assessment of the controversies within the Pauline churches. The study regards Romans 15:7–13 as directed to a situation where there are differences among the believers, i.e., the Jewish and the Gentile believers in Christ. It attempts to discover and explain the intent of a text as a response to its ecclesial situation, and the way it stimulates response on the part of the recipients. Furthermore, it aims to situate the text within the setting of the entire epistle. Having said that, it is also important to look at the language Paul uses. As Joseph Maleparampil also argues, the syntactical analysis (and semantics, i.e., the linguistic analysis) is also “a classic approach in the field of biblical exegesis.”4 4 The words in brackets are my addition. Joseph Maleparampil, The “Trinitarian” Formulae in St. Paul: An Exegetical Investigation into the Meaning and Function of those

20

Hence, a linguistic analysis (syntax and semantics) of the text unit will be undertaken. The syntactical components and the semantics are considered with the aim of underscoring a theme, i.e., the acceptance motif. This study also employs an intertextual reading, especially since the passage is replete with Old Testament citations and themes. It will look at the citations in their literary setting and then attempt to see how Paul uses the citations, and the changes the text had undergone. In their extreme form, the approaches mentioned are limited, but when used together they complement one another. Such an amalgamated approach is important for reading this particular text, because I hope such an approach can bring out a fuller understanding to a rich text like Romans 15:7–13. Furthermore, such an integrated approach would help towards a well-balanced investigation, especially in drawing out the acceptance motif.

II.  Review of Research The concern in this section is to give a brief general survey of scholarships surrounding the theme of the study. The survey will basically concentrate on the scholarships in the English-speaking world. In the history of scholarship, different solutions have been propounded on the setting of Romans. This survey will take into consideration a few writings during the pre-critical period, and it will then examine the history of the critical interpretation of Romans 12:1–15:13 in general, and the treatment of Romans 15:7–13 in particular.

A.  Research during the Pre-critical Period The interpreters during the pre-critical period define the “weak” and the “strong” in Romans 14–15 as Jewish and Gentile Christians5 respectively, divided over

Pauline Sayings which Compositely Make Mention of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1995), p. 13. 5 The term Christians and Christianity are used in the section on the “Review of Research” and whenever it represents the views of scholars. However, apart from it, in this study the expressions Christian faith, believers in Christ and believing community are used interchangeably for referring to Christians and Christianity. Still, it is important as suggested by Werner Kahl to use the expression “Christian faith” with caution. To this, Kahl states that “It is not precise since in the first century-as in worldwide Christianity today-there were various and contrasting interpretations of the meaning of Christ, for instance, the conflict between Paul and Peter according to Gal. 2. The expression is being used here for want of a more appropriate term. It simply means broadly any belief in

21

practices related to the Mosaic Law. For Origen, for example, the “weak” are the Jewish believers who emphasize the food laws and the observance of special days. While, the “strong” are the Gentiles who are free in their observances of the Jewish practices.6 Origen also regards Romans 14–15 as being addressed to Gentile believers, who believe nothing is unclean. Thus, Paul warns them not to insult those who observe the food laws.7 John Chrysostom interprets the text in the same manner as Origen. He postulates that it is the Jewish practices that forms a basis for the “weak” believers’ abstinence from certain foods and their observance of special days.8 However, unlike Origen, Chrysostom argues that Paul in Romans 14:1–15:6 is also persuading the “weak” to change their ways.9 Along the topic of love and friendship, Chrysostom makes an interesting comment with regard to the Jew-Gentile relationship, which is later emphasized by a few modern scholars. He states that the Gentiles are debtors of a larger amount to God, so they ought to bear with the “weak”: the Jews had “the good things” given to them because of the “promise made to the fathers,” while the “Gentiles had them out of pity and love toward man only.” Hence, for Chrysostom, Paul is exhorting the Gentiles to glorify God for his mercy, and mentions the promises in order that the “strong” may not rise against the “weak” but be united and praise God with one mind.10 By this, Chrysostom means that the Gentiles have a responsibility toward the Jews by being tolerant of them and by extending love and friendship to them.11 Thus, Chrysostom concludes that Paul exhorts both Gentiles and Jews in different ways, but with the goal of unity in mind. This is one aspect that some of the future scholars will elucidate in their discussions on the pericope.

Jesus as the Christ. It does not denote a particular religion” [Werner Kahl, “Migrants as Instruments of Evangelization—in Early Christianity and in Contemporary Christianity,” Global Diasporas and Mission, ed. Chandler H Im & Amos Yong (Oxford: Regnum Books International, 2014), pp. 72]. 6 Origen, Romans: Books 10:7–8. [Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: Books 6–10, trans. Thomas P. Shecks (Washington, DC: Catholic Univ. of America Press, 2002), pp. 271–73]. 7 Origen, Romans: Books 14.16–17. 8 John Chrysostom, “Homily XXXII.” [The Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans, ed. Philip Schoff (Edinburgh & Grand Rapids: T & T Clark & Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1989), pp. 559–564]. 9 John Chrysostom, “Homily XXVII,” p. 536. 10 John Chrysostom, “Homily XXVIII,” pp. 538–39. 11 John Chrysostom, “Homily XXVIII,” p. 539.

22

John Calvin stands in the same interpretive tradition and observes that the issue of the “weak” and the “strong” concerns Jewish practices.12 Calvin notes that in order to prevent the Gentiles from making superior claims, Paul declares that salvation through Christ is a privilege to the Jews through the covenant (Rom. 15:8).13 Yet again, Paul shows no partiality between the Jews and the Gentiles for Christ gathered both from their “pitiable scattered state,” so none should despise the other, for the fulfilment of the promises extends beyond a single group of people (that the Gentiles might glorify God [Rom. 15:9]).14 Our survey of the later scholarship will highlight how future scholars interact with the issues and observations highlighted by scholars in the pre-critical period.

B.  The Scholarly Turn to Romans 12:1–15:13 1.  William Sanday and Arthur Headlam William Sanday and Arthur Headlam, the earliest proponents of a historicalcritical approach to Romans in English scholarship, depart from the interpreters in the pre-critical period in their use of such a method. In their monograph, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (1901), they argue that the terms “strong” and “weak” do not refer to Jewish and Gentile Christians divided over the Mosaic Law, but that they represent a more general concern. According to them, Paul discusses these general issues in the light of his experiences in Corinth (1Cor. 8–10).15 Similarly, the argument throughout 12 John Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, trans. Ross Mackenzie (1961; repr., Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1972), p. 306. 13 Chrysostom also emphasizes this aspect. 14 Calvin, Romans and Thessalonians, pp. 306–308. 15 William Sanday and Arthur Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons 1901), pp. 400–401. Others are, Günther Bornkamm who proposes that Romans 14–15 is developed from his encounter in 1Corinthians 8–10 with emphasis on the consideration of the other [Paul (London: Hodder Stoughton, 1971), p. 115]; also see “The Letter to the Romans as Paul’s Last Will and Testament,” The Romans Debate, Revised and expanded edition. C. H. Dodd also takes the same approach and proposes that Romans gives no particular reference to the conditions of the Roman communities as Paul is not acquainted with the Roman congregation [C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, MNTC 6 (London: Collins, 1959), p. xxviii. See also V. P. Furnish, The Love Command in the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972), p. 115]; Franz J. Leenhandt follows his predecessors in stating that Romans 14–15 is not addressed to a particular

23

Romans 15:1–13 is regarded as “perfectly general,” and the principles applied are characteristic to the moral teaching of the epistle,16 especially in 15:7–12.17 According to these scholars, Romans is “a theological treatise rather than a letter,” whose purpose is to instruct the believers on the principles of faith.18 Although the view of Sanday and Headlam that Romans is a reflection of Paul’s encounter at Corinth is not without problems, it is important in the sense that it departs from the pre-critical interpretation of Romans.

2.  Willi Marxsen An example of the sociological approach is found in Willi Marxsen’s Introduction to the New Testament (1964), who reconstructs the issue in Romans 14:1–15:13 in the light of the Mosaic Law. Moreover, Marxsen brings in the Claudian edict (AD 49 or 50), which he argues resulted in a split between the Jews and the Gentiles.19 According to Marxsen, the historicity of this edict is confirmed both by Suetonius in Claudius 25.4 and Luke in Acts 18:1–2. Marxsen considers that Paul’s instructions to the Roman Christians in their relationships with the political authorities in Romans 13 are intended to prevent any further expulsion. He argues that after the edict had lapsed, the Jewish Christians on returning insisted on keeping the Mosaic Law, while the Gentile Christians emphasized on freedom. This, then, is the situation Paul is handling in Romans which is not

16 17 18 19

24

group of people in a particular situation. This is indicated by Paul’s use of first person plural or third person singular in 14:1–15:13. Paul is not concerned with Christians at Rome whom he did not know or whose problem he was not aware. Rather, Franz Leenhandt notes that in this section Paul is treating a practical problem with his experience in Corinth, a common problem in a context where the believers in Christ of Jewish and Gentile origin exist side-by-side [Franz J. Leenhandt, The Epistle to the Romans. A Commentary (1957, Cleveland & London: The world publishing company, 1961), pp. 345–46]. Robert Jewett argues that, “For all its length, there is insufficient evidence either conclusively to identify the ‘Weak’ and the rationale of their abstinence or to demonstrate the source of the antinomistic self-consciousness of the ‘Strong.’ This would surely not be the case if the letter were composed solely to deal with concrete problems in the Roman congregation,” Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971), p. 47. Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 384. Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 388. Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. xl. Willi Marxsen, Introduction to the New Testament, trans. G. Buswell (1964; repr., Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968), pp. 96–102.

just a restatement of the problem in 1Corinthians 8–10.20 Another observation of Marxsen is that Paul interprets Romans 14–15 in the light of his Jerusalem experiences. His argument is directed to those Jews who see circumcision as a guarantee for salvation.21 Marxsen’s attempt to interpret Romans 14–15 in the light of its historical situation moves the discussions on Romans forward in the scholarly field.

3.  Paul S. Minear Paul Minear, in his monograph, The Obedience of Faith: The Purpose of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (1971), incorporates many of Marxsen’s suggestions and breaks new ground by a thorough use of a sociological approach. He argues strongly that Paul is addressing a real situation in Rome.22 Minear considers that the occasion for Paul in writing to the Roman churches was their need for a “stronger, more obedient faith.”23 Romans 14–16 provides the basis for Minear’s hypothesis, concerning the occasion and purpose of Romans and it also answers an important question with regard to whether there is one congregation or several congregations in Rome. Minear demonstrates through the use of sociological/ecclesial artifacts that Romans is Paul’s attempt to deal with a specific problem that divided the churches in Rome. He points to five or six different house churches (Rom. 16) with different conceptions of the gospel. A good example of the many groups is Romans 14, where the members are divided over food and observance of days.24 For Minear, the “weak” and the “strong” are not two distinct ethnic groups. Instead, they are mixed groups. The “weak” and the “strong” are further divided into five groups:25 Group one-the “weak in faith” that condemn the “strong in faith;” group two-the “strong in faith” who scorn and despise the “weak in faith;” group three-“the doubters;” group four-the “weak in faith” who do not condemn the “strong;” and group five-the “strong in faith” who do not despise the “weak.”26 Minear points out that Paul does not attempt to form the groups into one, but instead invites members to join the tolerant groups, i.e., either group four or five. The necessary goal of faith required for 20 Marxsen, Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 98–100. 21 Marxsen, Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 100–104. 22 Minear, The Obedience of Faith, p. 6. 23 Minear, The Obedience of Faith, p. 1. 24 Minear, The Obedience of Faith, pp. 7–8. 25 Minear, The Obedience of Faith, pp. 6–9, 11–15. It is helpful, but I do not find any extensive argument to support it. This study will follow the two-group hypothesis. 26 For a detailed analysis of the groups refer to Minear, The Obedience of Faith, pp. 11–15.

25

them is to welcome one another, although they hold opposing views on diet and days (Rom. 15:7). Christ establishes the measure of this welcome for the glory of God.27 Minear’s five-fold division of people groups in Romans is creative, but the textual evidence supporting it is wanting. In the later part of his book, Minear takes up Romans 12:1–13:14 on the theme, the mercies of God. He asserts that this theme is a continuation of Paul’s dialogue in Romans 11:13ff with the second group, i.e., the “strong in faith” who scorned and despised the “weak in faith” and a preparation for his appeal to the same group in Romans 14:1–2. Minear suggests that Paul reminds the “strong in faith” of the mercy of God in their lives because of the disobedience of Israel. In this case, the Gentiles are indebted to the Jews whom they now ridiculed. Thus, according to Minear, Paul in Romans 12–13 is already concerned with the disputes, which is taken up in Romans 14–15. In Romans 12–13, he addresses the members of the second group, “strong in faith” in Romans 14–15, for whom their liberties was proof of the strength of their faith.28 Minear’s work has drawn attention to the need to interpret Romans 14–15, and especially the divisions within the context of the Christian faith communities in Rome.

4.  Robert J. Karris In his essay “Romans 14:1–15:13 and the Occasion of Romans” (1977), Robert Karris stands within the interpretive approach of Sanday and Headlam. Karris regards Romans 12–13 as Paul’s paraenesis, which is modified based on his own solutions to his encountered problems that occurred in the course of his missionary work. Paul’s solution to the problem of unity at Corinth, Karris argues, is reflected in Romans 12:3–8. The stress on the love command in Galatians 5 appears in Romans 13:8–10. Romans 13:11–13 parallels 1Thessalonians 5:5–9, and the problem of “the weak” in 1Corinthians is reflected in Romans 14–15.29 He offers a critique of Minear and Max Raeur’s thesis30 by arguing that Paul was writing to a community of which he had no knowledge, so his discussion on the 27 Minear, The Obedience of Faith, p. 15. 28 Minear, The Obedience of Faith, pp. 83–86. 29 Robert J. Karris, “Romans 14:1–15:13 and the Occasion of Romans,” pp. 82–83. 30 The two critiques of Minear that Karris brings out are: 1) The hypothesis of Minear with regard to the many communities in Rome is difficult to prove, and 2) Minear’s equation of “the weak” = Jewish Christians and “the strong” = Gentile Christians is unconvincing. On Rauer’s thesis, Karris points to Rauer’s failure to explain their praxis of abstinence after they became Christians (Karris, “Romans 14:1–15:13 and the Occasion of Romans,” pp. 67–70).

26

“weak” and the “strong” in Romans 14:1–15:13 can only be a general exhortation from a known situation, such as that of Corinth.31 Karris demonstrates the relationship between Romans 14:1–15:33 and 1Corinthians 8:1–9:27; 10:23–11:1.32 Moreover, Karris disagrees with those who view the Gentiles as the “strong” and the Jews as the “weak.” He asserts that there is no evidence to see the relation between Romans 15:1–6 and 15:7–13 via the equation “the weak” = Jewish Christians and “the strong” = Gentile Christians. Instead, he maintains that the link between Romans 15:1–6 and 7–13 is cogent only if these verses are viewed in the light of the discussions of 1Corinthians 10:32–11:1.33 In his view, Romans 15:1–4 continues the discussion in Romans 14:20–21, which is on the relationship between freedom and love. Following that, in Romans 15:5–6, Paul concludes that this thought is addressed to the entire community. In Romans 15:7, the example of Christ is a development of the thought of 1Corinthians 11:1. The emphasis is on the servant nature of Christ (Rom. 15:7–13), as one who unites the two groups. In this case, the link is in the love command, a love that does not please itself, but goes on to save all and welcome all, despite their distinctions.34 In considering the relationships between Romans and 1Corinthians, Karris concludes that Romans 14:1–15:13 is a “generalized, expanded adaptation of the position and arguments which Paul developed especially in 1Corinthians 8–10.”35

5.  C. E. B. Cranfield In his interpretation of Romans 14:1–15:13, Cranfield, in his commentary, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (1979), returns to the traditional view that the “weak” and the “strong” in the Roman church are divided over Jewish issues. In defending his position, he provides seven reasons.36 First, it agrees with the division between the Jewish and Gentile Christians highlighted in Romans 15:7–13. Second, it agrees with the Jewish purity concerns in the contrast between κοινός (unclean in Rom. 14:14) and καθαρός (clean in Rom. 14:20). Third, the observance of days in Romans 14:5–6 fits the Jewish observance of Sabbath and other holy days. Fourth, it agrees with the exhortation 31 Karris, “Romans 14:1–15:13 and the Occasion of Romans,” p. 71. 32 For details on the relationship between Romans and 1Corinthians, see Karris, “Romans 14:1–15:13 and the Occasion of Romans,” pp. 71–75. 33 Karris, “Romans 14:1–15:13 and the Occasion of Romans,” pp. 77–81. 34 Karris, “Romans 14:1–15:13 and the Occasion of Romans,” pp. 80–81. 35 Karris, “Romans 14:1–15:13 and the Occasion of Romans,” p. 77. 36 C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, vol. II (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1979), pp. 695–696.

27

that the “weak in faith” have weakness in character that makes them liable to social pressures. This attachment to the ceremonial requirements of the law is but “a feeling, which, while it goes very deep, is ill-defined and difficult to defend by argument.”37 Fifth, it accords with the spiritual ruin of the “weak” because to be unable to marshal clear arguments in defence of one’s activities poses a threat to one’s personal integrity. Sixth, it agrees with Paul’s sympathetic gentle character since Paul persuades the “strong” to “please” the “weak” and not “grieve” them. This is because the “weak” are not attempting a “status of righteousness before God” through the practices, but because they mistakenly felt that it was an expression of their response of faith to the grace of God. Seventh, the Old Testament law does not forbid the drinking of wine38 and so the mention of the abstinence of wine (Rom. 14:21) is hypothetical and does not indicate a characteristic of the “weak.” In light of this Jewish background, Cranfield regards that a good number of the “strong” are Gentiles, and the “weak” mostly, if not all, are Jews.39 Paul’s exhortation in Romans 14:1–15:6 is focused mostly on the “strong.” They have an “inescapable obligation” to help the “weak” who live without inner freedom.40 Then from Romans 15:1, Cranfield observes, Paul broadens his exhortation beyond the specific issues discussed in 14:1–23. Paul looks forward to the unity of the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome, and for this, he exhorts both groups to recognize and accept each other.41 Paul appeals to the “strong” that are the majority to accept the “weak” for “the sake of their Kinsman, the messiah of the Jews, who is the Gentile’s only true hope.”42 Cranfield is important for he regards the Jewish practices behind the differences between the groups. Furthermore, he regards Romans 14–15 as reflecting an intra-Christian situation.

6.  James D. G. Dunn James Dunn, a representative of the sociological approach, believes the main thrust of the letter proposes the priority of the Jews and the inclusion of the Gentiles. As such, in his commentary, Romans 9–16 (1988), Dunn mentions that

37 Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 696. 38 Except in the case of priests on duty in Leviticus 10:9 and to the Nazirites in Numbers 6:2f. 39 Cranfield, Romans, II: pp. 742, 747. 40 Cranfield, Romans, II: pp. 696, 730. 41 Cranfield, Romans, II: pp. 730–731, 739. 42 Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 747.

28

Paul redefines the boundaries of the people of God in the first 11 chapters of Romans. Having redefined the identity of the people of God, there is a need for an equivalent rule of life through the obedience of faith. Hence, Paul in Romans 12–15 brings out ways of living with reference to the characteristic and critical issues within the Christian congregations. In this sense, Dunn points out that Romans 12–15 naturally follows and constitutes a corollary to the overall arguments of Romans 1–11.43 Dunn argues that from Romans 12 Paul brings out some of the principal ethical guidelines for the corporate identity of the eschatological people of God. There is a shift in the understanding of the obedience of God, which is removed from the cultic context to fit into human relationships in their everyday life and in their commitment to and dependence on God (Rom. 12:1–2).44 Dunn notes that Paul turns to the social reality of the Christians in Rome on mutual relationships. The corporate identity of the eschatological people of God as the “body of Christ” replaces nationality and the ethnic Israel. The inheritance of promises thus has “communal and not merely individual expression” (12:3–8). The “body” imagery provides a counter model of social identity and it also serves as a model for the functioning within the wider society.45 Furthermore, Dunn elaborates on the practices of the “weak” in relation to the practices of the Jews in the diaspora. Some identity markers of the Jews, which Dunn brings to light, are: dietary restrictions, obedience and loyalty, Sabbath observance and feast days.46 Like Marxsen, Dunn observes that Paul is writing to a community whose Jewish members have returned after the edict of Claudius was rescinded (Suetonius, Claudius 25. 4; Acts 18:1–2). Hence, the issue of diet and special days would have been a very sensitive one for the Roman believers. The disagreements may be regarded as a particular expression of the issues concerning the incorporation of the Gentiles into the covenant. As a result, Paul attempts to maintain a balance between faith and freedom.47 Dunn observes that Paul has in mind the mutual acceptance among the Roman believers who continue to be divided by a different praxis (Rom. 14:3–6, 23).48 The call for mutual consideration picks up the theme of Romans 14:1–15:6, with Christ portrayed as a model to be followed (Rom. 15:7–8). Dunn considers the main purpose of Paul is to 43 James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16, WBC 38B (Dallas: WordBooks, 1988), p. 705. 44 Dunn, Romans 9–16, pp. 715–718. 45 Dunn, Romans 9–16, pp. 705, 732–735. 46 Dunn, Romans 9–16, pp. 804–806. 47 Dunn, Romans 9–16, pp. 835, 841–45. 48 Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 846.

29

emphasize the “twin themes” of Christ as guaranteeing God’s purpose to the circumcised and his faithfulness to the promises (Rom. 15:8), and through Christ, God made available the promises to the Gentiles (Rom. 15:9–12).49 Dunn’s contribution on why the issue of diet and days were crucial for the Roman Christian communities contribute to the study.

7.  Mark Reasoner Mark Reasoner, in his monograph, Strong and Weak. Romans 14:1–15:13 in Context (1999), sees Romans as being addressed to a real situation.50 The “strong” regarded the practices of the “weak,” i.e., abstinence of certain food and observance of special days, as superstitious. The differences in the practices of the “weak” and the “strong” could have given rise to two separate congregations, with each group composed of both Jewish and Gentile Christians. For this reason, Paul is said to be exhorting the Christians to welcome each other (Rom. 14:1; 15:7) and worship together (Rom. 15:6, 9–12).51 The solution Paul offers to the controversy between the “weak” and the “strong” is the ethic of obligation. Paul employed the Roman patronage system of social obligations to bring the two congregations together: the obligation to refrain from judging (Rom. 14:4) and the obligation for mutual acceptance (Rom. 15:7).52 Reasoner makes an insightful contribution of Paul’s solution to the controversy between Jewish and Gentile Christians, i.e., obligation. This will be further developed as one of the interpretive frameworks.

8.  James C. Miller In his book, The Obedience of Faith, the Eschatological People of God and the Purpose of Romans (2000), James Miller endeavors to establish his thesis that Paul’s purpose in writing Romans was to shape a “community of the new age” or an “eschatological people of God.”53 Miller defines a “community of the new age” as an “obedient, Spirit-led community characterized first and foremost by Jew and

49 Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 845. 50 He disagrees with scholars who regard that Paul is addressing a situation that is only hypothetical [i.e., Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 4th edn., trans. and ed. by G. W. Bromiley (1973, Reprint; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1980)]. Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, pp. 40–41. 51 Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, p. 219. 52 Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, pp. 175–199. 53 Miller, The Obedience of Faith, p. 17.

30

Gentile receiving one another just as Christ had received them (Rom. 15:7).”54 Miller poses two questions: 1) In what specific way did Paul want Romans to be “strengthened”? and 2) What particular “obedience” was intended to foster among Paul’s audience? In order to answer these questions, Miller in particular investigates Romans 15:7–13. The context of 15:7–13, according to Miller, is that the service of Christ to the Jews has implications for the Gentiles. Therefore, the citations in 15:9b–12 attest to Paul’s claim that the incorporation of the Gentiles into the worship of the eschatological people of God is God’s will and plan from the very beginning. The citations reinforce that what Moses, David and Isaiah looked forward to, is now being fulfilled in the deed of Christ in accepting all.55 Furthermore, Miller also points to the relationship of Romans 15:7–13 to the entire epistle. He agrees that the ties between Romans 15:7–13 and 14:1–15:6 are obvious, but in 15:7–13 Paul widens the scope to include the concerns from the entire epistle. Hence, Romans 15:7–13 can be regarded as a summary of Paul’s argument in Romans.56 Miller’s interpretation of Romans 15:7–13 has two implications. The first is that Paul’s concern is to form a community of the eschatological people of God. The second implication concerns a reading in the light of the first view. Romans 1–11 is not an “abstract, context-less theology,” for in these chapters Paul argues for eschatological realities that emphasize the faithfulness to the Jews, but also include the nations. Therefore, Romans 1–11 carries implications for a community’s life.57 Miller’s conclusion is, Romans was written in order that the members of the Christian community would “accept one another just as Christ accepted you, to the glory of God” (Rom. 15:7). And in obedience to what Christ has done for them, the “community of the new age” in Rome would further be strengthened.58 Miller’s contribution to the interpretation of Romans 15:7–13, especially on the eschatological notion, remains important.

9.  Philip Esler Philip Esler makes a noteworthy contribution to the current discussion about the purpose of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans in Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter (2003). He argues that in Romans there is an attempt

54 Miller, The Obedience of Faith, p. 18. 55 Miller, The Obedience of Faith, pp. 70–73. 56 Miller, The Obedience of Faith, pp. 78–89. 57 Miller, The Obedience of Faith, pp. 94–95. 58 Miller, The Obedience of Faith, p. 61.

31

to strengthen the social identity of the addressees as members of the Christmovement by stressing their supremacy over other identities. Esler’s work shows that Paul is attempting to honor the ethnic identities at play in Rome as well as to reinterpret them in a larger setting of a new identity in Christ. From the long history of Jews in Rome and also in Alexandria, Esler opposes the hypothesis of Mark Nanos that Christian believers still worshipped with the larger Jewish community in the synagogue.59 Instead, he asserts that the Christ-followers had already parted ways with the synagogues.60 Esler follows the recent interpreters in asserting that the situation in Rome involves group conflicts with regard to keeping the Jewish law, a movement with articulated beliefs and practices, whose animosity is expressed between its Judean and non-Judean members.61 According to Esler, the different groups with their initiative in creating and maintaining their distinct ethos and identity posed a problem in the Roman Christian communities, thus, giving rise to conflict and identity issues.62 Esler believes that within the social identity framework, Paul confronts the attitudes and behaviors of Christ-followers that promote superior attitudes without considering the other members in Romans 12.63 Esler finds a strong connection between Romans 14:1–15:13 and Romans 12–13. This connection according to him concerns the attitude and behavior, i.e., “norms” or “identity descriptors” in a social identity perspective that are appropriate for Christ-followers. Apart from the general connections, Esler specifically refers to ἀγάπη. As mentioned, this theme dominates in Romans 12–13 and is again highlighted in 14:15. Esler argues that the problems highlighted in Romans 14:1–15:13 have to do with the exercise or non-exercise of ἀγάπη that is dealt with at length in Romans 12–13.64 Esler asserts that ἀγάπη relates to the creation of the group in its cognitive, emotional and evaluative dimensions as well as to its “norms” or “identity-descriptors.”65 Paul sets out the substance of ἀγάπη in Romans 12:9–13:7 and concludes its relationship to the Mosaic Law in Romans 13:8–10, i.e., in practicing the noble ideal of love, a person has achieved the ideal of the Mosaic Law. In this sense, its 59 Mark D. Nanos, The Mystery of the Romans. The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. 60 Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, pp. 105–106. 61 Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, p. 101. Esler uses “Judean and non-Judean members” in reference to Jewish believers in Christ and Gentile believers in Christ. 62 Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, pp. 310–312. 63 Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, p. 311–313. 64 Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, pp. 339–340. 65 Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, p. 322.

32

relation to the Mosaic Law can be understood within the social identity framework.66 In Romans 12–13, Paul provides the “norms” or the “identity-descriptors” with which Christ-followers should abide. Through it, Paul hopes the relations between Judeans and non-Judeans can bring positive results within the Christ believing communities in Rome (Rom. 14:1–15:13). Esler interprets Romans 14:1–15:13 within this context of social identity.67 Like most interpreters, Esler also raises two questions with regard to Romans 14:1–15:13. The first concerns the situation that Paul is addressing, whether it is an actual problem or only refers to the general issues. The second concerns the identity of the “strong” and the “weak.” Esler stands with the common view that Paul is addressing an actual problem within the Christian communities.68 Esler goes on to identify the “weak” and the “strong” in Romans 14:1–15:13 as subgroups of Judeans and non-Judeans who were incorporated within the new identity “under God.” However, the “weak” and the “strong” does not represent a tidy split between Judeans and non-Judeans. The differing factor concerns their attitude toward the Mosaic Law.69 Thus, Esler provides a helpful analysis of the identity of Christ followers.

10.  Robert Jewett An important contribution to the study of Romans is Robert Jewett’s groundbreaking commentary, Romans: A Commentary (2007).70 The basic idea in this commentary is that Paul wanted to gain support from the Roman believers for his mission to the barbarians in Spain. For this, Paul wanted to clarify his gospel, which is impartial and is divine righteousness revealed in Christ. His interpretation of Romans is made in the context of honor and shame. He explains thus, “on the shameful cross, Christ overturned the honor system that dominated the Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds, resulting in discrimination and exploitation of barbarians as well as in poisoning the relations between the congregations in Rome.”71 Like many interpreters of Romans, Jewett finds the situational key to the letter in the tensions between Jews and Gentiles in the Roman Christ believing communities in Romans 14–15. However, unlike many, Jewett takes this context

66 Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, pp. 331–335. 67 Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, pp. 344–345. 68 Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, pp. 340–341. 69 Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, pp. 342–346. 70 Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007). 71 Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, p. 1.

33

into account in his reading of the earlier chapters in the epistle. Jewett underscores the concept of “respectful coexistence,”72 and this is especially seen in his interpretation of the group divisions in Romans 14–15. For Jewett, “If each group seeks constructively to encourage the development of integrity and maturity in other groups, rather than trying to force them to conform to a single viewpoint, the ethnic and theological diversity in Rome would no longer be divisive and destructive.”73 Jewett believes that in Romans 14–15, Paul intended to reverse the shameful status of the “weak.” Therefore, to welcome the “weak” into common meals or love feast was to treat them as brothers and sisters in Christ, who were also beneficiaries of God’s grace. Paul’s admonition in the “eating scale” of the “weak” and the “strong” is to primarily remove the culturally-formed habit of shaming “non conformists.”74 Jewett sees the call for acceptance in 15:7–13 in the context of worship, but he goes further to suggest that it specifically refers to a community meal. The division between the “weak” and the “strong” can be overcome only by sharing in the sacramental love feasts, which recall Christ’s sacrificial deed, which includes both the insiders and outsiders. This deed of Christ provides the foundation of an “ethic of inclusivity.”75

11.  Francis Watson Francis Watson, in his monograph, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles. Beyond the New Perspective (2007), reads Romans in the light of a sociological perspective. He relates the content of Romans to the purpose of the text. He argues that Romans presupposes a specific social situation within the Roman community of Christ believers.76 The historical setting of Romans is determined by the Claudian expulsion. Having combined the reports by Dio with Suetonius, Luke and Orosius, Watson concludes that Claudius banned Jewish meetings in Rome in AD 41, but with constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, Claudius expelled the Roman Jews in AD 49.77 He refutes R. J. Karris who argues that an attempt to identify the “weak” and the “strong” has had no fruitful outcome. Instead, Watson argues that Romans 14:1–15:13 is not a general parenesis, but gives

72 Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, p. 86. 73 Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, p. 879. 74 Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, p. 836–838. 75 Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, pp. 888–890. 76 Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles. Beyond the New Perspective, Revised and expanded edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2007), p. 165. 77 Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, pp. 167–171.

34

evidence of the situation in the Roman church as understood by Paul. Watson identifies the two groups as Jewish believers in Christ and Gentile believers in Christ, but not in its strict sense.78 Furthermore, in considering the emphasis primarily on diet (Rom. 14:5–6a, 17, 21), Watson concludes that Paul has in mind communal meals over table fellowship that is associated with the common worship (also Jewett). To this, Paul appeals in Romans 15:5–13. The problem over meal fellowship and worship had resulted in ideological differences between the two groups. In fact, if both sides make concessions, then it can further the development of a “single, united Roman Christian community,” a community in which both the Jews and the Gentiles are recognized. According to Watson, such an interpretation of Romans 14:1–15:13 helps in identifying the addressees and Paul’s reason for writing the epistle.79 Apart from the community of Jews and Gentiles in the Roman Christian communities, Watson also suggests a further dimension to the situation in Rome presumed in the epistle, that is, the relationship between the Christian communities and the synagogues in Rome. The Jewish believers in Christ table fellowship with the Gentiles can be considered a sign of apostasy, in that it alienated them from the wider Jewish community. Therefore, according to Watson, the reorientation of the Roman Christian community that Paul calls for in Romans 14–15 has implications for the community’s relationship to the synagogues in Rome. The reorientation involves common worship and table fellowship within the Roman Christian communities, thus distancing it further from the wider Roman Jewish community and embracing a common Christian identity. Nevertheless, this redefinition of a common identity does not demand that the Jewish believers give up their practices. Still, even if they continue to practice traditional Jewish observances such as diet and days, they are not to make it obligatory for the Gentile Christians.80

12.  A. Andrew Das The work of A. Andrew Das, Solving the Romans Debate (2007), is another contribution to the debate about the setting of Romans. He develops the hypothesis that provides a thorough defence for the Gentile audience.81 He offers an 78 Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, p. 175. 79 Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, p. 177. 80 He suggests that the exhortation to common worship in Romans 15:5–13 also involves an appeal for a mixed table fellowship (Rom. 14:1–15:4), such as was practiced in the church of Antioch (Gal. 2:12). Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, pp. 180–181. 81 The thesis of an entirely Gentile audience is also demonstrated by Stanley Stowers, A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press,

35

interesting proposal that Paul here is exhorting two groups of Gentiles, those formerly attached to the synagogues and those who had never been a part of the synagogue practices.82 In line with James Dunn, he interprets Romans within the setting of the Claudian edict and agrees with other scholars that the edict did not result in the expulsion of all the Jews.83 However, in his interpretation of the situation of the Gentile Christians, Das provides a fresh approach. He contends that the early Gentile Christians were Gentile God-fearers, who found the Jewish Scripture and customs attractive.84 Thus, after the expulsion of the Jews, the God-fearers separated themselves from the synagogues, but continued to observe Jewish practices like food laws. When these Gentiles who did not have access to synagogue practices joined the Christian communities, disputes arose. Das argues that the controversies over Jewish practices are reflected in the address of the “weak” and the “strong” in Romans 14–15. Based on this, Das avers that the audience addressed by Paul are Gentile. This applies also especially to Romans 14–15, where Das presents a meticulous argument that both groups addressed are Gentiles.85 Das further points out that the observance of Jewish customs in Romans 14:1–15:13 does not necessarily mean that the audience is Jewish. The “Godfearers” by definition would observe some Jewish customs, such as the food laws and the observance of special days.86 Specifically, Romans 15:9b–11 and 15:12–13 emphasize the Gentiles: their praising God and their hope. Das argues that in 15:8–9a it is best to treat the infinitives δοξάσαι and βεβαιῶσαι in relation to the purpose clauses governed by εἰς τό (v. 8). Such a syntactical analysis places particular emphasis on the Gentiles as God’s fulfilment of the promises to Israel and

1994). However, Stowers was not the first to propose for a Gentile audience, it was Neil Elliott, The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism, JSNTSup 45 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990; Fortress Press edition, 2006). Elliott, unlike Stowers, does not stress on the non-Jewish, Greco-Roman background. He argued rather on the lives of obedience for the Gentiles, for that would guarantee the sanctity of the offering collected for Jerusalem from the Gentile churches (Elliott, pp. 93–94). 82 A. Andrew Das, Solving the Romans Debate (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), pp. 6–7, 25–26, 70. See also A. Andrew Das, “‘Praise the Lord, All you Gentiles’: The Encoded Audience of Romans 15.7–13,” JSNT, 34/1 (Sept 2011). 83 Das, Solving the Romans Debate, pp. 162–166. 84 Das, Solving the Romans Debate, p. 70. 85 Das, Solving the Romans Debate, pp. 7, 106–114. 86 Das, Solving the Romans Debate, p. 111.

36

on the Gentiles glorification of God.87 According to Das, the scriptural citations that focus on the Gentiles further support the argument.88

C.  Treatments of Romans 15:7–13 Thus far, we have looked at the scholarly treatments of Romans, especially chapters 12–15, as this wider setting will have an impact on our interpretation of the text. We now turn to the treatment of scholarship on Romans 15:7–13, as this is our primary text. Only in recent years do we find a few scholars placing emphasis on Romans 15:7–13, which for long has been simply regarded as a summary of Romans 14:1–15:6.

1.  Leander E. Keck Leander Keck, in his essay, “Christology, Soteriology, and the Praise of God (Romans 15:7–13)” (1990), regards the rationale and content of Romans 15:7–13 as a climax to the theological and ethical core of the epistle.89 Keck concentrates on two areas highlighted in the text. The first concerns Paul’s exhortation to the “weak” and the “strong.” He indicates that the identity of the “weak” and the “strong” continues to be debated. Nevertheless, he falls in line with scholars who view that the “weak” are predominantly law-observant Jewish Christians and the “strong” are Gentile Christians, whose ethos are based on freedom from the law. According to Keck, this view has greater cogency because the Jew-Gentile theme runs throughout the epistle and it also dominates in Romans 15:7–13, especially in 15:8–12. However, for Keck, this identification is not the main concern, rather it is the exhortation of Paul, which emphasizes the unity in Christ and their united praise of God (Rom. 15:6).90 Keck points out that Romans 15:7–13 expands the unity indicated in 15:6, which calls for “a local instance of God’s saving purpose in Christ – the eschatological unity of all people, concretely Jew and Gentile.” This theme of unity, reflected throughout the epistle, is supported from the Scripture that God had promised the gospel for all humanity.91 87 Das, Solving the Romans Debate, p. 96. 88 Das, Solving the Romans Debate, p. 98. 89 Leander E. Keck, “Christology, Soteriology, and the Praise of God (Romans 15:7–13),” The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John. In Honor of J. Louis Martyn, eds. Robert T. Fortna & Beverly R. Gaventa (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990), p. 85. 90 Keck, “Christology, Soteriology, and the Praise of God (Romans 15:7–13),” pp. 86–87. 91 Keck, “Christology, Soteriology, and the Praise of God (Romans 15:7–13),” pp. 93–94.

37

The second concerns the theme of a universal praise of God. This universal praise, for Keck, is more than a rhetorical flourish. It is the “actual material soteriological alternative to the root problem of humanity: not giving praise to God or honouring God.” This problem can be overcome when the Gentiles join the people of God and glorify God, as a result of Christ’s glorification of God.92 This short essay provides a helpful contribution to the theme of the “praise of God.”

2.  J. Ross Wagner Ross Wagner, in his essay, “The Christ, Servant of the Jew and the Gentile: A Fresh Approach to Romans 15:8–9” (1997), notes that Romans 15:7–13 is a crucial text in Romans, for it concludes the exhortations of Romans 12:1–15:6, as well as sums up the themes of the epistle as a whole.93 Wagner’s brief analysis of the context of Romans 15:7–13 focuses mainly on the action of Christ. He remarks that Paul attempts to epitomize the ministry of Christ to both the Jews and the Gentiles. Paul supports his stand in Romans 15:9b–12 by summoning the Torah, Prophets and Psalms as witnesses to the messiah’s ministry in creating a community of Jews and Gentiles, who would glorify God together.94 In particular, Wagner takes up the syntax of Romans 15:8–9a and points to its difficulty.95 Nonetheless, he evaluates the previous solutions and highlights their strengths and weaknesses, before presenting a fresh proposal.96 His solution depicts Christ as the servant of circumcision on behalf of God’s truthfulness. This is to confirm the promises to the fathers on the one hand, and on the other hand, to be a servant to the Gentiles on behalf of God’s mercy in order to glorify God. Wagner’s proposal will be discussed at length in chapter four of this study, which provides a syntactical and semantic analysis of the text in question.

92 Keck, “Christology, Soteriology, and the Praise of God (Romans 15:7–13),” p. 94. 93 For reference to the links that tie this passage to other parts of the letter, refer to Ross Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of the Jew and the Gentile: A Fresh Approach to Romans 15:8–9,” JBL 116/3 (1997), p. 472. 94 Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of the Jew and the Gentile,” p. 475. 95 Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of the Jew and the Gentile,” p. 474. 96 Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of the Jew and the Gentile,” pp. 476–481. His solution takes τὸν Χριστόν as the subject of the infinitive, with τὰ ἔθνη functioning as the accusative of respect, modifying the verbal phrase διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι in parallel to περιτομῆς.

38

3.  Scott Hafemann Scott Hafemann, in his essay, “Eschatology and Ethics. The Future of Israel and the Nations in Romans 15:1–13” (2000), shares the view of Wagner that Romans 15:7–13 is the “climax of the entire epistle.” He rightly observes that scholarship has often overlooked Romans 15:7–13, probably because of the location of this text within the “merely” hortatory section of Romans. Hafemann points to the importance of looking at the scriptural citations in Romans 15:1–13 (vv. 1–3, 9–12) within its canonical context. Such a setting would provide a better window to Paul’s eschatology. He observes that the citations are the base for Paul’s eschatology, where the future redemption of Israel and the judgment of the nations are the hope of the church and its ethic of mutual acceptance.97 Hafemann argues that Paul’s exhortation in Romans 15:1–3 is not merely to “act like Christ.” Rather, it is linked to the dictum in Romans 15:4, which explicates Paul’s use of Scripture. The dictum of Romans 15:4 makes explicit Paul’s rationale for the shift from Scripture to Christology and then to Christian ethics in Romans 15:1–3. In this case, the citation from Psalms 68:10 LXX (Rom. 15:3) points to the believer’s need to learn from the experiences of the psalmist (Rom. 15:3b), which is now replayed in Christ’s own deed as a “pathway to hope” (Rom. 15:3a).98 Hafemann believes that Paul argues eschatologically for his ethics, and by doing so transforms the Roman cultural value of obligation theocentrically.99 Furthermore, Hafemann goes on to show how Paul’s argument from eschatology in Romans 15:1–6 is recapitulated in Romans 15:7–13. He notes that Paul shifts from an admonition to Christology and then to scriptural emphasis and finally ending with a prayer. In considering these parallels, Hafemann suggests that the obligation directed to the “weak” and the “strong” in Romans 15:2 is broadened to include both the “weak” and the “strong” in 15:7.100 Hafemann points out that Paul carefully combined and positioned the citations in Romans 15:9b–13. He asserts that they form a chiasm, with the two outer indicatives dealing with David’s seed that relates to the past and the future. The outer indicatives support the two inner imperatives directed to the Gentiles in the present. All four citations point to the ministry of Christ to Israel for the sake of the Gentiles. The arguments from the citations in Romans 15:9b–12 thus unpacks the ministry of 97

Scott Hafemann, “Eschatology and Ethics. The Future of Israel and the Nations in Romans 15:1–13,” Tyndale Bulletin, 51/2 (2000), p. 161. 98 Hafemann, “Eschatology and Ethics,” pp. 165–167. 99 Hafemann, “Eschatology and Ethics,” p. 168. 100 Hafemann, “Eschatology and Ethics,” p. 168.

39

Christ in Romans 15:8–9a, which in turn supports Christ’s acceptance of all in Romans 15:7. Therefore, the Roman believers are exhorted to accept one another, for in doing so they live out “proleptically Christ’s eschatological acceptance” of both groups for God’s glory.101 Hafemann’s short essay contributes to understanding the use of citations in this text by analyzing the citations within their literary context and connecting them to Paul’s context.

4.  Carl N. Toney Carl Toney, in his monograph, Paul’s Inclusive Ethic. Resolving Community Conflicts and Promoting Mission in Romans 14–15 (2008), analyses in detail Romans 15:7–13. He notes that one of the functions of Romans 15:7–13 is that it serves as a conclusion for Romans 14:1–15:13.102 Yet, at the same time, there is a shift in Paul’s arguments with transitions into new materials, where he broadens his argument. This is seen in a number of ways. First, Romans 15:7–9a moves beyond the immediate situation to the broader deed of Christ in saving the Jews and the Gentiles. Second, in Romans 15:9b–12, Paul strengthens his appeal with a catena of citations, which concerns the salvation of the Jews and the Gentiles. Third, Romans 15:13 emphasizes the final hope by relating the citations back to the Roman situation, with a final benediction of joy and peace through the empowering of the Holy Spirit. Fourth, Paul broadens his appeal by treating Romans 15:7–13 as a conclusion for Romans 14:1–15:6, as well as for Romans 1:16–15:6.103 Toney points out that whenever the “weak” are included in Paul’s exhortation, they are intended as a rhetorical device in order to persuade the “strong.” Paul’s logic is that the “strong” are to accept the “weak” because the “weak” are supposed to be welcoming the “strong.” Toney suggests that it is “the principle of reciprocity” that Paul is taking up.104 He argues that Paul here is not confining his discussion to Jewish Christians alone but also includes ethnic Jews as well. This is supported by the phrase “the servant of the circumcised.”105 Such acceptance on the part of the “strong” would benefit the entire community, and at the same time,

101 Hafemann, “Eschatology and Ethics,” pp. 187–188. 102 This is supported by the use of the inferential participle “therefore” (διό) in Romans 15:7. Apart from it, Paul’s exhortation to “welcome” (προσλαμβάνεσθε) connects Romans 15:7 with 14:1–3. We also find similar pattern of material in Romans 15:16 and 15:7–12 and a benediction in 15:13. Toney, Paul’s Inclusive Ethic, p. 104. 103 Toney, Paul’s inclusive ethic, p. 105. 104 Toney, Paul’s inclusive ethic, p. 106. 105 15:8, Toney’s translation.

40

be able to maintain a significant level of contact with the unbelieving Jews.106 Toney also observes that Paul, in Romans 15:8, maintains a Jewish focus and priority by referring to the “circumcision,” “promises,” “faithfulness” and “fathers.”107

5.  Joshua Garroway Like Andrew Das, Joshua Garroway, in his essay, “The Circumcision of Christ: Romans 15:7–13” (2012), takes Romans 15:7–13 as specifically addressed to the Gentiles. The main issue for Garroway lies with the interpretation of διάκονος περιτομῆς. Garroway proposes that Paul is not calling Christ a “servant to the circumcised,” but rather an “agent of circumcision,” i.e., a facilitator of circumcision, like a mohel.108 If Christ were a “servant to the Jews,” then he would hardly confirm any promises to the fathers, so reading Christ as an “agent of circumcision,” makes better sense.109 For by becoming an “agent of circumcision,” Christ confirms God’s promises to the fathers that Gentiles through faith would be included in the covenant. This reading of Romans 15:8 fits between Romans 15:7 and 15:9 contextually as well as grammatically. Even the catena of scriptural citations contributes to the understanding that Gentile inclusion is at the centre of Paul’s exhortation in Romans 15:7–13.110 This becomes clear if the intended audience are Gentiles. Hence, Garroway regards Paul’s message in Romans 15:7–13 as being directed to Gentiles, to put aside their differences and to welcome one another. For Christ welcomed them to the glory of God by becoming an “agent of circumcision,” as one who facilitates the incorporation of the Gentiles into the covenant promise.111 Garroway’s case may not have convinced many scholars, but his interpretation of περιτομῆς provides insights and deserves further discussion, which I will take up in a later chapter.

106 Toney, Paul’s inclusive ethic, pp. 107–09. 107 Toney, Paul’s inclusive ethic, pp. 108–109. The theme of Jewish priority is also supported by James Dunn and others. 108 Mohel is a Hebrew word referring to someone who performs the rite of circumcision in a Jewish context. 109 Joshua D. Garroway, “The Circumcision of Christ: Romans 15:7–13,” JSNT 34/4 (June 2012), pp. 307–308. 110 Garroway, “The Circumcision of Christ,’” p. 309. 111 Garroway, “The Circumcision of Christ,’” p. 307.

41

III.  Concluding Remarks From the preceding survey the following provisional conclusions can be drawn: The first is the methodological consideration. The history of scholarship has shown a variety of positions in the study of Romans. We find two opposing viewpoints that directly concern this research: the position that Romans is a general epistle written out of Paul’s experience in Corinth and the position that the epistle to the Romans is directed to a concrete situation in Rome. The second concerns the substance, that is, the issues over Jewish practices. Some interpreters identified the “weak” and the “strong” as Jews and Gentiles who disagreed over the issues concerning Jewish practices. However, a few scholars like Andrew Das and Joshua Garroway argue for a Gentile audience. Their disagreements notwithstanding, these scholars agree that the issue concerns the Jewish practices. Third, as mentioned, a few scholars have focused either on the syntax or a particular theme in Romans 15:7–13. Wagner in his essay takes up the syntax in Romans 15:8–9a by analyzing the previous solutions proposed by scholars and provides a fresh proposal. Hafemann points to the importance of the theme of praise, soteriology and eschatology in Romans 15:1–13, while Garroway takes up the phrase διάκονος περιτομῆς and presents Christ as the “agent of circumcision.” However, we do not find works addressing the “acceptance motif ” by bringing together the historical and the ecclesial contexts, as well as by considering the syntax, the semantics and the citations in Romans 15:7–13. This study hopes to fill this gap. The present study therefore will address the issues in Romans 15:7–13, with the aim of bringing out the acceptance motif. Hence, five areas will be considered. First, we will situate Romans within the historical context. Second, we will situate the text within the argument of the epistle as a whole. Third, we will analyze Paul’s use of the syntax and semantics in Romans 15:8–9a. Fourth, we will examine the catena of citations and look into the function of Scripture in this pericope. Fifth, this study will construct an interpretive framework for the acceptance motif.

42

Chapter Two: Romans and its Historical Context I. Introduction Hypotheses relating to the occasion and purpose of Paul’s letter to the Romans has received much scholarly attention. Questions abound, such as whether Paul in Romans summarizes Christian doctrine in general; or whether he attempts to justify his stand in relation to conflicts in the east; or was Paul addressing a real situation; or was it to pave the way for his mission to Spain. As indicated in chapter one, there are scholars who attempt to read Romans against the backdrop of Paul’s other letters, especially 1Corinthians. In contrast, other scholars construe Romans as addressing an actual situation faced by the believers in Rome. This view became popular with the onset of the so-called “sociological approach.” Scholars taking this approach argue that Paul is addressing a real situation in the Epistle to the Romans and not writing a general theological treatise. Willi Marxsen, one of the earliest proponents of this interpretation, reconstructs the issue in Romans 14:1–15:13 in the light of the Mosaic Law, while taking into account the Claudian edict of AD 49.112 Marxsen suggests both Claudius 25.4 and Acts 18:1–2 support the historicity of the edict. He argues that after the edict had lapsed, the expelled Jewish believers in Christ, on returning insisted on keeping the Mosaic Law, while the Gentile believers in Christ emphasized freedom. This, then, is the situation Paul is handling in Romans and it is not a restatement of the problem in 1Corinthians 8–10.113 While Marxsen rightly interprets Romans within the historical context of the Claudian edict of AD 49, and not as a restatement of the problem in 1Corinthians 8–10, he fails to further develop this insight. This study takes the position that Paul is addressing a real situation. In this light, we will examine the Claudian edict as the historical setting for interpreting Romans, especially within the context of the acceptance motif in Romans 15:7–13. Hence, it is important to discuss the Claudian edict at length as this contributes to our understanding of the divisions and differences in the Roman Christ believing communities after the return of the expelled Jews and believers in Christ. Thus, the present chapter considers possible evidence from the writings 112 Marxsen, Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 96–102. 113 Marxsen, Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 98–100.

43

of Greek and Roman historians for the historical context. It also attempts to show how Romans 14–15 fits this historical context. However, before analyzing the Claudian edict as reported by Suetonius, we will briefly examine the relationship between the Jewish community and the believers in Christ,114 since it is generally accepted that the earliest believers in Christ in Rome were members of the synagogue or the Jewish community. This connection is important especially in understanding the impact of the edict of Claudius: the edict was implemented in the context of a community comprising both the Jews and the believers in Christ.

II.  Roman Jews and Believers in Christ The historical report by Suetonius provides information regarding the hypothesis that the Roman believers did not only originate from the larger Roman Jewish community, but also maintained a significant continuity of practice with the Jews in the synagogue. In this section, we will briefly examine the earliest Jewish community and the believers in Christ in Rome.

A.  Jewish Community in Rome Historical reports inform us that the Jewish alliance with Rome goes back to the middle of the second century BC.115 Judas Maccabeus, in an attempt to save the Maccabean state from the threat posed by the Seleucid Empire,116 established an alliance with Rome (1Maccabees 8:17–23), an alliance that was renewed under Jonathan in 143 BC (1Maccabees 12:1–16). In fact, in the last formal alliance, Simon Maccabaeus sent delegates to Rome with a large gold shield to confirm the alliance with the Romans (1Maccabees 14:24; 15:15–24). One can question the

114 It is beyond the scope of this study to give an elaborate picture of the Jewish and Christ believing communities in the first century Rome. 115 For a detailed discussion on the origin of Jewish community in Rome, see Harry Joshua Leon, The Jews of the Ancient Rome, Updated edition (1960, 1967, Peabody: Hendrickson publishers, 1995), pp. 1–45. Also, Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. & ed. by Giza Vermes & Fergus Millar 3 vols. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1973–1987), III.1: pp. 73–81; Wolfgang Wiefel, “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity,” The Romans Debate, Revised and Expanded Edition, pp. 86–92. 116 The Seleucid forces had already penetrated into the Jewish territory of Arka and Bethzur (Jonathan A. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible 41 (NY: Doubleday, 1976), p. 362).

44

motive of Simon in his gifts, especially when his predecessors did not appear to have used such means. Was it simply to confirm the alliance? Or were there other reasons? To be sure, there are instances of reciprocal gift-giving between Jews and Seleucids in 1Maccabees. For example, the Hasmoneans in the beginning did not submit to such means, but in later years, they were forging such contacts. The rejection of the gift by Mattathias and his sons from the Seleucid authority resulted in a clash with the Seleucids, as this amounted to being an insult to the Seleucid king.117 After Mattathias rejected the gift, the Seleucids offered no further gifts to the Jewish leaders. In the beginning, the Hasmonean brothers were careful not to send or receive gifts. This attitude was changed at the later period, especially in the last years of Jonathan118 and the rule of Simon, where the issue of gifting became an important factor in Hasmonean policies. In order to expand his ties, Jonathan entered into a network of gift-giving and its reciprocity during the latter half of his rule. This was because, exchange of gifts accompanied by flattering words was part of the diplomatic relationship of the period.119 Unfortunately, both Jonathan and Simon became victims through the act of gifting by others (1Maccabees 15–16). 117 Doron Mendels, “Was the Rejection of Gifts one of the Reasons for the Outbreak of the Maccabean Revolt? A Preliminary Note on the Role of Gifting in the Book of 1 Maccabees,” JSP 20/4 (2011), pp. 247–248. 118 After the death of Mattathias when Jonathan took up the leadership, Alexander, a claimant to the Seleucid throne, offers to help the Jews without any gifts, only by appointing Jonathan as high priest and assigning him the status of “friend of the king” (1Maccabees 10). He sent Jonathan the purple robe and a gold crown meant for the high priest, signifying his new status in the Seleucid court (1Maccabees 10:20). In response to this act of Alexander, Demetrius decided to make Jonathan his ally. He offered gifts and words of flattery to Jonathan, which was refused by Jonathan and his men for Demetrius had done great harm to Israel (1Maccabees 10:22–47). However, the act of gifting takes a new step during latter years of the rule of Jonathan in an alliance with the king of Ptolemy and Alexander (1Maccabees 10:59–60). On one occasion when Demetrius II asked Jonathan to discontinue the besieging of citadel, Jonathan asked the workers to continue and he went personally to meet the king. Jonathan visits Demetrius II, the king at Ptolemias with gifts of silver, gold and clothing and other friendly gifts to find favor in his sight (1Maccabees 11:22–29). So also Antiochus IV reconfirms the high priesthood of Jonathan, grants him concession in four provinces, and regards him as king’s friends. He also sends Jonathan a gold plate, service and permits him to drink from gold goblets, to dress in purple and wear a gold clasp (1Maccabees 11:57–58). 119 Mendels, “Was the Rejection of Gifts one of the Reasons for the Outbreak of the Maccabean Revolt?” pp. 252–253.

45

The Maccabean literature gives no indication of Jewish settlers in Rome. We are only informed of the embassy sent to establish the alliance. However, there is also the belief that Judaism entered Rome from Palestine. Peter Lampe locates the Jewish inhabitants not only at the Trans-Tiber area, but also along the Appian Way.120 From the writings of the historians,121 we are informed that the Jews lived in Puteoli since the time of the Roman emperor, Augustus. Puteoli and Rome were considered the earliest known Jewish settlements in Italy.122 The two cities had a special connection, as in the first half of the first century the Appian Way was regarded as the main trade route between the east and the city of Rome. In this regard, Lampe writes, “that Judaism and Christianity made their way to Rome through Puteoli … and Italy’s gateway to the orient was typical of the entrance of eastern religions into the world’s capital city.”123 It is, therefore, justifiable to say that Judaism entered from Palestine via Puteoli to Rome.124 Furthermore, the information from Valerius Maximus, a Latin writer during the reign of Tiberius (AD 14–37) who authored a collection of historical anecdotes, indicates that the Jewish community in Rome existed as early as 139 BC. It reports the expulsion of Jews from Rome by Gnaeus Cornelius Hispalus.125 Philo also reports that with the Roman conquest of Pompey, Jews were taken as slaves. Most of these Jews lived in the Trans-Tiber area. These slaves were later freed and became Roman citizens, although they were careful to preserve their

120 Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians in Rome in the First Two Centuries, trans., Michael Steinhauser, ed., Marshall D. Johnson (1989, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), pp. 38–40. 121 Josephus, Bell. 2. 104; Jewish Antiquity. XVII. 328; Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius (Legatio ad Gaium). 155. See also, Acts 28:13–15. 122 See Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, trans., Michael Steinhauser, ed., Marshall D. Johnson (1989 Reprint; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), p. 91; Edwin K. Broadhead, Jewish ways of following Jesus: Redrawing the Religious Map of Antiquity, WUNT 266 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), p. 103. 123 Peter Lampe assumes that Christian faith set its foot in Rome through trade (From Paul to Valentinus, pp. 9–10). 124 Broadhead, Jewish ways of following Jesus, p. 103. 125 Factorum et dictorum memorabilium 1.3.3 [Refer to Leon, The Jews of the Ancient Rome, pp. 2–3]. Thomas H. Tobin assumes that the Jews living in Rome would have been sojourners and merchants and not permanent residents or Roman citizens since the decree came from praetor peregrines, who dealt with lawsuits when either or both parties were foreigners [Paul’s Rhetoric in its Contexts. The Argument of Romans (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), pp. 17–18].

46

Jewish citizenship as well.126 Philo writes, “They were liberated by their owners and were not forced to violate any of their native institutions… nor took any violent measures against the houses of prayer, nor prevented them from meeting to receive instructions in the laws, nor opposed their offering of their first fruits.”127 There are other reports from the historians that enlighten us on the social location of the Jewish people within the Roman Empire. The Jews until mid 40 BC were exempted from the decree issued by Julius Caesar to dissolve all collegia. They were allowed to retain their ancestral practices including their gatherings because of an “ancient foundation.”128 Philo reports the favorable treatment toward the Jews in Rome by Augustus.129 Augustus was responsible for “shaping the political situation of the Diaspora synagogues,”130 whereas, under Tiberius and Caligula, we are informed of a strained relationship between the Jews in Rome and the imperial household.131 Josephus reports that during the reign of

126 Refer Broadhead, Jewish ways of following Jesus, p. 101. 127 Philo, The Embassy to Gaius 155, 157. Josephus gives a similar picture in his mention of the Jewish captives as slaves (Jewish Antiquities 14.77; The Jewish War 1.155). 128 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 14.214–215; Suetonius Julius Caesar 42.3. 129 Philo The Embassy to Gaius 40. 311–313. Philo also mentions that the Jews were not deprived if the monthly distribution of food happened to come during the Sabbath (23. 158). This indicates quite a number of poor Jews who were Roman citizens, for this monthly distribution was reserved only for poor people (see Leon, The Jews of the Ancient Rome, 11; E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews Under the Roman Rule. From Pompey to Diocletian. A Study in the Political Relations (Boston/Leiden: BRILL, 2001), pp. 136–137). 130 Peter Richardson, “Augustan – Era Synagogues in Rome,” Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome, eds. Karl P. Donfried & Peter Richardson (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1998), p. 17. 131 Cornelius Tacitus, reports “There was a debate too about expelling the Egyptian and Jewish worship, and a resolution of the Senate was passed that four thousand of the freedmen class who were infected with those superstitions and were of military age should be transported to the island of Sardinia, to quell the brigandage of the place, a cheap sacrifice should they die from the pestilential climate. The rest were to quit Italy, unless before a certain day they repudiated their impious rites” (The Annals 2.85). http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078 %3Abook%3D2%3Achapter%3D85 (Accessed on December 10, 2013). Suetonius also reports the expulsion under Tiberius (Suetonius, Tiberius 36). However, Philo indicates that Tiberius after the death of Sejanus reaffirmed the rights of Jews and was more favorable towards them, for Tiberius knew “the accusations made against the Jewish inhabitants of Rome were false slanders” (The Embassy to Gaius 24.159–161). Josephus informs us of the order of Gaius to erect his statue in the temple. Petronius

47

Claudius, the Jews regained all the former privileges banned by Gaius and he advised both groups (Jews and Jewish believers in Christ) not to cause any disturbances within the empire.132 Dio Cassius reports that the numerical strength of the Jews in Rome had greatly multiplied and that by AD 41, Claudius saw it necessary to stop the Jews from assembling.133 The report by Suetonius shows that Claudius expelled the Jews who constantly made disturbances.134 Orosius quotes Suetonius on Claudius and declares that Josephus mentions an expulsion around AD 49.135 Finally, there is a reference in Acts to a couple who travelled to Corinth “because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome” (Acts 18:2). While we find discrepancies over the reports by historians, especially during the reign of Claudius, this does not mean the reports are to be dismissed altogether. Furthermore, there are other aspects of the first century Roman Jewish community that contribute to our understanding of the Christ believing communities in Rome. As noted above, the Jewish inhabitants in Rome were not confined to a particular area, but were scattered in the Trans-Tiber area as well as along the Appian Way. This suggests that a number of Jewish associations in Rome were functioning independently with no centralized governance, making it more vulnerable to preventive and prohibitive measures. Hence, one can assume that independent synagogues existed in Rome.136 Roman authorities in the first century brings this order in AD 40, but in the course of his encounter and interaction with the Jews, Petronius was astonished and took pity at the incomparable devotion of the Jews to their religion with no fear of death. Hence, he makes an appeal to Gaius to revoke his order, but Gaius threatened to put Petronius to death (The Jewish war 2. 184–203). 132 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 19.285.2. 133 Dio Cassius, Roman History 60.6.6. 134 Suetonius, Claudius 25.4. 135 Orosius in Adversus Paganos 7.6.15–16 [For the text of Orosius refer to Rainer Riesner, Paul’s Early Period. Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology, trans. Doug Stott (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998), p. 181]. 136 Also, Leon, The Jews of the Ancient Rome, pp. 167–170; James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, WBC 38A (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), p. li. This is also supported by Thomas H. Tobin who argues that the Roman Jewish community was an independent voluntary association or more likely associations, which was also an integral part of the Greek and Roman culture [Paul’s Rhetoric in its Contexts, pp. 21–22]. Josephus reports, Gaius Caesar “…forbade religious societies to assemble in the city, but these people (refers to Jews) alone he did not forbid to do so or to collect contributions of money or to hold common meals. Similarly I forbid other religious societies, but permit these people alone to assemble and feast in accordance with their native customs and ordinances” (Jewish Antiquities 14.215–216). In Suetonius it reads, “He dissolved

48

AD, considered synagogues as collegia, but their position were higher than that of the other collegia. This was visible during the reign of Julius Caesar who prohibited all collegia empire-wide from being formed, with the exception of those with the “ancient foundation.”137 This exemption applied to Judaism. Hence, the synagogues of the Jews were not destroyed.138 The synagogues comprised not only Jews, but also Gentile sympathizers who practiced the Jewish way of life. In the synagogue, there was also another group called the sebomenoi, the God-fearers. They were Gentiles, but practiced the Jewish ways of life. They attended the synagogue but were passive participants. Jacob Taubes argues that Paul’s first Gentile converts were originally from the sebomenoi and it is only later that the other Gentiles joined in.139 Luke in Acts reports a similar picture of the synagogue: inside the synagogue sat the proselytes (Acts 13:43), Greeks (Acts 14:1b; 18:4) and God-fearers (Acts 17:17). A number of Roman writers mention the Jewish influence on the non-Jews of Rome. Nevertheless, the question is if there was a missionary activity or were the non-Jews on their own initiative attracted to the Jewish ways of life. Some point all the guilds (Latin text- collegia), except those of ancient foundation” (Julius Caesar 42.3). Cassius Dio also reports that Claudius wanted to control the growth of the Jewish community and so he suppressed their meetings (Roman History 60.6.6). Peter Lampe points that Jews were predominantly in Transtevere and the Port Capena on the Appian Way, yet Synagogues existed in other parts as well-on the Mars Field, between the Port Collina and the Port Esquiliana and the business Quarter of Subura (From Paul to Valentinus, pp. 38–40). Wiefel also mentions that many Synagogues were set up in Rome, for ten men capable of worship could sufficiently constitute a Synagogue. He brings examples of different Synagogues present in Rome (“The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity,” pp. 89–90). 137 Suetonius, Julius Caesar 42.3; Also, Richardson, “Augustan – Era Synagogues in Rome,” 17–18. 138 In Jewish Antiquities XIV. 185–216, Josephus cites Roman decrees favorable to the Jews. Philo also reports such attitude toward the Jews, “He (Augustus) ordered that the Jews alone should be permitted by them to assemble in synagogues. These gatherings, he said, were not based on drunkenness and carousing to promote conspiracy and so to do grave injury to the cause of peace, but were schools of temperance and justice where men while practicing virtue subscribed the annual first fruits to pay for the sacrifices, which they offer and commissioned sacred envoys to take them to the temple in Jerusalem… no one should hinder the Jews from meeting or subscribing or sending envoys to Jerusalem according to their ancestral practice” (The Embassy to Gaius 40. 311–313). 139 Jacob Taubes, The Political Theology of Paul, trans. Dana Hollander (1993; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004), p. 20.

49

to the demographic evidence in support for the missionary activity by the Jews, especially with the rise of the Jews in number by the middle of the first century AD.140 Apart from the demographic evidence, scholars also point to the literary evidence141 or that the missionary activity of the Jews led to their expulsions142 as a case for the Jewish attitude towards active proselytism. Josephus, a Jewish historian, mentions some aspects of the Jewish ways of life that attracted the non-Jews at Rome. He writes, … The masses have long since shown a keen desire to adopt our religious observances; and there is not one city, Greek or barbarian, nor a single nation, to which our custom of abstaining from work on the seventh day has not spread, and where the fasts and the lighting of lamps and many of our prohibitions in the matter of food are not observed. Moreover, they attempt to imitate our unanimity, our liberal charities, our devoted labour in the crafts, our endurance under persecution on behalf of our laws … Indeed, were we not ourselves aware of the excellence of our laws, assuredly we should have been impelled to pride ourselves upon them by the multitude of their admirers.143

A similar picture is probably given by Philo, where he mentions that “not only Jews, but almost every other people … has so far grown in holiness as to value and honour our laws …”144 In observing the influence of the Jewish way of life upon the non-Jews, it is more likely that the non-Jews on their own accord were attracted to the ancient customs and the Jewish way of life. I agree with Thomas Tobin who writes, “The evidence of the expulsions attests the attractiveness of

140 For the case for demographic evidence, see the discussions in Louis H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexandria to Justinian (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 291. 141 Some writings are Letter of Aristeas (266), which points to persuading one’s opponents in debate and in doing so winning over one’s listener to lead them to change. Sibylline Oracles 3:5–10 also refers to being compelled to proclaim an oracle to all men. So also, Pseudepigraphic writings like Testament of Levi 14:4 and Testament of Joseph 4:4–5 emphasises the concern for proselyting the non-Jews. See also, Philo’s writings (De Vita Mosis I.27.147; De Virtutibus 20.102–104; Legatio ad Gaium 31.211). For details on the literary evidence, refer to Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World, pp. 293–298. For discussions on the missionary activities within Judaism, refer to Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3 vols. 142 Refer to Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World, pp. 300–305. 143 Josephus Against Apion II. 281–284 (The larger section is 184–286). 144 Philo Moses II 17–20. Louis H. Feldman also discusses three areas on the attractions of the Jews by the non-Jews: the Jewish antiquity, the wisdom of the Jews and Moses as the ideal leader [Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World, pp. 177–285].

50

eastern religious traditions to some inhabitants in Rome but not necessarily to a sustained missionary effort on their part.”145 Having briefly analyzed the Jewish community in Rome, we now give attention to the origins of the believers in Christ, since Christian faith in Rome is considered to have originated within the Jewish community.

B.  Origin of Christian Faith in Rome To trace the origins of the Christian faith in Rome back to the pre-Pauline period is not an easy task, as much remains shrouded in mystery. We cannot say with any degree of confidence when the Christian faith first arrived in Rome. Eusebius traces the “origin of Christianity” in Rome to the second year of the reign of Claudius (AD 41), when Peter followed Simon Magus to Rome and preached there.146 A few other sources of the late first and second century regard Peter and Paul as founders of the faith community in Rome, since they were martyred in Rome, according to tradition.147 Our information from the Epistle to the Romans and the Acts of the Apostles does not mention anything on the missionary activity of Peter or Paul in Rome. In fact, Paul acknowledges that the Roman Christ believing community was already in existence for years (Rom. 15:23). Edwin Broadhead points out that the address and the content of the Epistle to the Romans suggest the presence of Christian faith in Rome. One of the examples Broadhead gives is Romans 15:23–24 which states Paul’s desire to visit the believers in Rome. He goes on to 145 Tobin makes this remark in the context of the evidence of expulsion of Jews from Rome in 139 BC and AD 19 because of the alarm over the growing Jewish influence. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in its Contexts, p. 24. Tobin briefly discusses some aspects that the non-Jews found attractive. First, it is the Jewish monotheism. Second, it concerns the antiquity of the Jewish people. The third aspect is the observance of the Sabbath. The fourth aspect has to do with abstinence from certain food. Finally, the fifth aspect is the strong sense of community and last but not the least, the Jewish claim for the ethical superiority of the Mosaic Law (pp. 25–27). 146 Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.14.6; 2.17.1. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/collection?collection=Perseus%3Acollection %3AGreco-Roman (Accessed on December 10, 2013) (Refer also to Das, Solving the Romans debate, p. 24). 147 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans 4:3; 1Clement 5.1–6.4. For a full discussion, see Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study (London: SCM Press, 1962), pp. 95–115. John Wenham’s hypothesis places Peter as the founder of the church in Rome [Redating, Matthew, Mark and Luke (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1991), pp. 146–172].

51

point out Paul’s threefold hope for a visit: first, to “reap some harvest among you as I have among the rest of the Gentiles” (Rom. 1:13); second, that “I may come to you with joy and be refreshed in your company” (Rom. 15:32); and third, on his way to Spain, “to see you on my journey and to be sent on by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a little while” (Rom. 15:24). These are some texts, which according to Broadhead point to the existence of Christ believing communities in Rome.148 All these evidence from the text itself indicate that Paul is not the founder of the Christ believing communities in Rome. Similarly, it is also improbable that Peter was the first to bring the gospel of Christ to Rome. If Peter did make a missionary visit to Rome, Luke would most probably not have omitted mentioning it. Moreover, Paul does not mention Peter or anyone else as taking the gospel to Rome first.149 However, Luke refers to the “Hellenists” who were believers in Christ in Jerusalem as belonging to a synagogue of the λιβερτίνοι (freedmen or a designation for Jews who had gained freedom from slavery).150 Λιβερτῖνος is a transliteration of the Latin Libertinus, meaning a freedman. This refers to the status of an individual in society.151 Libertini was a designation not for those who were taken to Rome as slaves, but for their freeborn sons. The freeborn sons were chosen to serve on the Senate, provided a Roman knight adopted them. During the days of Appius Caecus, he chose freedmen to serve on the Senate.152 Thus, the freedmen became the liberated descendants of the Jews, who were taken as prisoners to Rome by Pompey.153 Luke also mentions visitors from Rome who were among the first audiences of Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:10). Raymond Brown rejects this proposal and construes these Jews as residents at

148 Broadhead, Jewish ways of following Jesus, pp. 105–106. 149 For there are also occasions when Paul mentions Peter in his epistles but never in relation to the gospel to the Romans (Gal. 1:18; 2:6–14; 1Cor. 1:12; 9:5). Refer to Das, Solving the Romans Debate, pp. 24–25; Raymond E. Brown & John P. Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (New York: Paulist, 1983), pp. 97–98, 102–103. 150 Acts 6:9. Dunn refers to the “libertini” in Acts as Jews (and descendants) who were enslaved under Pompey, but were now Roman freedman (Dunn, Romans 1–8, p. xlvii). 151 Strathmann, “Λιβερτίνοι,” TDNT, vol. IV, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Trans. Geoffry W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1967), pp. 265–266. 152 Suetonius, Claudius 24. 1. 153 Philo, Legatio, 155.

52

Jerusalem.154 In our opinion, the report of Luke cannot be dismissed easily, but should be regarded as a possibility like any other. There are other possibilities. Some assume that the “teachings about Christ” entered the capital city of the empire through Jewish believers either from Palestine or from the diaspora, who took up refuge in Rome. Alternatively, conversions could have come about through pilgrimages to Jerusalem, where some Jewish pilgrims were exposed to the Christian faith and propagated it when they returned to Rome. The implication of Acts 28:21 is that the Roman Jews maintained contact with the Jerusalem temple, and with the community at Antioch. Hence, there are many explanations for how the Christian faith made its way to Rome.155 What has been discussed must be balanced by the consideration that there is no primary evidence of any missionary activities directed particularly to Rome. Keeping in mind the earliest missions that targeted the synagogues, one can assume that the Christian faith in Rome would probably have sprung alongside the faith of Judaism. There can be little dispute that the early believers in Christ in Rome had close contact with the Jewish ways of life. Mark Nanos refers to interactions between Gentile believers in Christ and Jewish believers in the synagogues in Rome.156 This interaction, which cannot be overlooked, indicates a certain level of visible interaction, which William Campbell observes as being “strong enough that it ought not to be ruled out.”157 This means the early years

154 Brown & Meier, Antioch and Rome, p. 105 n. 215. 155 Cranfield suggests that Christian faith reached Rome not through evangelistic work, but through Christians who were on their way discharging secular duties and business (C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC. 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975), 1: p. 17). Also, Rudolf Brandle & Ekkehard W. Stegemann, “The Formation of the First ‘Christian Congregations’ in Rome in the Context of the Jewish Congregations.” Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome, p. 127; James C. Walters, “Romans, Jews and Christians: The Impact of Romans on Jewish/Christian Relations in First-Century Rome.” Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome. p. 176; Peter Stuhlmacher, “The Purpose of Romans,” The Romans Debate, pp. 231–242 especially see 238. Broadhead suggests trade as a means through which the new faith entered Rome (Jewish ways of following Jesus, p. 114). 156 Mark D. Nanos, The Mystery of the Romans. The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), p. 23. 157 William S. Campbell, “The Addressees of Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Assemblies of Paul’s Letter and Synagogues?” in Between Gospel and Election, eds. Florian Wilk and Ross Wagner, WUNT 257 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), p. 173.

53

of the Christian faith in Rome was an “intra-Jewish phenomenon,” as has been argued by James Dunn.158 Peter Lampe159 reinforces the conclusion reached by Dunn on the earliest believing community. Proposing a somewhat similar hypothesis is James Walters who argues that Jewish believers, Gentile sympathizers and proselytes believing in the messiahship of Jesus not only shared a common religious outlook with Jews, but also a common socialization. In Walter’s observation, they assembled in the synagogues with other Jews in the early years of the Christian faith in Rome.160 The presence of Aquila and Priscilla, first introduced to us as Jews (Acts 18:2) who were among those expelled from Rome, indicates that Christian faith in Rome emerged within the Jewish community. As noted previously, since the time of Augustine, Jews lived in Puteoli.161 Furthermore, Puteoli and Rome had a special connection, as in the first half of the first century, it was regarded as the main trade route between the east and the city of Rome. Thus, considering the trade route, the prevalence of members who 158 Dunn, Romans 1–8, p. xlvi. 159 For a detailed discussion on Christian faith existing alongside Jewish faith, refer to Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, pp. 53–63. 160 Walters, “Romans, Jews, and Christians,” p. 176 . Walters reinforces the conclusion that many scholars had already reached on earliest Christianity as an “intra-Jewish phenomenon” (pp. 175–195). A. J. M. Wedderburn refers to the form of Christianity in Rome as “Judaizing Christianity,” i.e. where its adherents whether a Jew ethnically or not had to observe the Jewish law either in whole or in part. He supports his stance by adding that it is doubtful if during this period any Christianity existed that was not in some sense “Jewish.” Christianity derived its thought world from the Jewish matrix. Taking Romans 16 as addressed to the Roman believers indicates Jews were also a part of this community (Rom. 16:3, 7, 11). Furthermore, he regards that Paul and some other Christians of his time were Jews. Thus, Wedderburn argues that the form of Christianity they espoused was “Jewish Christianity” and not “Gentile Christianity” as some classify Paul [Wedderburn, The Reasons for Romans (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991,) pp. 50–54]. Information concerning the Jews and their communities in Rome is basically found in the archaeological evidence from Jewish catacombs in Rome. In this regard, Leon’s book, The Jews of Ancient Rome is a good source presenting an extensive study. However, a few scholars who question the Acts evidence on the early believers in Christ within the synagogue include Dieter Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians: A Study of Religious Propaganda in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), p. 178 n.15; Ferdinand Hahn, Mission in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1965), p. 105 n.2; E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (London: SCM Press, 1983), p. 186. 161 Walters also observes that Christian faith concentrated within the same region as the non-Christian Jews (Walters, “Romans, Jews, and Christians,” p. 176).

54

traded, business people among the first believers in Christ (Aquila and Priscilla in Acts 28:21), and contact with Jerusalem, it can be concluded that the new faith would have entered into the synagogues in Rome. However, this does not imply that there was no other way for the Christian faith to enter Rome, such as through immigrants or slaves. These diverse ways mentioned could have contributed to the spread of the Christian faith in Rome. In addition, the dispersion of the synagogues proved significant for the Christian faith movement, for the early Roman Christian faith is shaped by the language, text, organizations and hermeneutical traditions of the Jewish synagogue.162 This was possible because the believers in Christ existed alongside the Jewish faith. Hence, it is likely that the earliest believers in Christ primarily targeted the synagogue for their mission work (Acts 13:42ff; 14:1–6; 17:1–5; 18:7; 19:8f.). As mentioned above, the synagogues comprised Jews as well as nonJews.163 Accordingly, we conclude with Ambrosiaster, an early Christian writer to whom is attributed a commentary on Paul’s epistles, that the Roman church was formed in the Jewish communities, and there was no single missionary figure involved in founding this church. The message about Christ was then made available to the Gentiles.164

III.  The Texts of Claudius’ Roman Edict The Acts of the Apostles (18:2) informs us of Paul’s meeting with a couple, named Aquila, who is of the Pontus race, and his wife Priscilla. They had come to Corinth because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. Apart from Acts, three ancient sources provide us with information on the attitude of the Emperor Claudius toward the Roman Jews. They are Dio Cassius, Roman History (Historiae Romanae); Suetonius, Claudius (Vita Divi Claudii); and Paulus Orosius, History against the Pagans (Historiae Adversum Paganos). Dio Cassius, in Roman History 60.6.6, reports concerning the early years of Claudius’ reign that in AD 41 Claudius deprived the Jews of their right to assembly, although he makes no mention of any expulsion. Suetonius, in Claudius 25.4, reports that the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, 162 Broadhead, Jewish ways of following Jesus, pp. 103, 114. 163 Dunn remarks that the God-worshipping Gentiles attached to the Jewish synagogue would all the more be open to the form of Judaism, which did not require circumcision and was less tied to the Jewish identity (Romans 1–8, p. xlviii). 164 CSEL Corpus Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum 81.1.5–6. Translation taken from Wedderburn, The Reasons for Romans, p. 51.

55

resulting in their expulsion from Rome by Claudius. In his History against the Pagans 7.6.15, Paulus Orosius reports that in the ninth year of his reign, Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome.165 In this section, we will briefly examine the ancient sources mentioned and the Acts of the Apostles.

A. The Acts of the Apostles 18:2 The book of Acts informs the readers concerning the severe measure of Claudius against the Jews in Rome. The text reads, Καὶ εὑρών τινα Ἰουδαῖον ὀνόματι Ἀκύλαν, ποντικὸν τῷ γένει προσφάτως ἐληλυθότα ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας καὶ Πρίσκιλλαν γυναῖκα αὺτοῦ, διὰ τὸ διατεταχέναι Κλαύδιον ξωρίζεσθαι πάντας τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ἀπὸ τῆς ̔Ρώμης, προσῆλθεν αὐτοῖς. (And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave from Rome, he came to them.)166

Paul continues his journey from Athens and arrives in Corinth (Acts 18:1), an important city in the ancient world, with a Jewish presence as well. In Corinth, he meets Aquila and Priscilla who become both his tent making (Acts 18:3) and ministry co-workers (Acts 18:18–19; Rom. 16:3–5; 1Cor. 16:19; 2Tim. 4:19). Paul and the couple are able to connect because they share the same trade; he also resides with them (probably around AD 51). Luke mentions that Aquila was a Jew, thereby suggesting that the initial ministry of Paul at Corinth was among his own people (Acts 18:1–4) and to prepare the readers for the departure of Aquila and Priscilla from Rome.167 Luke links his narrative about Corinth with an important event in Roman history, i.e., the Claudian edict of expulsion. Luke mentions that they were affected by this edict and had been banished from Rome. The report in Acts only mentions the reason as to why they had to leave Rome. They are called Jews, but there is no mention of them as believers in Christ. However, in observing that the epistles of Paul shows Aquila and Priscilla as co-workers or close associates of Paul, scholars hold different opinions on whether they were believers in Christ before the expulsion from Rome or were converted only at Corinth. For some, Aquila and Priscilla were believers before the expulsion and provided housing for Paul, since a non-Christ believing Jew would 165 https://sites.google.com/site/demontortoise2000/orosius_book7 (Accessed on May 11, 2014). 166 The translation is directly from the Greek text. 167 See David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans, 2009), p. 507.

56

hardly offer such a kind gesture to a Christ believing Jew after the recent expulsion from Rome.168 Furthermore, we learn from Romans and Acts 28:15 that the Christian faith reached Rome before Paul’s mission to the city. Some argue that it is likely that by the time that Paul wrote to the believing communities in Rome, the Jewish community was already intolerant toward the believers in Christ;169 In contrast, others take the opposite position in arguing that they were converted only in Corinth.170 These differences notwithstanding, we argue that the Pauline epistles and Acts indicate Aquila and Priscilla were believers in Christ before they were expelled from Rome. To support this, 1Corinthians mentions Paul baptizing only Gaius, Crispus and the household of Stephanas in Corinth (1Cor. 1:14–16). Stephanas is also the first person converted in Greece by Paul (1Cor. 16:15). We learn from Acts 18:3 that Aquila and Priscilla also worked with Paul when he started his missionary stay in Corinth. These texts favor the position that Aquila and Priscilla were already believers in Christ before they arrived in Corinth. Suetonius supplies no evidence for dating the edict of expulsion, but Luke mentions the expulsion. If the edict, as reported by Orosius, was issued in the ninth year of the reign of Claudius, Aquila and Priscilla would have arrived to Corinth sometime after AD 49 and Paul’s arrival would have been later. Looking at the events identified in Acts 18:1–17, especially verses 12–13 that refer to Gallio’s proconsulship of Achaia, the most likely year would be the ninth year.171 168 See Broadhead, Jewish ways of following Jesus, p. 105; James C. Walters, Ethnic Issues in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Changing Self-Definitions in the Earliest Roman Christianity (Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1993), p. 60–61; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), p. 77. Also, Peter Lampe suggests that it is less probable that unbaptized Jews would offer their place to a Christian missionary. So also, if Aquila and Priscilla were expelled as un-baptized Jews, then they would have been Jewish opponents of Christ and not supporters of the Christian faith mission (From Paul to Valentinus, p. 12). 169 C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, ICC, vol. 2. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998), p. 862. 170 Gerd Lüdemann, Early Christianity According to the Tradition in Acts: A Commentary (trans. John Bowden; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 198, 201–202; Nanos, The Mystery of Romans, pp. 376–77; H. Dixon Slingerland, “Chrestus: Christus?” New Perspectives on Ancient Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner 4 (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1989), p. 139. 171 See Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 508; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles. Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (3rd edn; Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans, 1990), p. 391; Darrell L. Block, Acts, BECNT (Michigan: Barker Academics, 2007), p. 577.

57

Luke also reports that all the Jews were expelled (Acts 18:2). The scope of expulsion is taken up later in the chapter.

B.  Suetonius in Claudius (Vita Divi Claudii) 25.4 Suetonius offers important, but brief information concerning an anti-Jewish attitude of Claudius. The text reads, Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit. (Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.)172

The fragment he cites from an undisclosed source provides important information for our understanding of the reception of Christian faith in first century Rome. As Rainer Riesner notes, “This brief remark is part of a whole series of religious, civil and military-legal measures undertaken by Claudius.”173 The passage of Claudius 25.4 could not have been an invention of Suetonius. One can assume that Suetonius derives this information from another source, such as the imperial archives to which he might have had access.174 In his report on the expulsion of the Jews by Claudius, Suetonius gives no indication of the date, but only provides a reason, i.e., the Jews were constantly creating disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus. The report by Suetonius is elaborated in the next section, where it is discussed in greater detail. In reading Claudius 25.4 within the context of Claudius 25.3–5, we do not find any chronological order, but a topical one, giving no hint of any relative date. The absence of any concrete date on the report by Suetonius leaves the dating by Orosius of AD 49 as the best candidate, but this is apparently contradicted by Dio Cassius, to whom we now turn.

C.  Dio Cassius in Roman History (Historiae Romanae) 60.6.6 Dio Cassius offers a tradition, which is placed during the first year of Claudius’ reign. The passage reads: τούς τε Ἰουδαίους πλεονάσαντας αὐθις ὥστε χαλεπῶς ἄν ἄνευ ταραχῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου σφῶν τῆς πόλεως εἰρχθῆναι, οὐκ ἐξήλασε μέν, τῷ δὲ δὴ πατρίῳ βίῳ χρωμένους ἐκέλευσε μὴ συναθροίζεσθαι. τάς τε ἑταιρείας ἐπαναχθείσας ὑπὸ τοῦ.

172 Text according to Suetonius. vol. II, Translated by J. C. Rolfe. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997–98). 173 Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, p. 162. 174 Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, p. 162.

58

(As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city, he did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings.)175

The question, relating to the report by Dio Cassius concerns its accuracy and dating. Evidence may be found that suspects that Claudius would have been sympathetic to the Jews in Rome in the early years of his reign; thus, he refrained from taking any severe measures against them. This opinion about Claudius is supported in the report of Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities, 19.285.2, which refers to restoring to the Jews their rights and former privileges, and at the same time, a warning against any future disturbances. Similarly, Dio’s Roman History 60.5.1 reports, “Claudius accordingly, undid the unjust acts performed by Gaius and by others at his instigation.” One reason for such an action on the part of Claudius is probably because he wished to reinstate the policy of Augustus to promote peace and order, which was in the interest of the empire.176 This view is supported by the edict of Claudius sent to Alexandria on behalf of the Jews. Part of the edict reads: “In particular, I did so because I hold it right that not even Greek cities should be deprived of these privileges, seeing that, they were in fact guaranteed for them in the time of the divine Augustus …”177 The other reason could be that he wanted to win over the trust and friendship of the people. For this, he undid the injustices of his predecessors and refused pomp and honor for himself (Suetonius, Claudius 12.1–3; Dio Cassius, Roman History 60.5–6.3). However, as the Jews increased in number, Claudius became alarmed and banned their common meetings. This is reflected in his letter to Alexandria where he warns the Roman Jews of inviting their fellow Jews from Syria or Egypt. It reads, I explicitly order the Jews not to agitate for more privileges than they formerly possessed, and not in the future to send out a separate embassy as though they lived in a separate city (a thing unprecedented), and not to force their way into gymnasiarchic or cosmetic games, while enjoying their own privileges and sharing a great abundance of advantages in a city not their own, and not to bring in or admit Jews who come down the

175 Text according to Dio Cassius. Roman History, Books 56–60, Translated by Ernest Cary. 9 vols. Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914–1927). 176 See also, H. Dixon Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome, USF Studies in the History of Judaism 160 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), pp. 100–101. 177 Jewish Antiquities 19. 289.

59

river from Egypt or from Syria, a proceeding which will compel me to conceive serious suspicions.178

Claudius feared that the increase of the Jews might provoke further disturbances in the empire. Hence, as a precautionary measure, Claudius could have banned their common meetings as indicated in Dio’s report. We see that the measure of Claudius against the Jews as reported by Dio agrees with the religious policy of Claudius in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 19: 279–285 and the Alexandrian letter. The edict of Claudius reported by Josephus upholds the ancient privileges of the Jews, but they had to ensure that no trouble arose among them (Jewish Antiquities 19. 285). The tenor of the letter to Alexandria confirms the report of Josephus, especially in the final section of the letter where the emphasis is on the relationship between the Jews and the other Alexandrians (Jewish Antiquities 11.73–104). Thus, the general idea of Dio’s report concurs with Josephus’ report and the letter to Alexandria, where Claudius tolerates the traditional religions as long as they did not threaten public order.179 The context of Dio’s passage points to the first year of the reign of Claudius, i.e., AD 41.180 Dio narrates the death of those who had killed Gaius (Roman History 60.3.4), followed by the abolition of the decrees issued by Gaius (Roman History 60.4.1–2). Then, “in this same year” (Roman History 60.5.7), one of Claudius’s daughters was betrothed to Silvanus and another in marriage to Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus. This is followed by an edict of Claudius against Roman Jews (Roman History 60.6.6) and the abolition of another act of Gaius (Roman History 60.6.8). “After this” (Roman History 60.8.1), he restores Commagene to Antiochus. Then, Dio narrates about Claudius giving land to Herod Agrippa I and his brother (Roman History 60.8.2–3). Josephus also dates the land giving events to AD 41 (Jewish Antiquities 19. 274–277). Dio refers to two more events in the first year of Claudius in 60.8.4 using phrases such as “then” and in Roman History 60.8.7, “this year.” These events end the entire section on AD 41, followed by “next year” in Roman History 60.9.1. Thus, the lay out of the materials in Dio’s

178 http://faculty.history.umd.edu/HLapin/HIST370/ClaudiusPapyrus.pdf (accessed on May 18, 2014). 179 See also, Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, p. 169. 180 For AD 41, refer to Robert Jewett, A Chronology of Paul’s Life (Philadelphia: Fortress Press), 1979, p. 37; Leon, The Jews of the Ancient Rome, p. 24; Smallwood, The Jews Under the Roman Rule, p. 215. For discussions on the chronological order of events in Dio, refer to Gerd Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology, trans. F. Stanley Jones (1980; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), p. 164, n.67.

60

report suggests that the measure of Claudius against the Jews fits best the first year of Claudius’ reign, i.e., AD 41.

D. Paulus Orosius in History against the Pagans (Historiae Adversum Paganos) 7.6.15–16 Paulus Orosius ascribes the report on the expulsion of Claudius to Josephus. The passage reads, Anno eiusdem nono expulsos per Claudium urbe Iudaeos Iosephus refert. sed me magis Suetonius mouet, qui ait hoc modo: Claudius Iudaeos inpulsore Christo adsidue tumultuantes Roma expulit; quod, utrum contra Christum tumultuantes Iudaeos coherceri et conprimi iusserit, an etiam Christianos simul uelut cognatae religionis homines uoluerit expelli, nequaquam discernitur.181 (In the ninth year of the same reign, Josephus reports that the Jews were expelled from the city by Claudius. But Suetonius impresses me more, who speaks in the following manner: ‘Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome, who at the instigation of Christ were continually causing disturbances.’ But it is by no means discernible whether he ordered that [only] the Jews causing disturbances against Christ were to be checked and repressed, or whether he simultaneously wanted to expel the Christians as well, as adherents of a related religion.)182

Orosius accurately cites from Suetonius the expulsion of the Jews. As Gerd Lüdemann remarks, “Orosius would have accurately cited Suetonius’s report for apologetical reasons because for him Chrestus was obviously-and here he was historically correct–(Jesus Christ).”183 However, the first part of the Orosian document which mentions Josephus poses a problem. Orosius situates the report of Suetonius to the ninth year of Claudius’ reign, i.e., AD 49 as a source taken from Josephus.184 Yet Josephus neither mentions the edict in his work or the expulsion 181 http://www.attalus.org/latin/orosius7A.html (accessed on May11, 2014). 182 The translation is taken from Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, p. 181. 183 Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, p. 186f note 64. 184 Orosius, Historiarum Adversus Paganos Libri VII, 7.6.15–16 (http://www.attalus.org/latin/orosius7A.html [Accessed on May 11, 2014]. The English translation is taken from Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, p. 123). This dating is supported by Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, p. 15; Broadhead, Jewish ways of following Jesus, p. 105; Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996), p. 5; A. R. C. Leanay suggests that a later date between AD 49–50 is preferable, since Josephus also records measure favorable to the Jews in Alexandria for the year AD 41 [The Jewish and Christian World. 200 B.C. to A.D. 200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 75]; Wolfgang Wiefel, “The

61

by Claudius, or the anti-Jewish measures during the reign of Claudius. As the text now stands, Josephus only mentions that Claudius gave back the rights and privileges to the Jews denied by his predecessors. It is still possible that Orosius had access to other writings of Josephus, which were not handed over to a later generation. Nonetheless, this assumption according to Rainer Riesner is improbable since Orosius knew Josephus only through the Chronicle of Eusebius. It is probable that Orosius used some other sources, other than Eusebius for the reign of Claudius.185 Similarly, C. K. Barrett assumes that Orosius was confused with his sources, “[he] had in mind a confused recollection of Josephus, Antiquity 18. 81–84, which tells the story of four Jews who persuaded the proselyte Fulvia to send large gifts to the Jerusalem temple, which they themselves pocketed. As a result Tiberius (not Claudius) κελεύει πᾶν τὸ Ἰουδαικον τῆς ̓Ρώμης ἀπελθεῖν.”186 This view of Barrett does not support the mention of Josephus, but he is right that Orosius could have been confused with his sources. One can assume that Orosius had access to a tradition, which he confused with Josephus, a tradition to which the author of Acts also had access to. Orosius’ information agrees with Acts 18, i.e., from the “edict of Claudius” to just before the proconsulate of Gallio (Acts 18:12). Peter Lampe presents an appealing calculation for the agreement between Orosius and Acts – “Eighteen months (Acts 18:11) plus προσφάτως (Acts 18:2) minus ἡμέραι ἑκαναί (Acts 18:18).”187 This makes us assume that a tradition existed behind the report of Orosius and the chronology of Acts 18. The dating given by Orosius, apart from the mention of Josephus, cannot be dismissed easily as inappropriate or inaccurate. As Gerd Lüdemann remarks, According to Orosius, Christians first appeared in Rome at the beginning of the reign of Claudius-as a result of the proclamation of Peter (7.6.1–2). Orosius was sure, on the basis of the report of Suetonius (and Acts 18.2), that Claudius’s decree concerning the Jews was related to Christ’s impact in Rome. For chronological reasons he could hardly follow a tradition that reported an act by Claudius against the Jews (Jewish Christians)

Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity,” The Romans Debate, p. 93; James Dunn proposes a solution, which is to see two actions of Claudius in AD 41 and AD 49, the first being short-lived and limited in effect and the second more deliberate and drastic (Romans 1–8, pp. xlix). 185 Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, Theology, pp. 181–182. 186 Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, p. 862. 187 Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, p. 14.

62

in the first year of his reign. Further, Orosius presents a very favourable picture of the first years of this emperor.188

And that said, the Orosian dating of the edict fits well with the chronology of Paul. The conventional interpretation would be that Aquila and Priscilla, together with other Jews, were expelled from Rome in AD 49. From there they went to Corinth around AD 51/52.189 Thus, the conventional dating of the expulsion of the Jews by Claudius also plays a role in support of the report of Orosius about the ninth year of Claudius’ reign, i.e., AD 49.

E.  Conclusions Drawn from the Reports In Dio’s report, Claudius did not banish the Roman Jews, yet he suspended the Jewish right of assembly in the first year of his reign (AD 41).190 The report by Josephus also indicates that warnings against future disturbances were given. However, the accounts by Suetonius (also reported by Orosius) and Luke refer to a Claudian expulsion of the Roman Jews.191 Discussed below are the conclusions that can be drawn from our analysis of the reports.

1.  Single Event or Different Events Having briefly discussed the reports we can identify three possibilities. The first possibility is that Dio Cassius and Suetonius are referring to the same event, but the account of Suetonius is erroneous. The scholars who argue for a single event point out that the reports used similar language for expulsion

188 Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, p. 187, note 64. 189 Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, p. 2. 190 See Smallwood, The Jews under the Roman Rule, p. 215 (She assumes that they were numerous in number to expel so Claudius stopped their common gatherings). Philo also provides us with the reflection of the measures mentioned by Dio. Philo’s report describes that the imperial measure was not aimed at the Roman Jews in general, rather at the practice of Judaism within Rome (Philo The Embassy to Gaius 155–158. For an extensive discussion, refer to Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, pp. 136–150). 191 One source that also mentions the Jews were expelled from Rome and had settled in Aricia is Juvenal in Satire 4. 115–119. Schürer refers to this expulsion by Juvenal as the AD 49 expulsion (The History of the Jewish People, III.1: p. 78). Smallwood suggests that it is less likely that after a long period, the Jews who were expelled could still be in Aricia. Hence, it probably refers to a later unrecorded expulsion (Smallwood, The Jews under the Roman Rule, p. 216, n. 46).

63

(ἐξήλασε and εἰρχθῆναι). Moreover, Jews are the direct object in both texts and the place is Rome.192 The second possibility is that both Dio Cassius and Suetonius are referring to the same event, but the account of Dio Cassius is erroneous. This possibility is less likely. Dio Cassius probably would not have given a detailed report of the measure of Claudius without proper information. Josephus also reports such warnings where Claudius warns both parties against any future disturbances “arising after the posting of my edict” (Jewish Antiquities xix. 285.2), but there is no certainty with regard to the dating of his report. The third possibility is that Dio Cassius and Suetonius are referring to two different events. Claudius banned Jewish meetings in the beginning of his reign, and later when there were constant disturbances, he expelled the Roman Jews who created the disturbances.193 According to William Campbell, the most probable scenario is that there were disturbances associated with Jews for some time. Yet, when Claudius’s patience was exhausted, he issued the edict of expulsion in AD 49.194 In this case, Dio Cassius can be referring to an event at the beginning of the reign of Claudius. In contrast, Suetonius reports about the event that occurred at the latter years of the reign of Claudius. In other words, in AD 41 Claudius repressed, but did not expel the Jews. However, when the internal disturbances within the Jewish communities became constant and open, he expelled them in AD 49. A peculiar proposal has been made by Dixon Slingerland. He argues that the expulsion in Acts is different from that of Suetonius.195 However, such a conclusion is unlikely, as Claudius after expelling the Jews would not have allowed them 192 Barry Baldwin, Suetonius (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hokkert, 1983), p. 356; Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, pp. 98–110; Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, p. 165; Leon, The Jews of the Ancient Rome, p. 24; Smallwood, The Jews under the Roman Rule, pp. 236. 193 This view is supported by John M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE) (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), p. 305; Smallwood, The Jews Under the Roman Rule, pp. 210–216; Robert Jewett, Dating Paul’s life (London: SCM Press, 1979), pp. 36–38; Wiefel, “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity,” p. 94; Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 19. 278–291 and Jewish War 5. 214–217. Francis Watson proposes that the two events are connected and the prohibition on the synagogue meetings only indicates an initial response to an ongoing problem that resulted in an expulsion in AD 49 (Beyond the New Perspective, pp. 170–172). 194 William S. Campbell, “The Addressees of Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” p. 177. 195 Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, pp. 133–136.

64

to return during his reign. If at all he did, it is even less likely that he would expel them again within a short span of time. Hence, it is best to take the report of Luke and Suetonius as referring to the same event. Luke is presenting the bare fact of the expulsion, while Suetonius emphasizes the reasons of expulsion.196 It remains a difficult task to draw firm conclusions. In spite of this, I would choose the last possibility, i.e., Dio Cassius and Suetonius refer to two different events: the prohibition of common gatherings during the early years of Claudius (AD 41) and the edict of expulsion in the later years (AD 49). Assuming this to be correct, the study intends to look at the division and differences within the Christ believing communities in Rome engendered by the return of those who were expelled by Claudius.

2.  Conclusion on Date On the measure of Claudius against the Jews, we find that two dates dominate in the reports of the historians. The report of Dio Cassius considers a measure of Claudius at the beginning of his reign, whereas the report by Orosius and Acts point to a measure at the later years of Claudius’ reign. Scholars’ part ways in dating the event, some agree with Dio Cassius,197 while others agree with Suetonius. Menaham Stern writes that the edict of Claudius initially gave orders for the expulsion of all the Jews, but was later modified only to the extent of putting a stop on all public meetings and not expulsion. This modified version according to Stern is what Dio Cassius Historia Romana 60.6.6 reports.198 This view does not carry much weight, as Dio’s report provides no indication of correcting the edict attested in Suetonius. Likewise, Adolf Harnack proposes that Claudius issued an edict of expulsion in AD 49, but after the Jews guaranteed “good behavior,” it was replaced with prohibition of meetings.199 As mentioned in the reports, in restoring Jewish rights in Alexandria in the early years of his reign, Claudius also warns the Jews of adding numbers to the Jewish community from Syria or Egypt. For in doing so, “greater suspicions” 196 See Philip Francis Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 99. 197 Menaham Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Vol.2 (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980), p. 116; Hermann Vogelstein, The History of the Jews in Rome (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1940), p. 56. Also Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, p. 187. 198 Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 2: p. 116. 199 Adolf Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, ed. & trans. James Moffat, 2ed., 2vols. (New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1906), 1: pp. 5–6.

65

would befall upon the Jews. This clearly suggests that, while restoring Jewish rights, Claudius also took measures against the growth of this segment of the population.200 Hence, in such a context, Dixon Slingerland argues, “the 41C.E. anti-Jewish measures described by Dio are not out of line with the menacing tone of Claudius’ Alexandrian letter of the same year.”201 In reading Claudius 25.4 within the context of Claudius 25.3–5, as noted previously, we do not find a chronological, but a topical order, giving no hint of any relative date. However, the report of Suetonius AD 49 is more probable especially in the agreement between Suetonius’ report and Acts. Luke in Acts mentions that Paul’s far-reaching evangelistic work as an apostle to the Gentiles was only in the mid-40s following the death of Stephen (AD 41) (Acts 11:19). Furthermore, the first missionary journey followed after the death of Agrippa I (AD 44).202 The Epistle to the Romans was written in the mid 50s, and by then, Christian faith was already an established faith community (Rom. 1:7; 16:3–16; Acts 28:15, 22). Those who wish to place the measure by Claudius reported by Suetonius in AD 41 based on the report by Dio Cassius fail to observe that the decree of AD 41 only prohibited Jews from common gathering. Yet, in assuming two measures against the Jews during the reign of Claudius, the dating of Suetonius to AD 49 does not pose a problem and it is supported by the chronology of Acts. However, because of the piecemeal information we receive from the ancient sources, many questions require attention: questions regarding the expulsion in relation to the Roman policy, questions regarding the identity of Chrestus, and questions regarding the scope of expulsion. These are questions pertaining to the reasons for the edict, which we will discuss below. 200 In support of this view, see Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, pp. 88–89; Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, pp. 101–102. 201 Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, pp. 101–102. Here I have used CE as it is in quotations. Benko agrees that Claudius’ action against the Jews in Rome led to their expulsion, but he places this event after Agrippa’s death in AD 44. This is because of the friendship between Agrippa and Claudius that he could not take action against the Roman Jews [Stephen Benko, “The Edict of Claudius of AD. 49 and the Instigator Chrestus,” Theologische Zeitschrift 25 (1969): pp. 407–408]. But, Slingerland (Claudian Policymaking, p. 103) dismisses Benko’s argument against AD 41 for Claudius’ action against the Jews in Rome was baseless. Probably Claudius would not have sacrificed imperial friendship with Jewish aristocracy at the expense of the empire. Friendship and dealing with the Roman population would have been two different matters. 202 Acts 12:20–23; Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 19:8:2. For the year of his death refer to http/www.the-death-of-herod-agrippa-i-luke-in-acts-12-josephus-flavius-in-ant/ (Accessed on May 15, 2014).

66

IV.  Suetonius Report A.  The Expulsion in Relation to Roman Policy Peter Lampe elucidates four implications arising from the Claudian edict reported by Suetonius: first, the Christian faith set foot in one or in several synagogues in Rome. Therefore, its first believers were Jews; second, the witness about Christ created an upheaval in one or several synagogues; third, the Roman authorities expelled the main leaders of the upheaval; and fourth, the event took place during the late AD 40s.203 Lampe’s analysis of the edict based on the report by Suetonius contributes to our understanding of the beginnings of the Christian faith in Rome. However, as mentioned earlier, it is likely that the first believers were not exclusively Jews, but also included the proselytes and other God-fearers. The historical occasion of Claudius 25.4 can be seen in the expression, impulsore Chresto.204 The meaning of the phrase impulsore Chresto has been a matter of considerable controversy. Two strands of interpretation dominate. First, the widely accepted position is the “Christianizing interpretation,”205 i.e., the unrest among the members in the synagogues in Rome; second, the other position is that it is a Roman policy against the Jews.206 Those who take the first position, the “Christianizing interpretation,” provide different reasons regarding the unrest among the members in the synagogues. For some, the unrest was because of the Jewish rejection of a preaching propagating the messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth. This attracted the attention of the Roman authority to act vigorously against the Jews, as there was no central Jewish authority to mediate the dispute.207 Others are of the view that the unrest was because of the practice of the table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ, which was a threat to the boundaries of Judaism.208 203 Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, p. 11. 204 Suetonius, Claudius 25.4. 205 Wiefel, “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome,” 93; Walters, “Romans, Jews, and Christians,” p. 177; Smallwood, The Jews under the Roman Rule, p. 211; Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, pp. 11–12. 206 Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, pp. 151–168; Neil Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations. Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), p. 98. 207 For this view, refer to, Wiefel, “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome,” p. 93; Smallwood, The Jews under the Roman Rule, p. 211; Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, pp. 11–12. As mentioned above Lampe’s work shows that Synagogues were dispersed and it was not centralized. 208 For this view, see Walters, “Romans, Jews, and Christians,” p. 177. The openness to Gentiles characteristics and their ways of life endangered the exclusive boundaries

67

Dixon Slingerland, taking the second position, has made an intensive study into the Claudian Edict reported by Suetonius. His reconstruction of Suetonius’ report is that impulsore Chresto does not refer to a disturbance by Jews, rather the edict is the policy of the emperor against the Jews. After comparing the syntax of the phrase impulsore Chresto, with similar adverbial phrases from Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars, Slingerland concludes that the phrase is primarily written to explain why Claudius expelled the Jews and not why Jews caused disturbance. Thus, Slingerland translates Claudius’ edict as, “Chrestus caused Claudius to expel the continuously rebelling Jews.”209 This view is unconvincing because it has no documentary support whatsoever. In fact, the edict also explains why the disturbances arose among the Jews in the Roman synagogues, i.e., because of Chrestus. However, Slingerland is right that the edict explains why Claudius expelled the Jews. Leonard Victor Rutgers argues similarly that the main motive for the Roman authorities to intervene was in order to suppress unrest.210 In line with Slingerland and Rutgers, Neil Elliott presents two problems with the “Christianizing interpretation” of the edict. The first is its narrow interpretation in religious terms as an event for the rise of Christian faith and its separation from Judaism in Rome.211 The second problem with the “Christianizing interpretation” concerns the identity of Chrestus. Elliott points out that Suetonius seems familiar with Christiani and Christis,212 and so it cannot be a mistaken reference to Jesus Christ. Hence, Elliott proposes that a preferable explanation for the cause of the expulsion lies not in a specific action against Jews, but an implementation of Roman policy. Claudius carried out his predecessors’ policy in attempting to control the “Judeans and adherents to other foreign ‘superstitions’ in the city.”213 Elliott makes an interesting comment that a “Christianizing interpretation” of the

of the Jewish ways of life and characteristics (cf. Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts, p. 22. 209 For an elaborate discussion, see Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, pp. 151–168. 210 Leonard Victor Rutgers, “Roman Policy toward the Jews: Expulsions from the City of Rome during the First Century C.E.,” Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome, pp. 107–108. 211 Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations, p. 98. (In this section I used Christianity as found in the book of Elliott). 212 Suetonius, Nero 16.2. 213 Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations, p. 98.

68

edict blames the disturbances that aggravated it especially on the Jewish inability to tolerate the message about Christ.214 Suetonius, Dio Cassius, Orosius and Luke in their accounts of the events described above, show that Claudius intervened in order to maintain order and harmony within the Roman Empire. In the account of Josephus, we are informed about the earliest official edict of Claudius.215 This edict was given because there arose a feud between Jews and Greeks in Alexandria. In this edict, we observe the restoration of special rights and the privileges of the Jews. The edict also warns both Jews and Greeks in Alexandria to maintain peaceful relations. He reprimands and threatens both parties with severe consequences if riots arise again. This warning provides the backdrop for understanding the significance of Suetonius’ account (Claudius 25. 4). It is then possible that the edict of AD 49 was issued not because of Claudius’ hatred for the Jews as a religious community, but that the unrest had a political liability. Claudius had to safeguard stability within the empire and suppress any unrest or disturbances. The measure was taken when it became clear that Jewish believers in Christ and Jews were having conflicts over the claims of teachings and practices of the Christian faith, which might have the potential to spread unrest to the entire city and beyond. Having analyzed the expulsion in its relation to the imperial policy, the question still remains with regard to the identity of Chrestus.

B.  Identity of Chrestus In the history of interpretation of the edict, the key issue has been the identity of Chrestus. There is no consensus regarding the identity of Chrestus, especially since Chrestus was a common Roman name.216 However, there are no instances of its use as a Jewish name.217 Harry Joshua Leon lists 550 Jewish names and we observe that Chrestus, while common in other traditions, does not appear in the 214 Elliott, The Arrogance of Nations, p. 98. Elliott refers to Leonard Victor Rutgers for the view that the impulse behind the edict was not religious, but a political one [Rutgers, “Roman Policy toward the Jews,” pp. 104–108]. 215 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, XIX.285.2. 216 Slingerland points out that the name Chrestus was common in Rome. He discusses a Chrestus, a Gaius Iulius Chrestus who served as a mounted officer during the reign of Claudius (Claudian Policymaking, pp. 195–200). See also, Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, p. 13, Note 6. 217 See Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, p. 3; Broadhead, Jewish ways of following Jesus, p. 105.

69

list.218 Similarly, Rainer Riesner recognizes that evidence for Chrestus as a Jewish name does not exist even outside Rome.219 If the conclusion is drawn that Chrestus in Suetonius’ report referred to a Gentile, a grave problem ensues, as we must posit that a Gentile brought disturbance in the synagogue leading to the expulsion of the Jews, the non-Gentiles. Scholars have also suggested other proposals for the identity of Chrestus. For some, Chrestus could stand for a Jewish disturber in Rome.220 Others see the riots mentioned as being caused by the activity of an unknown figure;221 while some point out that Jesus having escaped death on the cross went off to Rome;222 or that Chrestus refers to a freedman who is an advisor to Claudius.223 The different proposals offered by scholars for the identity of Chrestus are quite imaginative, but not very convincing. These scholars have problems proving their case. Moreover, one does not find support from the documents. However, the problem with Suetonius’ report is the impression one gets concerning Chrestus. In the words of Menahem Stern: There exists hardly any serious doubt that here Chrestus = Christus, i.e. Jesus, though Chrestus was common as a proper name … If Suetonius had in mind here some other Jew called Chrestus, he would at least have added quodam after Chresto … However the words of Suetonius could convey the impression that Christus himself was present at Rome at that time, and that the disturbances were instigated by him personally, while Tacitus, indeed, was better informed on the whereabouts of Christus; cf. Annals, XV, 44 (No. 294). It may be that here “impulsore” need not imply physical presence, but only an act of instigation, and that Suetonius did not bother to reconcile the chronology with Christ’s death.224

In the writing of Tacitus, we are informed that Tacitus was not only aware of Chrestianoi (though a negative reference to Christians as people hated for their 218 Leon, The Jews of the Ancient Rome, pp. 93–121. 219 Riesner, Paul’s Early Period, p. 165. 220 Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, p. 169. Slingerland, “Chrestus: Christus?” pp. 133–144. The evidence by Leon and Riesner are a challenge to Lüdemann and Slingerland’s hypothesis that Chrestus was a non-Christian Jew creating disturbance within the Jewish community. 221 F. F. Bruce, “Christianity under Claudius,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 44 (1962): p. 316. 222 Robert Graves and Joshua Podro, Jesus in Rome: A Historical Conjecture (London: Cassel and Company, 1957), pp. 39–42. 223 In support, Slingerland brings the unnamed freedman mentioned by Josephus in Antiquity 20.135 (see Claudian Policymaking, pp. 232–241). 224 Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 2: pp. 116–117.

70

crime),225 but also knew that the name originated from Christus.226 Some put the blame on Suetonius’s carelessness in writing Chrestus.227 There are diverse hypotheses suggesting that Suetonius had misunderstood his source. Gerd Lüdemann writes, “Suetonius’s mistake is that he considers the cult hero to be an earthly person, who was present in Rome.”228 Likewise, Robert Jewett notes, “It is widely assumed that the Chrestus in question was Christ, who Suetonius thought must have been present to provoke such a tumult.”229 So also, Mary Smallwood, proposes that, “The reference is to Christianity, though he (Suetonius) was apparently under the misapprehension that Chrestus was a rabble-rouser present in person.”230 To be fair, however, Suetonius does not give clear indication whether he thinks of Chrestus as a person or a faith that is associated with Christ. Those who take Suetonius’s mention of Chrestus as a synonym for Christbelief draw support from Acts.231 Hence, the preaching of the Christian faith or about Christ led to disturbances among the members of the synagogue. While problems still remain in construing Chrestus as referring to the teachings of Christ, in my view the argument that belief in Christ or the teachings about Christ created disturbances within the Roman Jewish communities is still a credible possibility.232 The reason is that we can suppose that it is a designation based on Chrestiani for “Christians.” If “Christians” were known as Chrestiani, then Chrestus could have been a popular designation for this segment of the

225 Tacitus, Annals. 15.44.2 (quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos). 226 Tacitus, Annals.15.44.4 (auctor nominis eius, Christus). 227 For details on the identity and interpretation of Chrestus, see Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, pp. 179–201. 228 Lüdemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, p. 169. 229 Jewett, A Chronology of Paul’s Life, p. 37. 230 Smallwood, The Jews Under the Roman Rule, p. 211. 231 Supported by Smallwood, The Jews Under the Roman Rule, p. 211; Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, pp. 6, 12–13; Wolfgang Wiefel assumes that it is not referring to a Jewish agitator, but a misspelling of the name Christus referring to the followers of Chrestus and Acts confirms our interpretation of the Edict of Claudius (“The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome,” p. 92). In contrast, Slingerland argues against interpreting Acts 18:1–3 to support Claudius 25.4; he refers to such use as illegitimate and superfluous. Furthermore, he comments that Acts 18:1–3 cannot be taken as evidence that the Christian Jews were expelled for Acts does not report that the expelled Jews from Rome were Christians when they left Rome (for a detailed discussion on his argument refer to Claudian Policymaking, pp. 210–216). 232 See also, Rutgers, “Roman Policy toward the Jews,” p. 106; Das, Solving the Romans Debate, p. 149; Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, pp. 8–9.

71

Jews. Peter Lampe suggests that the vowel displacement of Chrestus could have been a common mistake among the non-Christians.233 Moreover, such reference to “Christians” is also found in the writings of historians and early church writers. For example, Tacitus writes, “Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, who the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name …”234 Similarly, Tertullian also mentions that Christian is derived from anointing, “even when it is wrongly pronounced by you “Chrestianus” (for you do not even know accurately the name you hate).”235 At another instance, Tertullian mentions chrestiani.236 These writings indicate that Chrestianus was widely used for referring to “Christians” among the “non-Christians.” Hence, Chrestus need not necessarily refer to a person as some scholars have claimed. Rather, it may refer to the teachings about Christ, which created disturbances either in a synagogue or in several synagogues in Rome. For such conflicts in the synagogue were common in other places as well: Jerusalem, Pisida, Iconia, Lystra, and Corinth.237 Probably, the same can be expected in Rome, as the Christian faith was part of the Jewish faith in the beginning. The term “Christians” 233 For further reference, see Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, p. 13. 234 Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis affecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus chrestianos appellabat. Auctor nominis eius Christus (Annals 15:44.2). The English translation is from, Tacitus, The Annals, [http://penelope.uchic ago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/15B*.html] (Accessed on December 10, 2013). 235 «Christianus» vero, quantum interpretatio est, de unctione deducitur. Sed et cum perperam «Chrestianus» pronuntiatur a vobis — nam nec nominis certa est notitia penes vos —, de suavitate vel benignitate compositum est (Tertullian, Apology 3. 5). For the English translation, see http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-05. htm#P267_68508 (Accessed on March 14, 2015). 236 Etiam cum corrupte a uobis Chrestiani pronuntiamur (nam ne nominis quidem ipsius liquido certi estis), sic quoque de suauitate uel bonitate modulatum est. (Tertullian, Ad Nationes 1. 3:9) http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tertullian/tertullian.nati ones1.shtml (Accessed on January 10, 2015). 237 In Acts 6:9–15, the Jews from the Synagogue of the libertines in Jerusalem disputed with Stephen who performed wonders and miracles among the people. In Acts 42–50, Paul and Barnabas clashed with the Jews in the Synagogue in Antioch in Pisida for including the Gentiles to receive the gospel. In Acts 14:1–5, at Iconia, the unbelieving Jews stirred the minds of the Gentiles to go against Paul’s gospel, thus dividing the multitude of the city. In Acts 14:19, Jews from Antioch drove Paul out from the city of Lystra. In Acts 18:12–17, at Corinth, the Jews made insurrection against Paul and brought him to judgment before Gallio.

72

(Lat. Chrestiani or Christiani) is freely used in documents after the year AD 70.238 This term is not primarily a reference to believers in Christ as a community in the early years of the Christian faith in Rome. Rather, as Rudolf Brändle and Ekkehard Stegemann argue, it refers to “followers of Christ” or “Christ-faith.”239 In the early stages of the Christian faith in Rome, the believers in Christ were regarded as part of the Jewish community. The Romans could not consider the believers in Christ outside the Jewish fold for they worshipped in the synagogues and so were probably participating in Jewish celebrations. Furthermore, Seutonius does not mention “Christians” under the reign of Claudius. All these observations strengthen the possibility that Chrestus is a reference to Jesus Christ or the teachings about Christ. On this basis, we can assume that there were already believers in Christ during the time of Claudius, but that they were not referred to as Christians.240 It is less likely that believers in Christ functioned as a separate faith outside the Jewish faith or even as a separate community.

C.  Scope of the Expulsion Based on the hypothesis that the Jews were expelled following Claudius’ edict, there is a question about the extent of the expulsion. We find two views, one from Suetonius and the other in Acts of the Apostles. The passage of Suetonius limits Iudaeos to the attributive impulsore tumultuantes, the Jews (key figures) who were creating disturbances. However, Luke in Acts 18:2 reports that Claudius had commanded πάντας τοὺς Ἰουδαίους (all the Jews) to be expelled from Rome. Hence, considering the two reports, scholars part ways on the extent of the expulsion. A few scholars, based on Acts, conclude that the edict on expulsion affected the entire Jewish community in Rome;241 whereas the majority proposes that it is only the key figures that were driven out of the city.242

238 Acts 11:26; Tacitus, Annals 15.44; Suetonius, Nero 16.2. 239 Brändle & Stegemann, “The Formation of the First “Christian Congregations,” p. 118. 240 See also, Brändle & Stegemann, “The Formation of the First “Christian Congregations,” pp. 117–118. 241 Supporting this view is Wiefel, “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome,” p. 93. 242 Broadhead observes that Acts refers to all Jews, but he concludes that the Edict of Claudius is best explained as an expulsion of the Jews who created disturbance over their message about Jesus. So probably only Jewish and Jewish Christians activist were expelled (Jewish ways of following Jesus, p. 105). Walters also suggests that the edict had effect on the Christian Jews and Acts 18:2 substantiate this view (Ethnic Issues in Paul’s Letter to the Romans, p. 58). See also, Cranfield, Romans, I: p. 18; John

73

Jews in Rome were subjected to conscription and expulsion in the course of history. On the one hand, the Jews who had no right of residence could be expelled immediately. On the other hand, the Jews with Roman citizenship could be banished or be subjected to conscription only after trial if found guilty for an offence. The conscription order was mainly formulated for the latter group, for by the time Claudius came to the throne, the Jewish population had increased. During the time of Augustus, the Jews with Roman citizenship were exempted from military service, but this was temporarily withdrawn from the community in Rome. These two measures were probably employed against the Jews during the time of Claudius in AD 49.243 According to the report in Acts, Claudius expelled “all” the Jews from Rome. However, expulsion in its totality is quite improbable especially in considering that many were already Roman citizens. The use of πάντας can probably be a Lukan redaction as it also appears in Luke and Acts (Acts 17:2; Lk. 15:7).244 While the expulsion of those who possess Roman citizenship was legally a difficult task, demanding a proper procedure,245 those who did not possess Roman citizenship could have been expelled without any trial.246 Suetonius’ report indicates that those who created disturbances were expelled, suggesting thereby that even those with Roman citizenship could be tried, convicted and banished under the law. It is probable that Aquila and Priscilla were also key figures among the Roman Jews involved in the unrest. This is supported by their involvement with the believing communities in Rome and Corinth (Rom. 16:3–5; 1Cor. 16:19). Furthermore, historians like Josephus, Tacitus and Dio make no mention of expulsion during the time of Claudius. Tacitus, in his Annals, reports on the year AD 49, but he makes no mention of the expulsion. Probably it would not have bypassed the attention of the historians if it were a large-scale event. Hence, the matter was likely one of negligible importance. We can thus conclude that only the key members involved in creating disturbances were expelled.

243 244 245 246

74

M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, p. 306; Smallwood, The Jews Under the Roman Rule, pp. 215–216. For details concerning expulsion of a foreigner from Rome and the trials and convictions of those who possess Roman citizenship, refer to Smallwood, The Jews Under the Roman Rule, 207–215. Lampe refers to it as Lukan redaction (From Paul to Valentinus, pp. 13–14). While Smallwood assumes that, it can be a misunderstanding by Luke (The Jews under the Roman Rule, p. 216). Refer to Smallwood, The Jews Under the Roman Rule, 216. Refer to Smallwood, The Jews Under the Roman Rule, 216.

D.  The Effect of Expulsion on Jews and Gentile Sympathizers If Aquila and Priscilla are among those expelled as the account from Acts reports, the next problem concerns the identity of those expelled. A clear-cut differentiation between the Jews and their Gentile sympathizers in the synagogue would not have been an easy task because of the nature of the synagogue, as mentioned.247 As also pointed out by Shaye Cohen, “Even people assembled in a synagogue or present in a Jewish neighbourhood were not necessarily Jews themselves. In the Roman diaspora social mingling between Jews and Gentiles were such that, without inquiring or checking, you could not be sure, who was a Jew and who was not.”248 The word Iudaeos requires further consideration in the light of the GrecoRoman writings and Acts of the Apostles. In the book of Acts, Ἰουδαῖος mainly stand for racial origin and does not appear as a confession of faith.249 Likewise, when Seutonius uses Iudaeus, it primarily refers to Judea and its inhabitants, a foreigner according to the Romans.250 Iudaea and Iudaicus also have a religious connotation in the writings of Suetonius. Suetonius reports that under the Emperor Domitian, the “Iudaicus fiscus” was strictly implemented upon the Ἰουδαῖοι (Josephus, Jewish War 7.218).251 From the writings of Suetonius, one 247 For summaries of evidence, see Scot McKnight, A Light among the Gentile: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), pp. 90–101, 108–114; Magnus Zetterholm, The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity (London: Routledge, 2003), pp. 121–129; Das, Solving the Romans Debate, pp. 171–181 (In pp. 53–114, he also provides details on the Gentile sympathizers or God-fearers in the Jewish community). 248 Shaye J. D. Cohen, “‘Those who say they are Jews and are not’: How do you know a Jew in Antiquity when you See one?” Diaspora in Antiquity, ed., Cohen and Ernest S. Frerichs, BJS 288 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), p. 30. 249 Some examples are the mother of Timothy who is a believer is referred to as Ἰουδαίας (Acts 16:1), Paul and Silas before the magistrate are called Ἰουδαῖοι (Acts 16:20), Paul’s self-appropriation as Ἰουδαῖος (Acts 21:39; 22:3) and Ananias (Acts 22:12; 9:10). 250 In Deified Vespasian 4.5 and 8.1, it is applied to the Judeans. Likewise, in Domitian 12.2, he brings it in the context of the tribute imposed upon the Jewish people. 251 The text indicates that the Romans were aware that not all who took up Jewish ways of life were ethnically a Jew. It reads: “Besides other taxes that on the Jews was levied with the out most rigour, and those were prosecuted who without publicly acknowledging that faith yet lived as Jews, as well as those who concealed their origin and did not pay their tribute levied upon their people. I recall being present in my youth when the person of a man ninety years old was examined before the prosecutor and a very

75

gets the impression that Iudaeus is primarily a reference to the Judeans, who in the eyes of the Romans were essentially foreign to Rome. Along the same line of interpretation, in the writing of Dio Cassius 37.17.1, it says, “The country has been named Judaea, and the people themselves Jews. I do not know how this title came to be given (to) them, but it applies also to all the rest of mankind (humankind), although of alien race, who affect their customs. This class exist even among the Romans, and though often repressed has increased to a very great extent and has won its way to the right of freedom in its observances.”252

The evidence above indicates association between the Jews and the Gentile sympathizers in the synagogues. Basing on the evidence especially from the first century Greco-Roman writings, a few scholars take the position that the edict of Claudius (AD 49) affected the Jews, Jewish Christians and the Gentile adherents in the Synagogues, especially if they were key leaders in the unrest.253 In contrast, others like Wolfgang Wiefel argues, “Expulsion of Jews from Rome also meant the end of the first Christian congregation in Rome, which up until then had consisted of Jewish Christians.”254 As the evidence from the early writings indicate, the Romans might have regarded all the worshippers in the synagogue as Jews. As a result, when unrest broke out in the synagogues, it would have been difficult to single out the Gentile God-fearers and the Jews by birth. Therefore, when the edict of expulsion was issued in AD 49, the concerned Roman authorities could have identified those who were active in stirring the unrest, as well as relied on the information from the synagogue.255 With this in mind, it is still credible to say that along with the Jews and the Jewish believers in Christ, a few Gentile sympathizers who were actively involved in the unrest would have also been expelled, but their number would not have been significant. The majority of the expelled would still have been the Jews and the Jewish believers in Christ.

252 253 254 255

76

crowded court, to see whether he was circumcised” (Domitian 12.2. Also, Tiberius 36). For a detailed discussion in the writing of Suetonius refer to Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking, 153–156. Words inside the brackets are an addition. For this view, see Walters, Ethnic Issues in Paul’s Letter to the Romans, pp. 58–59; Walters “Romans, Jews, and Christians,” p. 177. Wiefel, “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome,” p. 93. See Das, Solving the Romans Debate, p. 174.

E.  Summary of the Analysis of the Report by Suetonius From our analysis of the report of Suetonius (Claudius 25.4), we can draw the following conclusions: 1) The internal unrest among the Jews in the synagogues was a threat to the peace and harmony within the empire. For this reason, Claudius issued the edict of expulsion in AD 49 in order to safeguard peace within the empire and not because of his hatred for a particular community or group. 2) That Chrestus in Suetonius (Claudius 25.4) refers to a faith associated with the teachings about Christ, including the teachings on the inclusion of Gentiles within the family of God. 3) The Claudian edict did not expel the entire Jewish community, but only the key figures that were actively involved in the unrest. 4) The edict impacted non-Christ believing Jews and Christ believing Jews. It is also likely that a few Gentile sympathizers were expelled, though it cannot be proved from the text. However, the number of the Gentiles expelled would not have been significant.

V.  Reading Romans within the Historical Context The edict of Claudius expelling the Jews from Rome in AD 49 can be a possible historical background for Paul’s letter to the Romans.256 This edict could have significantly shaped Christian faith in Rome in the early years.257

A. The Impact of the Claudian Edict on the Development of the Believing Communities in Rome While there is evidence of the Jewish tradition in Rome in the first two centuries,258 we cannot be sure of the degree of the influence of the Jewish tradition within the Christian circles in Rome after its break from the synagogues. However, as 256 Those who take this view are Das, Solving the Romans Debate, pp. 149–202; Cranfield, Romans, I: pp. 17–18; Dunn, Romans 1–8, pp. xlix-liv; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), pp. 31–32; Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, pp. 98–108; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 4–5. On the contrary, Sanday William and Arthus C. Headlam suggest that there was no expulsion under Claudius and that Dio’s report stands valid against Suetonius or Acts (Romans, p. xxl). 257 Wiefel, “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome,” p. 92; Cranfield, Romans, I: p. 16. 258 For evidence regarding Jewish teaching activity in Rome, refer to, Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, p. 78, nt. 43.

77

noted earlier, because the synagogues were a worshipping place not only for the Jews, but also for proselytes, Greeks and God fearers, who were, but a minority, it is likely that the synagogue traditions shaped the Christian faith in Rome. In this regard, Edwin Broadhead proposes “Jewish Christianity exerts a strong influence upon Roman Christianity, even after the house churches and the synagogues seem to have separated.”259 Broadhead adds that the first Christians in Rome preserved and transmitted the cultivated traditions of Jewish teachings within the Christ believing circles, which also included the Gentile Christians.260 In the writings of Ambrosiaster, we get a glimpse of the tradition of Jewish activity in the Roman congregation. It is established that there were Jews living in Rome in the time of the apostles and that those Jews who had believed [in Christ] passed on to the Romans the tradition that they ought to profess Christ but keep the Law…One ought not to condemn the Romans, but to praise their faith because without seeing any of the signs or miracles, and without seeing any of the apostles, they nevertheless accepted faith in Christ, although in a Jewish manner.261

Another source that reflects the presence of Jewish tradition in the Roman Christ believing congregations is the anti-Marcionite prologue: The Romans lived in Italian territory. They were deceived by false prophets and under the name of our Lord Jesus Christ had been led astray to the Law and the Prophets. Writing to them from Corinth, the apostle recalls them to the true evangelical faith.262

From the witnesses from early sources, it is reasonable to suggest that the Christian faith in Rome was influenced by Jewish ways of life, at least in its early years. However, the edict of Claudius also affected significantly in several areas the self-definitions of Christian faith as a group vis-à-vis Judaism.263 James Walters provides a rationale to the shift in self-definitions among the Roman groups. 259 Broadhead, Jewish ways of following Jesus, p.111. Broadhead uses terms like Christianity and Christian for Christ believing Jews and Gentiles. 260 Broadhead, Jewish ways of following Jesus, p. 113. 261 Brown & Meier, Antioch and Rome, pp. 110–111. 262 Werner Georg Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems, trans. S. McLean Gilmore & Howard C. Kee (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972 [German original, 1970]), p. 14. 263 Walters assumes that the edict also provided a platform for the Jews to clarify their relation to Christians in order to avoid censorship for disturbances caused by the Christians (Ethnic Issues in Paul’s Letter to the Romans, pp. 59–60); Douglas Moo also shows that with the expulsion we find strong Gentile elements in the churches. Furthermore, Moo assumes that the decentralized nature of the Jewish community

78

The turmoil that Jewish Christians and God-fearing Gentiles experienced was compounded in the aftermath of the edict; not only were they separated from their “ethos,” but they had at the same time to deal with the dissonance caused by changes in the Christian communities… The edict would have caused a considerable shift in roles of authority in the community… Gentile Christians, free from the scrupulous consciences of their law-abiding comrades, were no longer observing dietary laws and were not optimistic about renewing old practices… In Rome, because of the edict of Claudius and the growth of the Gentile Christianity, those advocating freedom had the upper hand… The pressure that law-abiding Christians felt under these circumstances must have been enormous.264

This has an important bearing on our reading of Romans. First, with the Claudian edict, Christian faith in Rome took on a different phase; it broke away from the synagogue. This in turn might have affected its patterns of worship, at least in relation to worship in the home-gatherings. Second, in the epistle to the Romans, which was written a few years after the event, we encounter a new congregation. The “real addressee” is not the Jewish believers, but the “new” congregation of believers in Christ in Rome after the expulsion.265 More significantly, it brought about a shift in the composition of the home-gatherings,266 which had become largely Gentile.267 Third, since the Gentile believers in Christ were now a majority, leadership positions were also mainly in their hands. As members who were expelled returned, they probably wanted to preserve their distinctive Jewish identity. This could have produced tension and divisions within the believing communities in Rome. Hence, it is not surprising that Paul exhorts the members to live in harmony and remind them of their new identity in Christ (Rom. 1–11). We note here that opinions differ on the audience of Romans. Some argue for the Jewish believers as a majority,268 militating against the view that Paul could also have contributed to several house churches [The Epistle to the Romans, p. 5]. However, one cannot be very certain, for other factors probably could have been involved like the space available for meeting or the distance factor. 264 Walters, Ethnic Issues in Paul’s Letter to the Romans, p. 64. 265 Wiefel, “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome,” p. 93. 266 The decentralized nature of the Jewish community from which the Christian community sprang would have contributed to the existence of several house churches (Moo, Romans, p. 5). 267 Dunn, Romans 1–8, p. liii; Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament ed. trans. by H.C. Kee (London: SCM Press, 1966), pp. 309–311. 268 Ferdinand Christian Baur, Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ. His life and work, his epistles and his doctrine, trans. Eduard Zeller, vol. I (1876, Reprint; Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003), p. 321; T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1909), I: p. 422.

79

was addressing mainly the Gentile believers.269 There is no evidence to suggest a clear-cut division in terms of numbers. However, one thing is certain: both Jewish and Gentile believers are referred to in the epistle to the Romans.270 Probably one can assume that with the expulsion of the Jews and the Jewish believers in Christ, Gentile believers would have increased in number, and by the time Paul was writing Romans, Gentiles could have been in majority even when the Jewish believers returned.

B.  Romans 14:1–15:6 within the Historical Context The “weak” and the “strong” in Romans 14:1–15:6 does not only describe degrees of conviction, but also suggest the relative power of the two groups in the communities. In Romans 14:1, Paul exhorts the “strong” to accept the “weak,” indicating 269 Sanday and Headlam, Romans, pp. xxi-xxiv; C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1957), p. 22; Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 218–20. 270 C. E. B. Cranfield points that it cannot be an overwhelming majority and a tiny minority (Romans, II: p. 21). A similar view is also held by Douglas Moo, Romans, p. 13; Sanday and Headlam suggest that the community to which Paul is writing is Gentile in its general complexion, but it also includes a subsequent number of Jews (Romans, p. xxxiv); Joseph Fitzmyer also proposes a mixed community of both Jews and the Gentiles, but predominantly of Gentile background (Romans, p. 33). A few evidence from the epistle that points to both the Jews and the Gentiles: The formula, “to the Jews first and also the Gentiles,” is found frequently. There is also a redefinition of Jews and the reference to the Jews and the Gentiles praising God (Rom. 2–5; 15:8–12). The other instance where we find the presence of Jewish believers is in Romans 16:3–11, where Paul refers to Aquila and Priscilla, Andronicus, Junia and Herodian. Paul also addresses the Jews (Rom. 2:3, 17) and his readers with the Mosaic Law (Rom. 6:14; 7:1, 4), refers to Abraham as our ancestor (Rom. 14:1) and to issues surrounding Jewish people (Rom. 3:19–20, 27–31; 4:12–15; 5:13–14; 6:14; 7:1–25; 8:2–4; 9:30–10:8). Similarly, there are also references to Gentile believers in the epistle. Paul refers to himself as an apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 1:5–6; 15:14–21), even his arguments about God’s plan for Jews in Romans 11:1–24 is directed to Gentiles in 11:13 and his exhortations on dietary laws and observance of special days were directed to both the Jews and the Gentiles (Rom. 14–15). This indicates that Paul was aware of the people groups among the believers in Rome and his teachings were directed to both groups within the epistle. The vulnerability of the returning Jews makes Paul warn his Gentile audience against the attitude of superiority (Rom. 11:17–21). In his exhortation on the “weak” and the “strong” in Romans 14:1–15:6, Paul also encourages the “strong” to accept the “weak,” most of who were returnees from the expulsion.

80

that the “strong” are those who control the communities. In other words, after the expulsion of AD 49, the Gentiles took over most of the key positions in the home-gatherings. We can probably agree with James Dunn that Aquila and Priscilla demonstrated their leadership qualities in the “intra-Jewish debates in Rome” before their expulsion in AD 49.271 The return of the Jews with the death of Claudius (AD 54) also included Jewish believers in Christ, like Aquila and Priscilla, Andronicus and Junia and others (Rom. 16). In such a situation where the home-gatherings was predominantly Gentile, it would have been difficult for the Jewish believers to regain their leadership roles. The Jewish believers also had to identify with the Gentile home-gatherings that separated themselves from the synagogue.272 Hence, for the benefit of the Jewish believers who had recently returned, Paul exhorts the “strong in faith” (mostly Gentile believers) who are now in the majority to accept the “weak in faith” (Rom. 14:1). It is not surprising that Paul strives to create a harmonious relationship between the Jewish and the Gentile believers in Christ by asking them to accept one another (Rom. 15:7), for, such a community in Christ represents the eschatological promise of the future of Israel from the standpoint of Heilsgeschichte, in particular of non-Christ believing Israel’s future.273 When the Jewish believers in Christ who were expelled returned, they must have wanted to uphold their distinct Jewish identity, which produced tension and conflicts, dividing the members of the faith community. It was in such a situation that Paul exhorted the members to live in harmony and reminded them of their new identity in Christ, without the obliteration of their identities as Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 1–11). In Romans 12–13, he speaks of attitudes and beliefs necessary for this new identity, which further leads to harmonious living in Romans 14–15.

VI. Summary From our analysis of the historical context of Romans 15:7–13, we can thus sum up the following: First, Judaism made its way to Rome from Palestine through trade and the war captives. As indicated, the Jews resided mainly in the Trans-Tiber area of Trastevere and the Appian Way. The Jews were scattered and this could have been the reason for the many synagogues. The presence of the Jews in Rome could have 271 James D. G. Dunn, The Acts of the Apostles (Peterborough: Epworth press, 1996), p. 241. 272 Dunn, Romans1–8, p. liii. 273 Romans 11: 25–32. Also, Wiefel,“The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome,” pp. 96–97.

81

contributed to the birth of the Christian faith in Rome. There is no evidence of any missionary work by Paul or Peter. However, it could have made its way to some of the synagogues, for the synagogues served as an important place for the growth of the Christian faith. Second, the first Christians in Rome worshiped together with the Jews and a few Gentile sympathizers in the synagogues. However, the dissensions between the Jews and the believers in Christ in the synagogues attracted the attention of the Roman authority resulting in the Claudian edict of expulsion in AD 49. There is no evidence for us to believe that there was a further clash between the believers in Christ and the Jews after the edict of Claudius. Third, one permanent result of this expulsion was that believers in Christ and Jews parted ways, giving rise to the home-gatherings of the believers in Christ. As indicated, the Christian faith in Rome was influenced by Jewish ways of life, at least in its early years. Over time, a shift in patterns and practices in the Christ believing communities took place, which had become predominantly Gentile in character. By then, the Gentiles who had no contact or were not familiar with Judaism would have joined the believing communities after the expulsion of the Jews, making this new faith more Gentile-friendly. This community was different in structural and spiritual outlook from the one that existed. The meetings took place now in homes. Romans 16 shows that the believers in Christ by that time were already worshipping in different private homes, giving rise to the many home-gatherings of the believers in Christ. By then it was also a community where the Gentiles had taken over the responsibilities and positions that were previously in the hands of the Jewish believers. With the return of the expelled Jewish believers in Christ who wanted to uphold the Jewish ways of life, there were tensions among the believers in Christ in Rome. In such a context, Paul exhorts the Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ to accept one another. Having situated Romans within the historical setting, the task that remains is to identify the function of Romans 15:7–13 within the argument of the Epistle.

82

Chapter Three: Romans 15:7–13 in the Argument of the Epistle I. Introduction In the preceding chapter, an attempt was made to locate Romans within its historical setting. Thus far, we have traced and interpreted Romans 15:7–13 against the backdrop of the Claudian edict, which resulted in the expulsion of the Jews, as reported by Suetonius. Our hypothesis is that the believers in Christ who adhered to Jewish practices on their return after the death of Claudius found it difficult to accept the new form of Christian faith, as it was no longer attached to the synagogue and was now Gentile oriented. Having located its historical context, our next task focuses on situating Romans 15:7–13 within the argument of the Epistle. The scholarly view of Romans 9–11 as the interpretive key to the entire letter goes back to Ferdinand Christian Baur of the Tübingen school of thought. For him, Romans 9–11 should be taken into consideration while analyzing Paul’s intention of writing Romans.274 In contrast, William Campbell regards Romans 3 as key to the structure and thought of Romans.275 Offering a different proposal is Daniel Chae who takes Romans 15:14–21 as the interpretive key in order to enter into the meaning of the entire letter. He attempts to establish that the subject matter of the entire letter concerns the issue of the Gentiles and the role of Paul’s apostolic call in writing to the Roman believers in Christ.276 The hypotheses of these interpreters, though credible, instructive and persuasive, run the danger of resulting in circular arguments. That said, we propose to treat a particular text exhaustively, namely, Romans 15:7–13, as scholars have often overlooked this text.277 274 Ferdinand Christian Baur, Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ. His Life and Work, his Epistles and his Doctrine, trans. Allan Menzies, ed. Eduard Zeller, vol. I (1876. Reprint; Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003), p. 315. 275 William S. Campbell, “Romans III as key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter,” NovT 23 (1981): pp. 22–40. 276 Daniel J.-S. Chae, Paul as Apostle to the Gentiles: His Apostolic Self-Awareness and its Influence on the Soteriological Argument in Romans (Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 1997), pp. 19–20. 277 Scott Hafemann rightly observes that scholars have often overlooked 15:7–13 “because of its location in the ‘merely’ hortatory section of Paul’s epistle” (Scott Hafemann, “Eschatology and Ethics,” p. 161).

83

However, we would not argue that it provides the interpretive key for Romans. Instead, we attempt to investigate how Romans 15:7–13, in summing up the section of Romans 14:1–15:6, highlights some of the key concepts expressed in the entire letter. This does not undermine the importance of the context, especially the preceding context that plays a major role in the interpretation of the text.

II.  The “Weak” and the “Strong” in Romans 14–15 In Romans 14:1–15:6, the epistle mentions the “weak” and the “strong” groups in Rome. Scholars like Robert J. Karris and Günther Bornkamm argue that any attempt to identify the “weak” and the “strong” groups in the Roman Christ believing communities has produced no fruitful result. They do not find historical and exegetical evidence for the interpretation of “weak” and “strong” communities in Rome. Instead, these scholars propose that Romans 14 and 15 are a general instruction relating to a specific situation Paul encountered in his ministry or that they can be regarded as a rewriting of 1Corinthians 8–10.278 Some scholars go on to suggest that the occasion for Romans is Paul’s upcoming trips to Jerusalem or Spain, or general concerns for the well being of the faithful in the Roman communities.279 However, based on the historical280 and exegetical context281 of the pericope (Rom. 14:1–15:13), the proposal that the reference to the “weak” and the “strong” are general references or a reflection of Paul’s experience at Corinth appears highly unlikely. Hence, the identity of the “weak” and the “strong” will be investigated as it remains crucial for the interpretation of the pericope (Rom. 15:7–13). First, we will identify “weak” and “strong” based on the report in Romans 14. Second, we will look at the category of identification in modern scholarship.

278 Karris sees it as a reworking of the Corinthian correspondence (“Romans 14:1–15:13 and the Occasion of Romans,” p. 84). Günther Bornkamm regards this epistle as Paul’s last will and testament (“The Letter to the Romans as Paul’s Last Will and Testament, “The Romans Debate, p. 28). Also, Wayne A. Meeks takes it as general admonitions about relationships [The Morale World of the First Christians (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), p. 133]. 279 View supported by Jacob Jervell, “The Letter to Jerusalem,” The Romans Debate; Roger D. Aus, “Paul’s Travel Plans to Spain and the ‘Full Number of the Gentiles’ of Rom. XI 25,” Novum Testamentum 21/3 (1979): pp. 232–262. 280 The historical context of Romans has been established in the preceding chapter. 281 Our interpretation in this study will show that Romans or Paul’s exhortation of “weak” and “strong” is not a general instruction.

84

A.  Characteristics of Identification in Romans 14 1.  Identity of the “Strong” (Romans 14) Generally, the characteristics of the “strong” indicate that they were Gentile Christians in Gentile majority which included a few Jews like Paul. They differed from the “weak” in matters related to the purity system. This is indicated in Romans 14:14 where the issues dividing the “weak” and the “strong” concerns κοινόν, a word linked to Jewish cultic language.282 In their practice of diet and observance of special days, the “strong” believe “they may eat all things” (Rom. 14:2), and regard all days as being alike (Rom. 14:5). The characteristics of the “strong” are akin to Gentiles who have become followers of Christ without taking up the Jewish ways of life. Although Paul identifies himself with the “strong,” he confronts the “strong” on some of their attitudes. First, the “strong” who eat everything are instructed not to despise the “weak” who observe dietary laws, for God has also accepted them, the “weak” (Rom. 14:3, 10). Second, the “strong” are also warned that their conduct should not become a stumbling to the “weak” (Rom. 14:15–16). This is indicated in Romans 14:15, which reads, “For if because of food your brother is grieved, you are no longer walking according to love; do not destroy by your food him (that man/woman) on behalf of whom Christ died.” Third, in Romans 14:17, Paul brings food and drink in relation to the kingdom of God, with an emphasis that food and drink are not the priority as believers, but the kingdom values of “righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” are of utmost importance as members in the family of God. The “strong” are reminded “not to destroy the work of God for the sake of food” (Rom. 14:20). In confronting their unacceptable attitudes towards the “weak,” Paul reminds the “strong” that their place as members of the believing community is through the grace of God established in Christ (Rom. 14:14–15:3). The deed of Christ in accepting both the Jews and the Gentiles becomes the basis for the attitude of the “strong” towards the “weak.”

282 Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 800.

85

2.  Identity of the “Weak” (Romans 14) In Romans 14–15, there are three precise references to the “weak.” The terms used are τὸν ἀσθενοῦντα (Rom. 14:1), ὁ ἀσθενῶν (Rom. 14:2) and τῶν ἀδυνάτων (Rom. 15:1). Apart from these terms, there are a few characteristics that define the “weak”: they are vegetarian (Rom. 14:2) and they abide by the purity system of the Jewish cultic law (Rom. 14:14). Just as the “strong” are confronted with some of their attitudes towards the “weak,” the “weak” are also warned of their unaccepting attitude towards the “strong.” First, the “weak” are warned against judging the “strong” because of what they eat, for the “strong” are also accepted by God (Rom. 14:3–4). Second, Paul reminds the “weak,” by saying “for meat does not destroy the work of God. All things indeed are clean” (Rom. 14:20a,b). The terms and characteristics used in connection to the “weak” give us no indication of an identifiable group, especially for the identity of the “weak.” Scholars are divided especially on the identification of the “weak” giving rise to a few different proposals. Therefore, having brought out the characteristics of the “weak” and the “strong” from the text, we will look into some of the proposals of identification in modern scholarship.

B.  Categories of Identification in Modern Scholarship The identification of the “weak” and the “strong” has received much attention in the interpretation of Romans 14:1–15:13. It has given rise to a few possible categories of identification, but with no definite consensus.

86

Chart 1 Category 1 Category 2

Category 3 Category 4

Categories of identification Weak = Jew and Gentile Believers in Christ = practiced an ascetic lifestyle.283 Strong = Gentile believers in Christ for whom the Torah did not count anymore. Weak = non-Christian Jews in Rome who did not agree with the “strong” on the notion that the Law had come to an end, a view that inclines towards Judaizing tendency.284 Weak = Gentile believers = influenced by the traditional Jewish practices, abstained from eating meat and observed special days.285 Weak = Loyal to the Jewish ways of life (mainly Jewish believers in Christ). Strong = Freedom from the Jewish ways of life (mainly the Gentile believers in Christ).286

283 View supported by John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT. Vol. II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965), pp. 172–174; Paul J. Achtemeier, Romans. Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), p. 215. Robert Jewett also mentions that in view of Greco-Roman ascetic ideals prevalent in Rome, it is also possible to suggest that the “weak” also included the ascetics from pagan background (Romans: A Commentary, p. 835; also Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, pp. 75–84, 137–138). Some scholars are more specific by referring to the “weak” as Jewish believers in Christ who practiced sectarian asceticism. This view is supported by Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (1886, reprint; Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1950), p. 417; H. A. W. Meyer, The Epistle to the Romans, vol. II (1872, reprint; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1881, 1884), pp. 296–298; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, p. 368. 284 Nanos, The Mystery of Romans, pp. 131–152. 285 View supported by Das, “The Encoded Audience of Romans 15:7–13,” pp. 101–102; Das, Solving the Romans Debate; Garroway, “The Circumcision of Christ: ‘Romans 15:7–13,’” p. 306; Robert A. J. Gagnon, ‘Why the “weak” at Rome cannot be NonChristian Jews,’ CBQ 62/1 (2000): p. 66. 286 View supported by Cranfield, Romans, II: pp. 694–697; Dunn, Romans 9–16, vol. 38b, pp. 799–802; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 829–830; Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, pp. 175–177. Some scholars taking this position specifically refer to the “weak” as Jewish believers, who like in the Corinthian context thought it was wrong to eat meat sold in the common marketplace, for such meat could have been in contact with idolatry (View supported by, Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans (reprint; Philadelphia: Fortress press, 1949), p. 442; J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Investigation, SNTSMS 20 (Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1972), pp. 323–326).

87

Scholars who take the first category of identification and identify the “weak” as those who are influenced by syncretistic ascetic teachings or those who practice asceticism, point to the following characteristics of the “weak” from the pericope: they are “weak in faith” (Rom. 14:1), they eat only vegetables (Rom. 14:2), they abstain from wine and meat (Rom. 14:17, 21) and some judge one day above the other, while another takes all days alike (Rom. 14:5). However, the problem with this view is that these statements from the text do not specifically point to asceticism; instead they can stand in general for any law observant Jew in a Gentile environment-as rightly observed by Francis Watson who regards these to be standard Jewish beliefs that do not point to syncretistic ascetic ideas.287 There is also evidence from the Jewish writings that mention that the Jews abstained from meat and wine in a Gentile environment. Daniel and his friends abstained from partaking meat and wine in order to not be defiled (Dan. 1:8–6). Judith refuses to eat food and drink wine offered by Holofernes (Judith 12:1–4). Esther refrains from eating at the king’s feast or at Haman’s table; neither did she drink “the wine of the libations” (Esther 14:17, LXX). Hence, it is also probable that the believers in Christ who were expelled from Rome in AD 49 (Claudian edict) practiced abstention and upon their return, wanted to uphold this practice in a predominantly Gentile environment,288 especially during the meal fellowship.289 Mark Nanos, in proposing the second category of identification, questions the consensus that the “weak” were believers in Christ who practice the Jewish ways of life.290 He offers an impressive and creative proposal that the “weak” were non-Christ believing Jews in Rome. According to Nanos, the “weaknesses of the weak” alludes not to the Jewish traditional practices,291 but stands for the inability to recognize Jesus as the Christ in whom all the promises were fulfilled.292 Nanos identifies the practices of the “weak” with regard to diet and days

287 Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, p. 175. 288 Along this line, Byrne and Watson interpret that the Roman Jewish Christians practiced abstinence of meat and wine in a predominantly Gentile environment [Brendan Byrne, Romans, SacPag. Vol. 6 (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996), pp. 404–405; cf. Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, p. 176]. 289 See Minear, The Obedience of Faith, p. 10; John M. G. Barclay, ‘“Do we undermine the Law?”: A Study of Romans 14:1–15:6,’ Paul and the Mosaic Law (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996), p. 291. Watson proposes that Paul has in mind table fellowship between Christian Jews and the Gentile Christians (Paul Judaism and the Gentiles, p. 176). 290 Nanos, The Mystery of Romans, p. 91. 291 Nanos, The Mystery of Romans, p. 91. 292 Nanos, The Mystery of Romans, p. 119.

88

(Rom. 14:2–21), and their offerings of thanksgiving to God before meals (Rom. 14:6) are indications of a “monotheistic faith toward God,” the belief in “one God of historic Israel.”293 Nonetheless, Nanos agrees with the general interpretation in the identity of the “strong,” that they have faith in Christ.294 The view of Nanos has generated much interest and received a number of critical reviews among biblical scholars.295 It has, however, not received wide acceptance. The context Nanos posits for the interactions between the “weak” and the “strong” is the synagogue. According to him, when Romans was written, the believers in Christ were still meeting in the synagogue.296 However, the context for the Gentile believer’s association with the synagogue as understood by Nanos poses a problem for the interpretation of Romans 14:1–15:13.297 Philip Esler gives two reasons why this is so. The first is that Romans 16 points to Christfollowers meeting in homes and this suggests separation from the synagogue. The second problem is that Paul’s aim throughout Romans is to bring “Judeans” and “non-Judeans” in the Christ-movement under one common identity and this aim is reflected in 14:1–15:13. Thus, within the context of house-gatherings, Paul’s aim was reconciliation within the movement.298 We can also add other objections from the historical and the literary context of the epistle. First, if Romans is read within its historical context, then with the expulsion of some Jews and Jewish believers in Christ in AD 49, it is unlikely that the non-Christ believing Jew and Gentile believers in Christ still met regularly in the synagogues. As indicated in the preceding chapter, by then the Jews and the believers in Christ would have parted ways, with the Gentile believers in Christ 293 Nanos, The Mystery of Romans, pp. 104–105. 294 Nanos, The Mystery of Romans, p. 118. 295 In its annual meeting in 1997 in San Francisco, the Society of Biblical Literature set aside a panel discussion to review Nanos, The Mystery of Romans. In 1998, the Catholic Biblical Association in its Annual Meeting also devoted a session to the review of the work of Nanos. Some other reviews and critiques include, James D. G. Dunn, “Review of Mark D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans,” Journal of Theological Studies 48 (1997), pp. 599–602; Gagnon, ‘Why the “weak” at Rome cannot be Non-Christian Jews,’ pp. 64–82; Das, Solving the Romans debate, pp. 116–148. For a detailed review of why the “weak” in Romans cannot be non-Christian Jews, especially refer to Gagnon and Das. 296 Nanos, The Mystery of Romans, pp. 109–110. 297 This problem is also indicated by Gagnon, ‘Why the “weak” at Rome cannot be NonChristian Jews,’ pp. 65–66; Das, Solving the Romans debate, pp. 118–123; Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, p. 342. 298 Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, p. 342.

89

gathering in homes of its members. Second, Paul’s exhortation in Romans 14:1– 15:6 indicates that the “strong” are the majority and have the upper hand. They are asked to welcome the “weak” (Rom. 14:1), which indicates that they have a greater responsibility. However, if we look at the synagogue context as presented by Mark Nanos, it is unlikely that the Gentile believers in Christ would have been in a position of authority and control in the synagogue. Also, Robert Gagnon in his detailed critique of the approach of Nanos to the interpretation of Romans observes, “Paul puts most of the responsibility” on the “strong” in asking them to welcome the “weak” into their “network of intimate relationship.” In addition, Paul focuses a large part of his discussions as the fault of the “strong” for causing disunity (Rom. 14:13b–15:6).299 However, as this study argues below, there are problems with Gagnon’s (also Andrew Das) proposal that both the “weak” and the “strong” are Gentile believers in Christ to which we now turn. The scholars who take the third category of identification and propose that Paul is addressing a Gentile audience argue that the Jewish practices identified are also customs adopted by non-Jews who are sympathetic toward Judaism in the first century AD.300 Robert Gagnon specifically identifies the “weak” as “Noahide” Gentile believers in Christ who had association with the synagogue, but was now part of the fellowship in the “house-churches.”301 However, A. Andrew Das, who also takes this position, recognizes that the reference to Jews, Judaism, Israel and circumcision dominates in other parts of Romans; moreover, Paul makes no hesitation for explicit identification of a Jewish presence. Nevertheless, Das avers that in Romans 14:1–15:6, Paul does not identify the “weak” as Jewish or the circumcised people.302 He questions Francis Watson’s proposal that Paul is urging the non-law-observant Gentiles to welcome the law-observant Jewish believers in Christ who are visiting their gathering.303 Das justifies his thesis by proposing that in this section, Paul is addressing the Gentiles who adhered to the Jewish ways of life. He construes the infinitives δοξάσαι and βεβαιῶσαι in Romans 15:8–9a as purpose clauses being governed by εἰς τό (Rom. 15:8). This 299 300 301 302 303

90

Gagnon, ‘Why the “weak” at Rome cannot be Non-Christian Jews,’ p. 65. See Das, “The Encoded Audience of Romans 15:7–13,” pp. 101–102. Gagnon, ‘Why the “weak” at Rome cannot be Non-Christian Jews,’ p. 66. Das, “The Encoded Audience of Romans 15:7–13,” p. 103. Andrew Das refers to Francis Watson, Paul Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 94–105. For other works that bring out this aspect refer also to Francis Watson, “The Two Roman Congregations: Romans 14:1–15:13,” The Romans Debate, pp. 203–215; (Check also Beyond the New Perspective, pp. 175–191.

syntactical construction indicates that Paul puts emphasis on the Gentiles. Had Paul intended a mixed audience, there would have been a balanced emphasis on both the Jews and the Gentiles.304 If the proposal of Das and others who identify the “weak” as Gentile believers in Christ is valid, a few questions may be asked. First, what happens if we read the syntax from the perspective of the service of Christ to both the Jews and to the Gentiles?305 Second, if the hypothesis of Das remains valid, why would Paul in particular leave out Romans 14:1–15:13 from addressing this issue, a section that particularly refers to the division over Jewish dietary laws? Third, how would one justify the hypothesis that both the “weak” and the “strong” are Gentile believers in Christ, if Romans 14:1–15:13 is interpreted in its historical context of the Claudian edict? Taking a different position are scholars who take the fourth category of identification and refer to the “weak” as mainly the Jewish believers in Christ and the “strong” as mainly the Gentile believers. This category of identification has received wide acceptance in Pauline scholarship. This study also takes the fourth category of identification that view the “weak” mainly as Jewish believers in Christ who felt obligated to observe the Jewish way of life and practices, and the “strong” mainly as Gentile believers in Christ whose ethos was based on freedom from the law. Considering the Jew-Gentile theme that runs like a thread throughout Romans, such identification makes sense. Hence, for our convenience we will refer to the groups as Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ. Although Paul nowhere affirms such identification, for, even in identifying himself with the “strong,” he only writes “we who are strong” (Rom. 15:1), a very general identification. Even the section on Romans 14:1–15:6 makes no mention of Jews and Gentiles, but the issues discussed relates to Jewish practices. Apart from this, the Jew-Gentile theme dominates Romans 15:7–13, and because Romans 15:7–13 is generally considered as summing up the section on Romans 14:1–15:6,306 it is plausible that Paul’s call for acceptance (Rom. 14:1; 15:7) is directed to two groups whose attitudes toward the Jewish way of life and practices differ. This identification dovetails with Paul’s reference to the Jews and the Gentiles in Romans 15:7–13.

304 For further discussions, see Das, “The Encoded Audience of Romans 15:7–13,” pp. 91–100. 305 This is demonstrated in the subsequent chapter on the Syntactical Analysis. 306 It is argued at the later part of this chapter.

91

Francis Watson,307 also in supporting the fourth category of identification, brings out four reasons: first, in Romans 14:14, it is mentioned that the belief of the “weak” concerns certain food as κοινός (unclean), a term used in connection with Jewish dietary laws (cf. Acts 10:14, 28; 11:18); second, Romans 14:5 mentions that some people valued certain days better than others, probably referring to the Jewish special days; third, the reference to “eating” and “faith” or “believing” can be understood in the light of the faith/law antithesis; and fourth, Romans 15:7–13 refers to the duty of the Jews and the Gentiles to welcome one another with the example of Christ.308 That said, the problem with Watson’s view is the impression he gives that Jewish and Gentile believers worshipped separately. If what Watson proposes is valid, then the dietary laws would not have been a major problem. Unlike the churches in Corinth that came together as a single community for partaking of meals occasionally, we do not see such instances in the epistle to the Romans.309 It is possible that Paul’s exhortation in Romans 14–15 does not actually justify the proposal that the Jewish and Gentile believers worshipped separately. It is more probable that the home-gatherings at Rome consisted of mixed groups, and in such a setting, Paul exhorts the “strong” to accept the “weak,” who are a minority, or even broadens his exhortation for both the “weak” and the “strong” to accept one another (as in Romans 15:7). Having described the groups, we will briefly investigate the immediate context that has to do with Paul’s exhortation to the “weak” and the “strong.”

III.  The Immediate Context of Romans 15:7–13 The Epistle to the Romans points to a number of home-gatherings, which were loosely organized (Rom. 16). As seen in the preceding chapter, several small congregations were formed after the breakaway from the synagogue following the edict of Claudius in AD 49.

307 Francis Watson refers to the two groups as “Jewish Christians” and “Gentile Christians,” but with the inclusion of the proselytes among the “Jewish Christians” and not strictly Jewish from ethnic sense. While the “Gentile Christians” also include Jews like Paul (Beyond the New Perspective, p. 175). 308 For details, refer to Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, pp. 175–177. See also, Miller, The Obedience of Faith, pp. 8–11. 309 For further elaboration check the section on “worship and meal setting” in this chapter.

92

A.  The Preceding Context Throughout Romans 14:1–15:13, a picture of the community divided over the question of diet and days are conveyed.310 In this pericope, Paul’s focus is on the practices of the Roman believers that are creating differences and divisions within the Christ believing communities.311 Paul’s direction on how the “weak” and the “strong” should relate to one another marks the preceding context of Romans 15:7–13. The “weak” would probably not observe the Jewish calendar (Rom. 14:5– 6) and practice the food laws (Rom. 14:14). In Romans 14:5–6a, Paul writes of the observance of days. Here, the reference is probably to the Sabbath.312 This issue is briefly indicated in Romans 14:1–15:7. Considering its brevity, it is probable that Paul thought the issue of days was not a major problem (Rom. 14:6a). Unlike the issue of days, the issue of diet would have been a major problem, leading to tension and division among the Roman Christ believing communities. The emphasis on diet leads Francis Watson to suggest that Paul in Romans 15:5–13 probably refers to the practice of communal meals associated with common worship.313 To be able to fellowship in harmony requires of both the “weak” and the “strong” to make sacrifices and concessions. Some members within the communities were vegetarians (Rom. 14:2). Paul argues that if some members within the communities were offended because of what the others eat, then the latter would not be walking in love (Rom. 14:15). He urges the believers not to let dietary habits ruin the other person who does not follow general habits (Rom. 14:15), or this would destroy the work of God (Rom. 14:20). The division of the Roman Christ believing communities over the dietary habits can also be interpreted against the backdrop of a religious purity system, which differentiates

310 Food (Rom. 14:2–4, 6b, 14–23); wine (Rom. 14:17, 21); days (Rom. 14:5–6a). 311 Dunn interprets 14:1–15:13 as an attempt of Paul “to redefine the people of God” (Romans 9–16, p. 797). Some scholars also indicate that there was social interaction among the believers comprising of Jews and non-Jews in Romans 14–15 [See Brandle & Stegemann, “The Formation of the First “Christian Congregations” in Rome in the Context of the Jewish Congregations,” p. 125; Karl P. Donfried, The Romans Debate. Revised and Expanded, 1991]. 312 See also Dunn, Romans 9–16. pp. 803–806; Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 960; Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Context, p. 405. 313 Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, p. 177.

93

“clean” (καθαρός314) from “unclean” (κοινός315) food (Rom. 14:14, 20). When Paul uses “clean” and “unclean” in Romans 14:14, 20, it is plausible that he is referring to the observance of the Jewish dietary laws.316 In general, the Mosaic Law does not call for vegetarianism.317 Nevertheless, as mentioned, we find evidence of Jews in the Diaspora who refrained from eating meat and drinking wine because of purity reasons, i.e., to refrain themselves from eating food prepared by a Gentile.318 Wine when prepared by Gentiles was also subject to uncleanliness. Moreover, there were regulations that were connected with meat, especially the draining of blood (Lev. 3:17; 7:26–27; 17:10–14; Acts 15:20, 29). With regard to the setting of the “weak” and the “strong” (Rom. 14:1–15:6), some interpreters suggest that this reflects the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in AD 49. In a new context, the expelled Jews would have to abstain from meat and wine because of the unavailability of ceremonially pure meat and wine.319 Others argue that Jewish believers in Christ had problems in getting ceremonially pure meat and wine.320 While the former interpretation makes good sense, 314 Καθαρός is used of physical as well as religious ritual and cultic, and moral purity. The Greek word primarily means clean [Hauck, “Clean and Unclean in the New Testament,” TDNT, vol. III (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1965) p. 427]. 315 κοινός literally refers to what is “common.” It is also used as a technical term for what is unclean (see 1Maccabees 1:47, 62; Mark 7:2, 5; Acts 10:14, 28; 11:8). In a conflict concerning abstinence from meat in Romans 14:20, Paul is trying to assert the religious cleanliness of all created things (TDNT, vol. III, p. 427). 316 In this respect, it differs from the Corinthian context where meat eating (1Cor. 8–10) is not related to Jewish dietary laws. Rather, in Corinthians, Paul speaks in a context of eating meat offered to idols/gods. See also Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in its contexts, p. 406. 317 A few Roman historians report that one of the food items prohibited is pork and the Romans ridicule the Jewish abstinence from pork (Philo, The Embassy to Gaius 361; Juvenal, Satire 6. 160; 14.98–99; Tacitus, Hist 5. 4. 2). 318 Judith 10:5; 12:1–2; Esther 14:17; 2 Maccabees 5:27. Tobin gives a few references from the Rabbinic literature to issues connected with the status of wine (m. ‘Abod. Zar. 2:3–4; 4:10–5:12; t. ‘Abod. Zar. 7:1–17; y. ‘Abod. Zar. 4: 8–5:15, 44a–45b) [Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in its contexts, p. 407, n. 65]. 319 Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 695; Joel Marcus, “The Circumcision and the Uncircumcision in Rome,” NTS 35/1 (1989): pp. 71–72. 320 Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 256; Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 311 n. 13. Two points need to be noted: we are informed by historians with regard to a large number of Jewish colonies in Rome. As a result, obtaining ceremonially pure meat would not have been a problem. So also the abstinence of wine is not a Jewish practice (see Barrett).

94

we do not however, find explicit evidence for explaining why the “weak” abstained from meat. One can surmise that like the Jews in the diaspora,321 those expelled from Rome, abstained from meat and wine in order to preserve their distinct identity as Jews in a foreign land, and for purity reasons. With the return of the believers in Christ who practiced the Jewish way of life, after the death of Claudius, differences arose between the “strong,” for whom Jewish practices were no longer necessary, and the “weak” who practiced the Jewish ways of life. In this context, Paul calls for acceptance; “now accept the one weak in faith” (Rom. 14:1). In Romans 14:1–12, Paul is emphasizing that both the “weak” and the “strong” stand on common ground and Christ received both groups. As a result, the “strong” are not to despise the “weak,” so also, the “weak” are not to judge the “strong.” Both the “weak” and the “strong” are not to impose their “criteria” of faith and belief upon the other members of the community. Instead, they should show mutual respect for one another. However, the call for mutual respect does not solve the problem and so Paul offers a solution that is more specific in Romans 14:13–23. He specifically states that all members of the believing communities in Rome are to be responsible towards one another. Hence, if eating or drinking anything makes a fellow believer stumble, then such behavior and practices demands attention, in order to avoid injury to the belief of the other fellow believer. Paul brings the logic of his argument into alignment with the central characteristics of the kingdom values. He says, “For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking” (Rom. 14:16–19). The kingdom values, thus, serve as a criterion for the believers to grow together. Paul justifies that everything is clean (Rom. 14:20) and nothing is unclean in itself (Rom. 14:14). Paul identifies himself with those who take the position that nothing is unclean (Rom. 15:1–7). This stand is made explicit in the statement “Now we the strong ought to bear the weaknesses of the weak and not to please ourselves” (Rom. 15:1). Paul then establishes his view on the basis of the deed of Christ and the Jewish Scripture. With regard to the level of interaction, the text does not provide any clearcut evidence. The Epistle to the Romans points to a number of home-gatherings (Rom. 16). Yet, it remains unclear whether the home-gatherings were a mixed group of Jews and non-Jews, as there is no concrete evidence. However, we can assume from Romans 14–15 that the social interaction is present among the believers comprising Jews and non-Jews.322 Still, we cannot be definite of the level

321 Refer to note 318. 322 The interactions between Jews and non-Jews is supported by Brandle & Stegemann, “The Formation of the First “Christian Congregations” in Rome in the Context of

95

of interaction. Hence, it can be seen that when Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans, there was no tangible social form of cohesive Christianity; instead, the epistle points to diverse home-gatherings (Rom. 16).

B.  The Subsequent Context The subsequent context of Romans 15:7–13 falls within the conclusion of the epistle (Rom. 15:14–33), which forms a self-contained unit. The majority of commentators consider the main body of Romans to end at Romans 15:13, with the closing section of the letter beginning at Romans 15:14.323 Others suggest that Romans 15:14–32 constitutes the closing to the body of the letter. Accordingly, the closing epistolary section begins with the benediction of Romans 15:33.324 The view that the closing section of Romans begins at Romans 15:14 remains cogent especially in considering the transition that Paul brings into the argument. From Romans 15:14 onward, Paul discusses his travel plans in the light of his apostleship to the Gentiles. Furthermore, this section recapitulates Paul’s appeal at the beginning of the letter (Rom. 1:8–15).325 However, the immediate subsequent context for Romans 15:7–13 would be Romans 15:14–33.326 The section, Romans 15:14–21, confirms Paul’s plea to accept one another, especially in the context of the inclusion of the Gentiles into the promises to the fathers. In Romans 15:14–21, Paul unpacks his purpose for writing, especially in Romans 15:15–16. Even as Paul underscores his apostolic responsibility to proclaim the gospel about Jesus Christ to the Gentiles (Rom. 1:5b–6, 13b, 15), he emphasizes that the Gentiles are within the scope of his divine ministry as an apostle (Rom. 1:13b–15). He sees the need to explain his gospel as already

the Jewish Congregations,” p. 125. For a detailed discussion of Rom. 14–15, refer to Karl P. Donfried, The Romans Debate. Revised and Expanded, 1991. 323 Fitzmyer, Romans, pp. 709–710; Matthew Black, Romans (London: Oliphants, 1973), pp. 174–186; Romans, II: p. 799–814; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, pp. 389– 408; Dunn, Romans 9–16, pp. 854–917; Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988), pp. 508–548; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 884–911. 324 For reasons why 15:14–32 is best identified as the body closing of Romans and not a conclusion to the epistle, refer to Richard N. Longenecker, Introducing Romans: Critical Issues in Paul’s most Famous Letter (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2011), pp. 438–439, esp. p. 439. 325 See Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, p. 389; Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 854. 326 Scholars who treat 15:14–33 as a section are J. A. Ziesler, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (London: SCM Press, 1989), pp. 340–346; Dunn, Romans 9–16, pp. 854–884.

96

indicated in Romans 1:16 and to promote it, especially in Romans 15:16. The emphasis on the place of the Gentiles within the salvific plan of God follows what has been addressed in the letter, particularly in its emphasis on the use of Jewish Scripture (Rom. 15:9–12). James Dunn writes, “Indicative of both the continuity with and the transformation of traditional Jewish categories which Paul saw as integral to the gospel is the use of cultic language to describe his ministry to the Gentiles (Rom.15:15–16).”327 In the preceding text, Paul refers to the Gentiles praising God for their inclusion in the salvific plan of God because of God’s mercy (Rom. 15:9ff). Paul now justifies the inclusion of the Gentiles in the preceding text (Rom. 15:9–12), with the use of cultic imagery (Rom. 15:14–21). He takes up the priestly role as a fulfillment of the divine mandate from God to proclaim the gospel of Christ to all nations. This transformation of the exclusive Jewish understanding of the covenant made it possible for Paul to say, “Therefore, in Christ Jesus I can boast in things (pertaining) to God” (Rom. 15:17). Paul attempts to bring the “weak” and the “strong” together in Romans 14:1– 15:13. He exhorts the “strong” to accept the “weak” in order that the disagreements and disputes between them would not disrupt the communal fellowship or worship life.328 Thus, having expressed his desire to see a community of Jews and Gentiles praising God together, Paul in Romans 15:14–21 goes on to provide a concise summary of his apostolic ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. Having described the immediate and the subsequent context of Romans 15:7– 13, our next task is to identify the context of Paul’s exhortation to the “weak” and the “strong.”

C.  Context of the Call for Acceptance in Romans 14:1–15:13 From AD 50 to 150, believers in Christ gathered in private dwellings, so-called “house churches.”329 By the first century, synagogues emerged as an important feature in Jewish communal life.330 The Palestinian Talmud mentions the 327 Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 856. 328 Francis Watson points out that in 14:1–15:13, Paul attempts to unite two groups in worship with differing perspectives on the Law (“The Two Roman Congregations: Romans 14:1–15:13,” pp. 203–215); others like David J. Downs also regard Paul’s exhortation in 14:1–15:3 in a worship context (The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in its Chronological, Cultural and Cultic Contexts, WUNT 248 (Tübingen: Mohr Sieback, 2008), pp. 146–147. 329 Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 372. 330 Eric M. Meyers, “Synagogue: Introductory Survey,” ABD (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6: p. 255.

97

presence of 480 synagogues in Jerusalem during the time of Vespasian.331 Hence, it would not be an unreasonable assumption to say that the Jews and proselytes who accepted Jesus as the messiah would also open their homes for common meetings for the fellow believers.332 Thus, the setting of home gatherings can be regarded as the context of Romans 14:1–15:13. This is supported especially with Paul’s use of household language in Romans 14–15.333

1.  Evidence for Home Gatherings The Pauline epistles provide evidence that dovetails with the above claim. In Romans 16, Paul greets the ἐκκλησία, i.e., in the house of Prisca and Aquila (Rom. 16:5), he greets the members of the household of Aristobulus (Rom. 16:10), the household of Narcissus (Rom. 16:11), and he greets two other groups of individuals with the “brethren who are with them” (Rom. 16:14) and “all the saints who are with them” (Rom. 16:15). The evidences indicate the presence of home-gatherings among the early believers in Christ in Rome. Furthermore, in 1Corinthians 16:19, we find the mention of the ἐκκλησία that is in the house of Prisca and Aquila.334 The Book of Acts also narrates stories in which houses are the setting or the place for worship (Acts. 12:12; 16:15; 18:3–8). However, Romans does not mention the entirety of the community as ἐκκλησία. Probably, the meeting places of Rome were scattered around the city and there was no meeting together of all believers in one place. Based on the names mentioned in Romans 16, a few scholars have identified several gatherings in Rome. Peter Lampe identifies as many as seven house-meeting places in Rome.335 While, Lo Lung-Kwong identifies at least 331 Meyers, “Synagogue: Introductory Survey,” 6: p. 252. 332 Also, Brandley Blue, “Acts and the House Church,” The Book of Acts in its GrecoRoman Setting, ed. David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, vol. 1–2 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1994), 136–137. 333 For this hypothesis, refer to Cranfield, Romans, II: pp. 696–697; Lo Lung-Kwong, Paul’s Purpose in Writing Romans: The Upbuilding of a Jewish and Gentile Christian Community in Rome, JDDS 6 (Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Seminary, 1998), p. 121. 334 Some other evidence in Pauline Epistles are: Colosians 4:15 where Paul greets the brethren in Laodicea and Nymphas ἐκκλησία in his house. In Philemon 2, Paul greets Apphia and Archippus and the ἐκκλησία in their house. 335 Prisca and Aquila (Rom. 16:3–5a); Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Petrobas and Hermas (16:14), Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, Olympas (16:15); Aristobulus (16:10b), Narcissus (16:11b) and at least two more churches constituted by 14 individuals (16:5b–10a, 11a, 12–13 (see Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, pp. 359–360; Peter Lampe, “The Roman Christians of Romans 16,” The Romans Debate, pp. 229–230). Lampe argues that Aristobulus and Narcissus were not Christians, but Christians

98

five house churches from Romans 16 and refers to them as loosely connected.336 The epistle does not explicitly mention the number of home gatherings, but from the evidence above, we can assume that there were a number of home gatherings. These home-gatherings may have consisted of members who lived in the same locality or those who were located at the same workplace.337 Robert Jewett proposes that the majority of believers in Christ in Rome probably met in tenements rather than in detached dwellings. This is supported by Romans 16:14–15, where two sets of five names mentioned are slave names. Jewett prefers to refer to the gatherings as “tenement churches” rather than “house churches.”338 Michael White’s study may support such a claim. He observes that the lavish houses in Rome occupied 33 percent of the residential space, but housed only a small portion of the total population.339 Peter Lampe’s proposal that believers in Christ in Rome lived in Trastevere and along the Via Appia from the Porta Capena to the Almone River also supports such a theory. This area is considered a poor neighborhood in Ancient Rome.340 In Rome, believers in Christ were mainly from the lower strata of the society with smaller dwellings, and so there would have been several house-gatherings to host all the believers. This large number of house-gatherings could also have contributed to the divisions and fractions within the Christ believing community.341 Since the Epistle to the Romans makes no mention of the gathering of all the believers in Christ in one locality as we find in Corinth, one can assume that there

336 337 338

339

340 341

associated with their household met together for gatherings as a church (From Paul to Valentinus, 164–165). Lo Lung-Kwong, Paul’s Purpose in Writing Romans, pp. 34–35. Robert J. Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in their Historical Setting (Grand Rapids, MI: WM B. Eerdmans, 1980), p. 33. Robert Jewett, “Are there Allusions to Love Feast in Romans 13:8–10?” in Common Life in the Early Church, Essays Honouring Graydon F. Snyder, ed. Julian V. Hills (Harrisburgh, PA: Trinity Press International, 1988), 266–267. Also, Robert Jewett, “Tenement Churches and Pauline Love Feasts,” in Paul the Apostle to America: Cultural Trends and Pauline Scholarship (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 23–43. C. L. Michael White, The Social Origins of Christian Architecture: vol. I, Building God’s Housing the Roman World: Architectural adoption among Pagans, Jews and Christians (Harvard Theological Studies 42; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1990), pp. 144–145. Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, pp. 19–66. For details on the early Christ believing communities in Rome, refer to the chapter on the historical context of Romans 15:7–13 in this study. This stand is also supported by Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, p. 372.

99

was no occasion for a single common gathering within the city, but only small home-gatherings. Paul’s exhortation to the “weak” and the “strong”/ the “Jew” and the “Gentile” in Romans 14:1–15:13 indicates that the home-gatherings in Rome comprised both the Jewish and the Gentile origin, with Gentile majority.

2.  Worship and Meal Setting The context of Paul’s exhortation on acceptance can be a worship setting342 or it can be the common meal gathering.343 The call for acceptance according to James Dunn appears in a context where believers maintained different practices (Rom. 14:3–6, 23). Dunn’s argument therefore militates against Francis Watson’s thesis, which states that Paul’s emphasis is “to convert the Jewish Christian congregation to Paulinism.”344 A careful reading of the text presents a picture of Paul asking neither group to renounce their ways of life but to learn to accept the other. In the early gatherings of the believers in Christ, worship and the common meal cannot be separated. On most occasions they took place side by side. The New Testament evidence shows that sharing of meals was an important element in worship. This emphasis is especially seen in the epistles of Paul and in Acts of the Apostles (1Cor. 11:17–34; Acts 2:42–46; 20:7).345 Sharing meals was an important activity of different social gatherings in the Greco-Roman world. Especially 342 Michael Thompson, Clothed with Christ, p. 230. 343 See Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, p. 888; Matthew Black, Romans, p. 172; Adolf Schlatter, Romans: The Righteousness of God (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), p. 260; Watson suggests that Paul has in mind the practice of common meals, which is associated with common worship (Beyond the New Perspective, p. 177). 344 Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, pp. 97–98; Dunn, Romans 9–16, pp. 845–846. 345 Paul in 1Corinthians 11 uses the phrase “when you come together,” and “when you come together as a church,” referring to partaking a meal at the table. In 1Corinthians 11:17–34, the Lord’s Supper is presented as a normal meal and not just sharing of bread and wine because of the word δεῖπνον to describe the meal. This term is usually used for the main meal of the day or it could refer to a feast with guests. It is in contrast to ἄριστον that refers to a meal taken in the early part of the day (BDAG, Third edition, p. 215). Likewise, Acts 2:42, 46 explicate that the primary reason for the disciples gathering in homes was to share a meal together. Acts 20:7 also mentions that at Troas the Christians gathered on the first day of the week to break bread. In Galatians, Paul describes the earliest reference to Christian meal in Antioch, for, he sees it relevant to his discussion at Galatia. From the description in the Antiochene meal, one can presuppose the custom of eating a community meal together in worship. Thus, the texts mentioned gives evidence to the notion that meals were a part of the Christian meetings.

100

in the Ancient Mediterranean world, any social or religious gathering was “centered on a common meal or banquet.”346 To this, Dennis Edwin Smith concludes, “We should imagine Christian meetings taking place at table most if not all of the time.”347 Eating a meal together, as in Acts 2:46; 20:7, also symbolized fellowship among the believers. As Robert Banks remarks, “it deepened those relationship in the same way that participation in an ordinary meal cements and symbolizes the bond between a family or group.”348 Likewise, Michael White concludes: “The extension of hospitality through the meal setting was the central act that served to define the worshipping community, the church (ekklēsia) in household assembly.”349 Thus, the meal setting in the home gatherings or public gatherings was an opportunity to develop intimacy and build relationships with other believers. However, there were occasions and contexts where the community meals also provided an opportunity for internal conflict and strife. Some have suggested that in 1Corinthians 11:17–34, the misuse of the Lord’s Supper arose because of social differences.350 These data shed light on Romans 14–15. It is within a meal setting that divisions and misunderstandings arose. Paul begins his exhortation 346 Dennis Edwin Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2002), pp. 1–2. Smith argues for a common “social code” of ancient banquets or meals. First, it was a means of defining the boundaries of the social group. Second, the act of dining together created a social bonding between the diners. Third, it “created a sense of ethical obligation of the diners towards one another.” Fourth, the act of reclining in a table, itself “provided a significant means for one’s status in society to be formally recognized and acknowledged.” Fifth, meal sharing “created a sense of community among all the participants” where all could share equally. Sixth, meals created an occasion of festive joy. Seventh, it provided some form of entertainment (From Symposium to Eucharist, 9–12). 347 Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist, pp. 200–202. Also, Peter Lampe, “The Eucharist: Identifying with Christ on the Cross,” Interpretation 48/1(1994): p. 43; Carolyn Osiek & David L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World: Households and Household Churches, The Family, Religion and Culture; eds. Don Browning & Ian S. Evison (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997), pp. 203, 212. 348 Robert Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, p. 83; Also, Luke Timothy Johnson, Religious Experience in Earliest Christianity: A missing Dimension in the New Testament Studies (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), p. 165. 349 White, The Social Origins of Christian Architecture, p. 109. 350 Abraham J. Malherbe, Social aspects of Early Christianity (2nd edn; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), pp. 81–84; Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth, ed. & trans. John H. Schütz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), pp. 145– 174; Murphy-O’Connor J, St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology (Collegeville, MN:

101

by appealing to the Roman believers in Christ not to argue over the issue of diet and concludes the section with a call for common worship. The issue of food (Rom. 14:2–4, 6b, 14–13) seems to be the central problem that divided the members during the community meals, while the issue of sacred days (Rom. 14:5–6a) and wine (Rom. 14:17, 21) occupied a secondary place. In such a context, Paul exhorts the Roman believers in Christ to accept one another with the example of Christ, whose ministry is both to the Jews and to the Gentiles. Having identified the immediate context of Romans 15:7–13, the question that arises is: Should Romans 15:7–13 be situated solely within the context of Romans 14–15, or within the argument of the entire letter? Keeping this question in mind, I will briefly analyze the three general hypotheses proposed by scholars.

IV.  Romans 15:7–13 within the Argument of the Epistle Romans 15:7–13 functions as a summary to 14:1–15:6, expressing Paul’s concern for a community divided over the Jewish ways of life, particularly in the matter of diet and days. At the same time, in this short pericope of seven verses, Paul highlights some of the key themes discussed in the other parts of the epistle. The diverse key themes from the entire epistle have led scholars to locate Romans 15:7–13 within the argument of the entire epistle, which we will assess below.

A.  Romans 15:7–13 and the Argument of 14:1–15:6 Scholars generally agree on the link between Romans 15:7–13 and 14:1–15:6. For these scholars, Romans 14:1–15:13 constitutes a section comprising the hortatory statements of Paul.351 Paul’s use of the pronoun ἀλλήλους in instructing both the “weak” and the “strong” in judging the “other” in Romans 14:13 appears again in Michael Glazier Book, 1983), pp. 166–169; Osiek & Balch, Families in the New Testament World, pp. 200–201; Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist, pp. 21–22. 351 See Paul Sampley, “The Weak and the Strong: Paul’s Careful and Crafty Rhetorical Strategy in Romans 14:1–15:13,” The Social World of the First Christians: Studies in Honor of Wayne A Meeks, eds. L. Michael White and O. Larry (Yarbrough; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), pp. 40–52; Arland J. Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans. A Commentary (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans, 2011), pp. 495–504; Cranfield, Romans, II: pp. 690–99; Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 688. Miller links 15:7–13 within the argument in the entire letter, but he also discusses the link of Romans 15:7–13 to 14:1–15:6 (Miller, The Obedience of Faith, p. 75); Carl N. Toney refers to Romans 15:7–13 as a conclusion for 14–15 expressing Paul’s concern for unity of the Roman congregation, as well as the conclusion for Romans 1:16–15:6 (Paul’s Inclusive Ethic, p. 104).

102

15:7, in his call for acceptance.352 These exhortations are brought within a relational context between the members of the Roman Christ believing communities. Some scholars regard Romans 15:7–13 as a conclusion to Paul’s exhortation in 14:1–15:6, a section treating the “weak” and the “strong” in relating to one another.353 Others specify that the “obligation” in the closing paragraph is aimed at the “strong” in Romans 15:2, but is broadened in 15:7 to encompass both the “weak” and the “strong.”354 Still, others point out that the use of the word “weak” in Romans 14:1–2 and 15:1 indicates that Romans 14 and 15 cannot be separated.355 G. E. Glad draws an unconvincing conclusion by taking Romans 15:14 as the ending of Romans 14:1–15:13. This is because he reads δυνάμενοι καὶ ἀλλήλους νουθετεῖ with the preceding pericope.356 Mark Reasoner, however, responds to this suggestion by arguing that since the text makes a clear break in Romans 15:13, if Glad wanted to fit Romans 15:14 with Romans 14:1–15:13, it would be more appropriate to take the entirety of Romans 15:14–16 as being a part of Romans 14:1–15:13. In this way, the limits of the section (Rom. 14:1–15:16) would have made more sense.357 The fact of the matter is that Romans 15:14–16 fits better into the concluding section of the letter. For in Romans 15:13, Paul inserts a prayer which frequently appears in the other Pauline epistles, indicating a close to a particular section.358 Furthermore, in Romans 15:14–29, Paul brings back a theme from Romans 1:8–16a, i.e., his intention to visit the believers in Rome. He makes his intention known to the readers before the close of the epistle, in order to build friendship and pave the way for his ministry to the East. The explanation in Romans 15:14–15 corresponds to Romans 15:16–21, where he refers to his ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.

352 Miller also mentions this link in The Obedience of Faith, p. 75. 353 Das, “The Encoded Audience of Romans 15:7–13,” p. 101. 354 Hafemann, Eschatology and Ethics, p. 169. 355 Ben Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans, 2004), p. 332. 356 G. E. Glad, Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychology, NovT Sup. 81 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), p. 217. Also, following this structure is Tobin, A Rereading of Romans, pp. 320–323. 357 Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, p. 25. 358 Interpreters refer to them as benedictions [John Knox, The Epistle to the Romans, Interpreters Bible 9 (New York: Abingdon Press, 1935), pp. 636–640], brief prayers [Leon Morris, The Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1956), pp. 69, 107, 138, 154], C. K. Barrett, refers to Romans 15:5–6 as a ‘doxology,’ while he sees 15:13 as a “brief prayer for the readers,” [The Epistle to the Romans, p. 272].

103

Apart from the thematic connection between Romans 15:7–13 and 14:1–15:6, a few interpreters see the similarity in form and structure. Robert Jewett asserts that the structure of Romans 15:7–13 is in line with 14:1–15:6. Both passages open with an admonition, followed by a scriptural proof, and conclude with a homiletic benediction.359 However, some scholars see the form in Romans 15:7– 13 as a parallel to that of 15:1–6. In other words, the same pattern of argument from eschatology in Romans 15:1–6 is recapitulated in 15:7–13.360 Chart 2 Structure of Argument Admonition Christological basis Catena of citations Benediction

Rom. 15:7–13 v. 7a vv. 7b–9a vv. 9b–12 v. 13

Rom. 15:1–6 vv. 1–2 v. 3a vv. 3b–4 vv. 5–6

In the above chart, we see a similarity in the structure of the argument between Romans 15:7–13 and 15:1–6. Paul moves from admonition to a Christological basis in Romans. This is supported by a catena of citations from the Jewish Scripture. It closes with a benediction in 15:13 whose formal structure is similar to 15:5–6. Others also bring out the parallel in content between 15:1–6 and 15:7–13:361 Chart 3 Content Exhortation Christ Scriptural citations Hope Praise of God

Rom. 15:1–6 vv. 1–2 v. 3a vv. 3b–4a v. 4b v. 6

Rom. 15:7–13 v. 7 vv. 8–9a vv. 9b–12 v. 13 vv. 9–11

359 Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, p. 887. 360 See Miller, The Obedience of Faith, p. 75; Hafemann, Eschatology and Ethics, p. 169. 361 This parallel in context is taken from Keck, “Christology, Soteriology, and the Praise of God (Romans 15:7–13),” pp. 85–86. Few scholars link 15:7–13 with 15:1–6 [F. Godet, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1881), p. 466; Morris, Romans, pp. 495–496]. However, because of the benediction and the shift in the terminology, from the “weak” and the “strong” to “Jew” and “Gentile,” a few others view it as separate units (Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, p. 223; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, p. 380).

104

The chart shows a parallel in the content between Romans 15:1–6 and Romans 15:7–13. In both texts, we find the exhortation, the reference to Christ, the use of Scripture and the themes of hope and praise of God. The contents of Romans 15:1–6 and Romans 15:7–13 are parallel to each other. Nevertheless, we find a change in order. In Romans 15:1–6, the scriptural citations are followed by the language of “hope” and it closes with Paul’s exhortation on the praise of God; whereas, in Romans 15:7–13, the scriptural citations are followed by the call to praise God and ends with the “hope” language. This change in order would not be a random insertion, but generally it is the context and the argument that allow Paul to put things in different ways. Context usually decides on elements. He is free to use things in one context in one way and in another context in another way. For example, in 1Corinthians 2:2, it seems as if it was Christ crucified that is of supreme importance to Paul, while in 1Corinthians 15, he picks Christ resurrected as an important theme.362 In Romans 15:1–6, the argument is developed in the context of not pleasing ourselves, but pleasing others. Paul brings the example of Christ in Romans 15:3 and fits into this verse a citation, then he connects the encouragement from the Scripture to the hope of the believers in Romans 15:4b and then brings the language of praise where the “weak” and the “strong” would give glory to God. In Romans 15:9–11, Paul brings praise language as it fits the context of Christ’s service to the Jews and the Gentiles, where both are called to glorify God. Looking at the parallels between Romans 15:1–7 and Romans 7–13, the question that arises is, if the summary of Romans 14:1–15:6 fitted Romans 15:1–6, why then, did Paul include another summary in 15:7–13? More probably, Paul repeats the summary of Romans 15:1–6 in 15:7–13. However, he widens the scope of the pericope in order to incorporate some of the prominent themes from the entire epistle to highlight the “acceptance” motif. Hence, we see that both in content and in form, Paul’s argument relates to the issue of the “weak” and the “strong,” an issue that was dividing the Christian communities in Rome. Thus, Romans 15:7–13 reflects the concerns of Romans 14:1–15:6 and so it can be regarded as bringing Paul’s instructions on the “weak” and the “strong” to a “satisfying conclusion.”363 That said, the question we need to address now is, “Can Romans 15:7–13 be considered only as a summary conclusion to the treatment of the “weak” and the “strong” or does Paul intend to

362 Hendrikus Boers, Christ in the Letters of Paul. In place of a Christology (BZNW 140, Berlin, New York: de Gruyter: 2006), pp. 101, 313–315. 363 Miller, The Obedience of Faith, p. 76.

105

reiterate some key issues from other parts of the letter?” In order to address this question, we will briefly examine a second hypothesis proposed for reading Romans 15:7–13 within the argument of Romans 12:1–15:6.

B.  Romans 15:7–13 and the Argument of 12:1–15:6 A number of scholars propose the hypothesis of reading Romans 15:7–13 within the argument of Romans 12:1–15:6.364 In this regard, the view of Martin Dibelius has dominated the scholarly discussions in the past. He argues that the paraenesis in Romans 12–13 lacks an immediate relation with the first half of the letter (i.e., Rom. 1–11).365 In response, some scholars take the beginning verses of Romans 12 as an interpretive key to Romans 12:3–15:3.366 Holding a similar view is C. E. B. Cranfield, who points out that Romans 12:1–2 serves as the introduction to Romans 12:3–15:13 because in these two verses, the theme of the section is set forth.367 J. A. Ziesler also asserts that Paul’s call for acceptance in Romans 15:7 picks up the plea from 14:1 and draws a conclusion to the section of ethical and practical advice that began in Romans 12:1. Furthermore, Ziesler proposes that the advice in Romans 12–13 concerning Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ is reflected in Romans 14 in Paul’s exhortation about “eating meat.” This line of argument is present in Romans 15:7–13, but with the difference that it is more generic on the building and growth of the whole community. The concern for one another is built on the deed of Christ that emphasizes the concern for others. The overall argument in this section concerns the well-being of the 364 Reading supported by Ziesler, Paul’s Letter to the Romans; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Barker Books, 1998); J. Ross Wagner concludes that 15:7–13 functions as a conclusion of 12:1–15:6 and also a summing of the themes from the entire letter (“The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” p. 473). Miller contends that Paul’s concern for an eschatological community and the work of the gospel in the life of the community is reflected from 12:1–15:13 (The Obedience of Faith, pp. 17–19, for a fuller understanding especially refer to pp. 61–93, 151–173). 365 Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (New York: Scribner’s, n.d.), p. 238. Victor Paul Furnish challenged Debilius’ view and argues that in Romans, the section on the ethics is connected with his theology (Theology and Ethics in Paul and his Interpreters: Essays in Honor of Victor Paul Furnish (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), pp. 105–106. 366 Raymond Corriveau takes this position and builds his study on the work of other scholars [The Liturgy of Life: A Study of the Ethical Thought of St. Paul in his Letters to the Early Christian Communities, Studia Travaux de Recherche 25 (Brüssel: Desclee de Brouwer, 1970), pp. 155–185, esp. 157 n. 7]. 367 Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 595.

106

Christ believing communities.368 The community building aspect that is reflected throughout Romans 12:1–15:13 is also emphasized by Thomas R. Schreiner. He asserts that Romans 12:1–2 provides the theme for Romans 12:1–15:13, where believers are expected to be wholly dedicated to God. Such dedication Paul goes on to highlight in Romans 12:3–13:14, detailing the characteristic qualities of the people of God, in their relation to the believing communities, and also to the world at large. Following this, Romans 14:1–15:13 elaborates on the relation of the members of the believing community to each other.369 In his treatment of the “weak” and the “strong” in Romans 14:1–15:13, Mark Reasoner takes a different approach. He notes the importance of considering Romans 13:8–14 for the interpretation of 14:1–15:13. The command to love in Romans 13:8–10 fits the picture of a divided community over the practice of the Jewish law.370 Thus, we see that different attempts have been made by scholars to construe Romans 15:7–13 as summing up the argument of 12:1–15:6. The long argument of Romans 9–11 is brought to a close with a doxology in Romans 11:33–36. With Romans 12:1, Paul changes focus. The exhortation that begins in Romans 12:1 continues through 15:13, where the argument again is brought to a close with a benediction. The opening exhortation in Romans 12:1– 2 and the closing comments in Romans 15:7–13 are linked with the theme of God’s mercy forming an inclusion (Rom. 12:1; 15:7–13), highlighting thereby the Jew-Gentile issue throughout Romans 12:1–15:13. Furthermore, Paul suggests ways in which the recipients’ new life in Christ may manifest itself (Rom.12:3– 13:14). This exhortation in Christ is made more specific in Romans 14:1–15:13 where Paul addresses the “weak” and the “strong” to accept one another. Our analysis of Romans 12:1–15:13 demonstrates that the line of argument that runs throughout the section carries both ethical and practical concerns for a believing community. These concerns are highlighted in a relational context, especially the Jew-Gentile relationship. The act of Christ forms the basis for the ethical advice.

368 Ziesler, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, pp. 336–337. 369 Schreiner, Romans, pp. 649, 703–710. Along this line of interpretation is James C. Miller who proposes that the specific instructions in 12:3–15:7 are instances of Paul’s general exhortation on “offering your bodies to God” and “being transformed by the renewing of your minds” (12:1–2) [The Obedience of Faith, p. 76]. Peter Stuhlmacher also points out that the mutual acceptance counseled in Romans 15:7 is part of the “embodied worship,” which the Roman believers are called to practice (Rom.12:1–2) [Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, trans. by Scott J. Hafemann (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), p. 232]. 370 Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, p. 67.

107

However, if Romans 15:7–13 fits well with the argument of Romans 12:1–15:6, what precisely is its relation with the first part of the letter? The treatment of this question brings us to a third hypothesis.

C.  Romans 15:7–13 and the Argument of 1:1–15:6 A good number of scholars regard Romans 15:7–13 as a crucial passage of the epistle, for it functions both as a conclusion to the exhortations of Romans 12:1– 15:6 and as a summation of the themes of the epistle as a whole.371 The inferential conjunction διό indicates a summing up, and this is best construed as having in mind the key themes of the entire epistle, with a focused application on the problem of the “weak” and the “strong.”372 An insightful representative of this position is James Dunn. He considers Romans 15:7–13 as wrapping up the body of the epistle. He asserts that Romans 15:7–13 is intended to conclude the body of the epistle where Paul discuses the theological treatise and the resulting parenesis. This pericope (Rom. 15:7–13) then links the body of the epistle to its conclusion (Rom. 15:14–16:27). Dunn further elaborates this by stating that the opening theme of mutual consideration picks up the theme of Romans 14:1–15:6, with Christ as the pattern for believers (Rom. 15:7–8). This is also true for the emphasis on “hope” (Rom. 15:12–13/15:4). Furthermore, the motif of God’s faithfulness and mercy to the Jews and the Gentiles in Romans 15:8–9 picks up the theme of the first section of Romans (1:18, 25; 2:8; 3:7; 9:15–23; 11:30–32). In picking up the key texts from the Jewish Scripture already grouped together in Romans 9–11, Paul

371 Stanley Stowers points out that the traditional accounts have brought the connection of Romans 12–15:13 to Romans 1–11 in Paul’s exhortation on new life only at the superficial and abstract way. In contrast, he argues for a “genuine internal coherence” between Romans 12:1–15:13 and Romans 1–11 (A Reading of Romans, p. 318). For a list of scholars who suggest that 15:7–13 can be regarded as the climax of the entire epistle, see Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” p. 473; Cranfield, Romans, II: pp. 820–822; Michael Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans12:1–15:3, JSNTSup. 59 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 208–236; Keck, “Christology, Soteriology, and the Promise of God (Romans 15:7–13),” pp. 85–97; R. B. Hays, Echoes of the Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 70–73; Sam K. Williams, “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans,” JBL 99/2 (1980): pp. 285–289; Miller, The Obedience of Faith, pp. 79–89; N. T. Wright, Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), p. 235. 372 See Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 739; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 874.

108

intends to bracket the whole parenetic section of 12:1–15:6, tying this section to the overall thrust of the epistle.373 Hence, Romans 15:7–13 is “the climactic statement of the gospel and theology” of the epistle.374 Dunn rightly mentions the logical and the thematic relation of Romans 15:7–13 with the epistle as a whole. Apart from the links that Dunn mentions, Robert Jewett adds, the “promise to the fathers” in Romans 15:8 picks up the argument of Romans 4:9–22 and Romans 9:4, 8–9. Also, the motif of “faith” in Romans 15:13 echoes Romans 14:1–2, 22–23 and the thesis of the epistle in Romans 1:16–17.375 Leander Keck proposes that Romans 15:7–13 serves as the conclusion to the letter’s theological and ethical core. He writes, “Just as 1:16–17 opens the argument and the paraenesis, so also 15:7–13 closes it,” and the other concluding sections found in the letter, such as 8:3–39; 4:33–36; 15:1–6, only sums up a particular section.376 However, if Romans 15:1–6 can be a summary of Paul’s exhortation to the “weak” and the “strong,” why does Paul treat the themes again in Romans 15:7–11? This is an important question that Keck fails to address. Nevertheless, a closer look at Romans 15:7–13 indicates that apart from functioning as a summation of Paul’s exhortation in Romans 14–15, it also reiterates some of the important themes of the entire epistle. A helpful representative of such a position is N. T. Wright, who concludes that Romans 15:7–13 is the “climax of the theological argument” of Romans.377 A few scholars add even greater specificity to this assertion by elaborating on the themes in the text. Sam K. Williams demonstrates that the “truth of God” in Romans is parallel to the “righteousness of God” and the “faithfulness of God.” He suggests that the three are “virtual equivalents.”378 Richard B. Hays argues similarly and writes that the overarching theme is that of righteousness seen principally through the scriptural citations. In his words, “Paul cites Scripture not as a repository of miscellaneous

373 Dunn, Romans 9–16, pp. 844–845. 374 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1998), p. 529. 375 Jewett, Romans. A Commentary, p. 887. 376 Leander E. Keck, “Christology, Soteriology, and the Praise of God (Romans 15:7–13),” pp. 85–86. 377 Wright, Climax of the Covenant, p. 234. 378 Williams, “The ‘Righteousness of God’ in Romans,” p. 268. Some others support the parallelism between righteousness and the faithfulness of God are Byrne, Romans, p. 431; Cranfield, Romans, II: pp. 741–742; Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 847; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, p. 385; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 877; Schreiner, Romans, pp. 754–755.

109

wisdom on various topics, but as an insistent witness of one great truth. God’s righteousness, which has now embraced Gentiles among the people of God, includes the promise of God’s unbroken faithfulness to Israel.”379 James Miller suggests that Paul in Romans 15:7–13 takes up four important themes presented in the entire epistle: a) the character of God expressed in his saving action; b) the recipients of God’s saving action; c) the human response to this saving action; and d) the witness of Scripture.380 The saving action of God expressed in Romans 15:8–9a points to three specific issues: the “truth” of God, the “mercy” of God and the “promises” of God. Paul in Romans 15:8b states that on behalf of the truth of God, Christ became a “servant of circumcision.”381 In contrast, Carl Toney settles with five themes: salvation, worship, promise, hope and Holy Spirit.382 Furthermore, there are also verbal links and themes that tie Romans 15:7–13 with the opening of the epistle in Romans 1 and the section dealing with the theological issues in Romans 9–11.383 So also, the use of similar vocabulary connects Romans 15:8–9 to the other sections of the epistle. These links are presented in the following table. Chart 4 Verbal/Thematic links Glory, glorify Truth of God Failure to glorify God is reversed Fathers Promises Mercy Inclusion of the Jews and the Gentiles in one body

Rom. 15:7–13 v. 7 v. 8 vv. 9–11 Romans 15:7–13 v. 8 v. 8 v. 9 vv. 8–12

Rom. 1 vv. 21, 23 vv. 18, 25 v. 21 Romans 9–11 9:5; 11:28 9:4, 8–9 9:15–18, 23 (linked with glory 11:30–32) Throughout chapters 9–12

379 Hays, Echoes of the Scripture, pp. 73. 380 For a detailed discussion, see Miller, The Obedience of Faith, the Eschatological People of God and the Purpose of Romans, pp. 79–88. 381 Miller’s translation, The Obedience of Faith, p. 80. 382 For details, see Toney, Paul’s Inclusive Ethic, pp. 120–123. 383 See Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” pp. 473–474. Scott Hafemann agrees with Wagner’s proposal (“Eschatology and Ethics,” p. 161). Dunn also points to the link in vocabulary (Romans 9–16, p. 845). Those who take Romans 9–11 as the climax of the theological argument of the epistle are: Wright, The Climax of the Covenant, p. 234; J. C. Beker, “The faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” The Romans Debate, p. 330; Dunn, Romans 9–16, pp. 519–520.

110

Truth of God Promises to the fathers

Rom. 15:8–9 v. 8 v. 8

Rom. 2–4 2:2, 8; 3:7 2:25–29; 4:9–22

It is, therefore, clear that the proposal that Romans 15:7–13 is not just the summing of Roman 14:1–15:6 or 12:1–15:6, but also the argument of the entire letter, is well supported by many scholars.

D.  Summary on the Three Hypotheses The first hypothesis takes the position that Romans 15:7–13 only sums up Paul’s exhortation on the “weak” and the “strong.” There is no doubt that Romans 15:7–13 reflects Paul’s exhortation in Romans 14:1–15:6. However, there are also problems in considering Romans 15:7–13 only as a summation of Romans 14:1– 15:6. The first problem concerns the change of addressees, as also pointed out by many scholars who argue in contrast to this position. In Romans 14:1–15:6, the “weak” and the “strong” are addressed. In contrast, the Jews and the Gentiles are addressed in Romans 15:8–9a. In considering the change of addressees, this possibility circumvents an important theme, that is, the Jew-Gentile relationship that runs throughout the epistle. The second problem concerns the themes highlighted by Paul in Romans 15:7–13, viz., God’s faithfulness and mercy, praise and worship of God, Jewish priority, God’s promises, the envisioning of a future hope, and the empowering of the spirit. In considering the important themes highlighted in the pericope, we can argue that this pericope does not just sum up Paul’s exhortation to the “weak” and the “strong.” In it, Paul highlights some of the key themes from the epistle as a whole before the close of the body of the epistle. The second hypothesis emphasizes the flow of the arguments in Romans 12:1–15:13, especially in the Jew-Gentile relationship and the act of Christ as the basis for ethical advice. The problem, however, is that it fails to see the thematic connection between Romans 15:7–13 and the first part of the letter. The third hypothesis takes the position that Romans 15:7–13 serves as a summation to Paul’s exhortation on the “weak” and the “strong,” as well as highlights the key themes of the epistle. This hypothesis in my view is the most cogent, especially in considering the important themes that are highlighted for a community divided over issues related to faith. I will point out below some of the thematic parallels between Romans 15:7–13 and the entire epistle.

111

V. Thematic Parallels between Romans 15:7–13 and Romans 1:1–15:6 It would be inaccurate to regard Romans 15:7–13 only as a summing up of Romans 14:1–15:6 for in these seven verses, Paul takes up some key themes outside Romans 14:1–15:6. For example, in Romans 15:8–13, Paul returns to the theme that is found at the beginning of the epistle, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God into salvation to all who believe, Jew first and Gentile” (Rom. 1:16). Furthermore, there are references to φρονεῖν and other similar terms in the larger section of Roman 11:20–15:5. This suggests that Paul probably does not intend to separate the issue of the “weak” and the “strong” in Roman 14:1–15:5 from his exhortation in Romans 11–13. Similarly, the emphasis on “Israel,” especially on the “divine faithfulness” to Israel in Romans 9–11, is reinforced again in Romans 15 (esp. vv. 8–13),384 which for William S. Campbell demonstrates “the need for Gentiles to associate with Israel.”385 Notably, Paul broadens his exhortation in Romans 15:7–13 from the “weak” and the “strong” to the Jews and the Gentiles. In this regard, Ernst Käsemann argues that the tensions and debates from the preceding pericope vanish.386 However, Joseph Fitzmyer asserts that the tensions and the debates are still implicit, especially with the mention of “Gentile.”387 Fitzmyer is right that the tensions still continue in Romans 15:7–13, but this continuity is seen not only in the mention of “Gentile,” but also in the flow of thought on the issue of Jewish practices and rituals. This means the Jew-Gentile issue lurks in the entire section. It is, therefore, possible to argue that the scope is now broadened to incorporate themes from the entire epistle to support Paul’s teaching on the Jew-Gentile issue. In other words, it may be argued that this section sums up the entire epistle.388 We will now demonstrate this, especially in relation to the thematic parallels.

384 J. Ross Wagner demonstrates it in, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “In Concert” in the Letter to the Romans, NovTSup 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 307–329. William Campbell also mentions this connection in “The Addressees of Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” p. 185. 385 Campbell, “The Addressees of Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” p. 185. 386 Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, p. 384. 387 Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 705. 388 Scholars who refer to the dual conclusion of Romans 15:7–13 are Fitzmyer, Romans, pp. 705–706; Schreiner, Romans, pp. 703–704; Toney, Paul’s Inclusive Ethic, pp. 120–123.

112

A.  God’s Faithfulness and Mercy The faithfulness of God is an important theme in the epistle. A thematic connection is visible in the relationship between Romans 1:16 and 15:8–9.389 In Romans 1:16, Paul states, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God to salvation to all those believing, to Jews first and Greeks.” A case may be made for considering Romans 15:8–9a as a summary of this gospel: “For I say Christ has become servant of circumcision on behalf of (the) truth of God, to confirm the promises to the fathers, and the Gentiles glorify God on behalf of his mercy.” Paul states “Christ has become a servant … on behalf of (the) truth of God.” One impediment for seeing such a link is the difference in the use of terms, especially the failure to mention God’s righteousness in the latter passages. However, this problem may be ameliorated in that a few scholars have demonstrated that God’s righteousness is equivalent to God’s faithfulness and truthfulness.390 This case is also demonstrated by Sam Williams whose argument is based on the parallel use of δικαιοσύνη (righteousness), ἀλήθεια (truth) and πίστις (faithfulness) in referring to God in Romans 3:1–4 and Romans 4,391 suggesting thereby that God’s righteousness is also regarded as God’s faithfulness to his promises.392 Hence, the phrase ἀλήθεια θεοῦ, generally translated as the truth of God, may be construed as being the equivalent of “God’s covenant faithfulness.”393 Paul takes up questions with regard to God’s faithfulness to his promises in Romans 3:1–4. The questions on God’s faithfulness in Romans 3:1–4 are a result of Paul’s argument in Romans 1:18–2:29. Paul states that the righteousness of God has been manifested through the death of Christ, to which the law bears witness (Rom. 3:21–4:25). A detailed response to this theme is carried out in

389 Hendrikus Boers also mentions this connection between Romans 1:16 and 15:8–9a [Hendrikus Boers, The Justification of the Gentiles: Paul’s Letters to the Galatians and Romans (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), pp. 80–81]. 390 Sanday & Headlam, Romans, pp. 71–73; Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 185. 391 Williams, ‘The “Righteousness of God” in Romans,’ pp. 265–280. 392 Sanday & Headlam, Romans, p. 72. 393 The “truth of God” and the “faithfulness of God” overlap in 3:3–7. See Cranfield, Romans, p. 741. This is strongly supported by Hendrikus Boers who in his two monographs on Paul has rightly argued semiotically for a distinction of literary motifs and underlying functions, i.e., one and the same verbal expression may serve different functions, and one function may be brought to expression by a variety of motifs (Boers, Christ in the Letters of Paul. In place of a Christology; Boers, The Justification of the Gentiles).

113

Romans 9–11.394 Romans 9–11 takes up the questions concerning the objections to the gospel of God. It is likely that Paul’s evangelistic emphasis on the mercy extended to the Gentiles may be construed as questioning the covenant faithfulness of God. Indeed, Romans 9–11 includes half of the Old Testament quotations within the epistle.395 However, the unbelief of Israel brings about a new shift in the definition of God’s people. From Romans 9 onwards, Paul prepares the readers for the reversal of roles, with Israel taking the role as recipients of God’s wrath (Rom. 11:8–17), formerly exemplified by hardened Pharaoh (Rom. 11:7, 25). Hence, a solution is urgently needed and this is indicated in Romans 11:12, “If their transgression means riches for the world and their defeat means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full restoration bring?” In all of this, Paul argues for a reversal among the recipients of God’s kindness. The Gentiles are now the beneficiaries of God’s kindness.396 They are “the objects of mercy” which God prepared “beforehand” in order that His glory can be revealed in and through them (Rom. 9:23). It is not surprising that Paul thus confesses, “Whom he has called not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?” and goes on to cite Hosea, “I will call those who were not my people, ‘my people,’ and I will call her who was unloved, ‘my beloved.’” (Rom. 9:24–25). Moreover, in Romans 11, Paul takes his stand on the positive aspect of God’s election (Rom. 11:25–32), emphasizing the redemption of all of Israel. He begins with his reassertion that God did not reject his people whom he foreknew (Rom. 11:2a); he highlights next the generosity of God’s election (Rom. 11:5); and, thereafter brings a series of passages from Scripture concerning the disbelief and hardening of Israel (Rom. 11:8–10). Notably, in defending God’s righteousness and his faithfulness to his covenant, Paul constantly quotes from Jewish Scripture. Here, the unbelief of Israel opens an opportunity to extend the grace of God to the Gentiles. Having dealt with the theme of righteousness at length in Romans 9–11, the theme disappears from the following chapters. It resurfaces in Romans 15:8 where Paul refers to God’s faithfulness to His promises to the fathers. With regard 394 For the logical argument in this section, I am indebted to Miller, The Obedience of Faith, pp. 80–81. Scholars also regard Romans 9–11 as “the climax of the theological argument” (Wright, Climax of the Covenant, p. 234). 395 D. Moody Smith, “The Pauline Literature,” It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Linders, eds. D. A. Carson & H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 274–275. 396 See Boers, The Justification of the Gentiles, pp. 138; Dunn, The Theology of Paul the apostle, pp. 512–513.

114

to this, James Miller argues that Paul intends to use the argument of the letter as a whole to substantiate his exhortation in Romans 15:7.397 God’s faithfulness to the fathers in Romans 15:8 picks up the thematic statement of Romans 1:17 and the reassurance of the faithfulness of God or righteousness of God in Romans 11. Furthermore, the exhortation of Paul on the “truth of God” is tied to the theme of the “mercy of God.”398 The pairing of ἔλεος and ἀλήθεια in describing God also occurs in the Old Testament (LXX Pss. 39:1; 84:11; 88:15, 25; 137:2). In Romans 12:1, Paul speaks of the mercy of God, but its usage in this verse is instrumental, as suggested by Miller. According to Miller, it is another way of saying “by the grace…given to me I say to you,”399 referring to the mercy shown to Paul by God in calling him on his way to Damascus to be an apostle.400 The use of the plural ἐλέους recalls the motifs expressed in Romans 9 and 11 (Rom. 9:15–16, 18, 23; 11:30–32). In Romans 9, 11 and 15, God’s ε̋λεος concerns the history of salvation, which is God’s eschatological saving act in Christ for humanity.401 The divine mercy is extended to nations outside Israel. This is not according to human will, but God’s initiative (Rom. 9:15–16, 18). In Romans 15:8, Paul states that Christ became a servant on behalf of the “truth of God” and goes on to mention the “mercy of God” to the Gentiles in Romans 15:9a. God’s mercy plays a key role in his attitude to the Gentiles (Rom. 9:15–18, 23; 11:30–32). It is important to underscore that it is this same mercy by which the Jews were also made God’s people in the history of salvation (Rom. 9:24–25 quoting Hos. 2:23).402 Bringing up the theme of the mercy of God again after a brief silence in Romans 12:2–15:6 suggests that the exhortation in 15:7–13 shows that Paul draws on the larger context of the epistle as a whole.403 The mention of “mercy” in Romans 15:7–13 is presumptive of its mention in the earlier part of the epistle and thus both are connected.

397 Miller, The Obedience of Faith, p. 81. Also, Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, p. 529. 398 Miller, The Obedience of Faith, p. 81. 399 Miller, The Obedience of Faith, p. 82. 400 Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul, p. 102. 401 See Bultmann, “ἔλεος, ἐλεέω, ἐλεήμων, ἐλεημοσύνη, ἀνέλεος, ἀνεήμων,” TDNT, vol. II (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1964), p. 484; BDAG, Third edn., p. 316. 402 Miller, The Obedience of Faith, p. 81. 403 Miller, The Obedience of Faith, p. 82.

115

B.  Praise of God In Romans 15:9b–11, Paul refers to the praise of God by both the Jews and the Gentiles within the community of believers. This state of affairs is an indication of a transformation in the status of the Gentiles. It answers the earlier charge that they were not giving God the proper worship in Romans 1:18–32.404 Paul now explains in Romans 15:7–9a that the Gentiles have a new status because of the redemptive work of Christ: because of God’s mercy towards them in Christ, the Gentiles now have a reason to glorify God (Rom. 15:9a), together with the Jews (Rom. 15:10). More importantly, now they can join the Jews in praising God (Rom. 15:10). In the reversal of the status of the Gentiles, Paul is emphasizing the importance of common worship and praise of God in a community comprising Jews and Gentiles. This transformed status of the Gentiles in praising God with the Jews can be linked to the Old Testament ideal of the eschatological praise of YHWH.405 In the Old Testament, the eschatological praise generally has a universal application.406 For instance, Isaiah envisions the Gentiles (foreigners) who become followers of YHWH and observe the Sabbath and are faithful to the covenant. He envisions a Gentile priesthood, with Gentile participants in the worship acknowledged as YHWH’s ‫ עבד‬and included in the service of the temple (Isa. 56:6). The vision of the universal eschatological praise is the recognition of YHWH’s eschatological reign over Israel407 and all nations.408 Israel disobeyed YHWH and dishonored the covenant (Ezek. 12:1–28; 20:8–31; Jer. 25:4–11), leading to the rejection of Israel (Isa. 1:11–15; Zeph. 1:4–6; Mal. 1:6–10). Hence, to Israel, it is her salvific restoration. The link between the Old Testament eschatological worship and common praise of God in Romans 15:7–13 will be brought out in detail in a later chapter.

404 Toney, Paul’s Inclusive Ethic, p. 121. 405 YHWH=Yahweh. 406 This is especially seen in the prophetical writings of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Zechariah. The eschatological universal praise also appears in the Qumran literature, i.e., 4Q215a; and in some other Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha writings like Psalms of Solomon 17; 1Enoch 10:1–22; 1Enoch 37–71; 1Enoch 90:29–33. Although the universal participation is indicated in many prophetical writings and the Second Temple literature, yet, a few prophetical writings exclude any alien participation and involvement in the eschatological worship (in Jerusalem) (Ezekiel 20:40–44; 40–50; Joel 2:30–32). 407 Ezekiel 20:33–44; Joel 2:28–32. 408 Isaiah 2:1–4; 66:22–24; Jeremiah 12:14–16; Zephaniah 2:11; 3:9; Zechariah 14:9.

116

Both Romans 15:1–6 and 15:7–13 indicate that the believers should give the same glory to God. More significantly, Romans 15:5–6 appears to suggest that it is through the united worship of the “weak” and the “strong” that God is glorified. This relates to Romans 15:7, where glorifying God is seen through the believers’ conduct in their relationship with one another.409 Indeed, Romans 15:7 makes vivid the connection between the acceptance motif and the worship discussed in 14:1– 15:6. In accepting one another on the basis of the example of Christ, the believers are able to come together in openness to glorify and praise God (cf. Acts 2:5–13). Romans 15:7–13 can also be analyzed in the light of Romans 11:11–32. Paul intends for the praise of the Gentiles to demonstrate God’s astounding mercy for an unbelieving Israel. It indicates that if God can show mercy to the Gentiles, God will show mercy to Israel as well. Israel’s heart is hardened (Rom. 11) and therefore from Israel there is now a shift to the “praise of the Gentiles,” which would act as a catalyst for moving Israel to jealousy.410 Hence, the glorification of God by the Gentiles does not undermine the faithfulness of God to his promises to Israel. These promises still remain valid, provided Israel turns from its unrighteous ways. The call for common praise is certainly not only a way of exhorting the believers in Rome to accept one another and grow together as a believing community, but it also indicates the fulfillment of an Old Testament ideal.

C.  Jewish Priority Paul takes up the Jew-Gentile matter, which dominates the epistle in Romans 15:8–9a. This theme was first mentioned in Romans 1:14–16 and runs throughout Romans 1–4 and 9–11.411 In Romans 15:7–13, Paul builds on the theological arguments already presented in Romans 9–11, viz., the reference to the “fathers” (Rom. 15:8; cf. Rom. 9:5–11:28), “promises” (Rom. 15:8; cf. 9:4, 8–9), “mercy” (Rom. 15:9; cf. 9:23),412 Jew-Gentile relationship, and the inclusion of all 409 Miller, The Obedience of Faith, p. 75. 410 For the discussion on the connection between Romans 11:11–32 and 15:7–13, see Toney, Paul’s Inclusive Ethic, pp. 159–160. 411 Romans 9–11 takes up the question posed in 3:1–8 regarding the righteousness of God, and in 1:14–18, the scope of Paul’s call is indicated by the pairing of words – Greeks and barbarians, wise and foolish (1:14) and Jew and Gentile (1:16) [I owe this observation to Miller, The Obedience of Faith, pp. 83–85; cf. Dunn, Romans 9–16, pp. 844–845]. Dunn finds that the pairing of Ἰουδαίῳ and Ἕλληνι in 1:16 reflects the same distinction as Jew and Gentile (ἔθνη) (Dunn, Romans 1–8, pp. xlv, 40.). This view of Dunn is in contrast to Christopher D. Stanley, “‘Neither Jew nor Greek’: Ethnic Conflict in Graeco-Roman Society.” JSNT 19/64 (1997): pp. 101–124. 412 In Romans 9:23 it is linked to glory.

117

(Rom. 15:8–12; cf. 9–11). God’s truthfulness to the fathers in Romans 15:8 picks up the thematic statement of 1:17 and the reassurance of the faithfulness of God in Romans 11. The Greek word ἔθνη appears again in Romans 15:9 since its usage in Romans 11:25, validating the place of the Gentiles in Paul’s mission. This recalls and sums up the argument in Romans 2–4 and 9–11.413 Before this, Paul has been avoiding the broader ethnic term, and instead uses the “weak” and the “strong.” However, from Romans 15:7 onward, Paul shifts to the broader JewGentile theme, with the direct usage of the term Gentiles. This Paul does with a catena of citations from the Old Testament in Romans 15:9–12. To be sure, Paul warns the Gentile believers against a superior attitude over the Jewish believers (Rom. 11:13–24; 12:3, 16–17), dovetailing with the theme of the priority of the Jews, which runs throughout the epistle. This exhortation is further developed in the practical implication in Romans 14:1–15:13.414 However, this raises a question: How is Paul able to maintain a balance between the theme of Jewish priority and the unity of the Jews and the Gentiles? In the epistle to the Romans, when Paul calls for the unity of the Jews and the Gentiles on the basis of the deed of Christ (Rom. 3:28–31), he does not overlook the fact that the Jews and the Gentiles are two distinct groups. They cannot be joined into a single group of homo universalis even in Christ.415 In Romans 14–15, Paul does not ask the “weak” and the “strong,” or “Jew and “Gentile” to renounce their practices and join the other. Instead, he calls for unity in the midst of differences rather than uniformity.416 In other words, unity is not about “sameness;” but rather, about “belonging” of those who are different (cf. Gal. 3:28). Thus, Paul does not contradict himself in juxtaposing the universality of the gospel with the priority of the Jews. In fact, the priority of the Jews in Romans 15:8 is consistent with the formula of “the Jews first and also the Gentiles” in Romans 1:16. This theme also appears in the context of the judgment of God – “tribulation on

413 Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 848. 414 Dunn points that in 14:1–15:6, Paul is warning the “strong” comprising mainly of Gentile Christians in their attitude toward the weak, comprising mainly of Jewish Christians (Dunn, Romans 9–16, pp. 844–845). Also, Witherington III, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, p. 327; Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 231. 415 Beker, “The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” p. 329. 416 Confer the insights and arguments of Daniel Boyarin who opts for an appreciation of difference [Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994)].

118

the unrighteous, of the Jew first and also of the Gentile;” “to the righteous glory, honor and peace to the Jews first and also the Gentiles” (Rom. 2:9–10). For Paul, it is important to maintain the priority of the Jews in the Gospel for it justifies the faithfulness of God. Otherwise, it could be interpreted that God has rejected Israel and so the promises made to Israel were nullified. If so, how would the Gentiles trust the confirmation of the promises made in Christ? The gospel can have universal authority, validity and legitimacy only if the connection with the people of Israel is not lost. Hence, the issue concerns God’s faithfulness (Rom. 3:3), which has bearing on the truth of the gospel. Throughout Romans, Paul emphasizes the interaction between “Israel’s particularity and the universality of the gospel for the Gentiles.”417 This Paul takes up in Romans 15:7–13 when he refers to the Jewish origin of Jesus whose ministry is to the Jews and to the Gentiles. To the Jews, it is God’s faithfulness that confirms the promises, but to the Gentiles the emphasis is on God’s mercy. Paul justifies this with the catena of Jewish Scripture in Romans 15:9b–12. This catena will be further investigated in a later chapter of this study. Suffice it is to point out here that priority of the Jews does not marginalize the Gentiles, for the salvation of the Gentiles is also rooted on the promises of God to the fathers (Rom. 4; 9; 10; 11).

D.  God’s Promises Paul’s reference to God’s promises occurring mainly in Romans 4 and 9–11 appears again at the end of the epistle (Rom. 15:7–13). In Romans 4, Paul brings the example of Abraham by referring to the promise to Abraham that he would be the father of many nations.418 Hendrikus Boers argues that ἐθνῶν in the citations from Genesis (Rom. 4:17; cf. Gal. 3:8) do not carry the general meaning of “nations” but “Gentiles.” For through the fulfillment of the promise, the Gentiles have a reason to praise God.419 The view of Boers is valid in the context of Paul’s gospel and mission as an apostle to the Gentiles. This promise is a defense of Paul for his gospel (Rom. 1:3). Thus, the promise of God to Abraham is not limited to the Jews alone, but it is God’s purpose in creating a descendant of Abraham and children of God through faith.420 Paul’s vision of the Jews and the Gentiles in a

417 Beker, “The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” p. 330. 418 ἐθνῶν in Romans 4:17 quotes Genesis 17:5 and ἔθνη in Galatians 3:8 quotes Genesis 12:3. 419 Boers, The Justification of the Gentiles, p. 140. 420 Williams, ‘The “Righteousness of God” in Romans,’ p. 286.

119

common praise of God in Romans 15:7–13, and especially the catena of citations, demonstrates the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham and to the fathers.421 Paul takes up the issue of God’s faithfulness to his promises further in Romans 9–11. Israel was entrusted with God’s revelation (Rom. 3:2, 21; 9:4–6), and to them, belonged the promises, covenant and glory. Still, Israel disbelieved (Rom. 3:3a; 9:31–33; 11:17). However, despite their disbelief and their hardened hearts, God remained faithful to his promises (Rom. 3:3b–4a; 11:1–2). In his elaborate treatment of the issue, Paul examines God’s faithfulness to his promises to Israel and the place of the Gentiles in these promises. Despite Israel’s disobedience, God continues to remain truthful to his promises (Rom. 9:6–11:10). In order to save disobedient Israel, salvation is opened to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:11–32), so that it will stir up jealousy in the hearts of Israel who would then turn from their apostasy and return to the God of Israel. Thus, God’s revelation to Israel and their disbelief becomes the foundation of salvation for all, i.e., Gentiles and all of Israel (Rom. 11:11b–12).422 The address of Paul in Romans 9–11 is thus connected to Paul’s reminder that God does not forsake Israel, despite its disobedience because of the promises to the fathers (Rom. 4:19–21). This Paul strongly highlights in Romans 15:8, “for I say, Christ has become servant of circumcision on behalf of the truth of God, in order to confirm the promises to the fathers.” Thus, Paul in Romans 15:7–13 takes up the theme of God’s faithfulness to his promises from Romans 4:19–21 and Romans 9–11, in order to highlight the theme that is extensively discussed in the first part of the epistle. He attempts to connect the closing section of the body of the letter with Romans 4 and Romans 9–11. It is also an indication to the Roman believers that the theme of the fulfillment of God’s promises both for the Jews and the Gentiles functions as a reminder of the importance of the common worship and praise of God.

E.  The Envisioning of a Future Hope The benediction that concludes the pericope (Rom. 15:7–13) brings together the themes discussed in the present pericope, as well as the central themes in the letter. Paul picks up the theme of hope, which concludes the Isaianic citation (Rom. 15:12) and connects it with joy and peace. Like the qualities of joy, peace and belief, which are the outcome of true faith in Christ, “hope” is also a characteristic of the believer’s life, distinguishing a true believer in Christ from the 421 Toney, Paul’s Inclusive Ethic, p. 121. 422 For further discussion on Jewish privilege and Gentile salvation, refer to Boers, The Justification of the Gentiles, pp. 202–214; Toney, Paul’s Inclusive Ethic, pp. 121–122.

120

non-believer.423 The claim here is that God in Christ is the God of hope.424 Hence, the theme of “hope” is significant in Romans 15:12–13. In Romans 15:12, the Jewish messiah is the object of hope for the Gentiles. Whereas in Romans 15:13 the emphasis is on God as the source of hope for God alone generates “hope” in the life of the believers.425 This understanding is found also in other parts of Romans (5:2–5; 8:17–30; 12:12; 15:4). In classical Greek, ἐλπίς means “expectation” in the context of the uncertainty of the future.426 In contrast, in the Old Testament,“hope” is regarded as expectation of good, resulting in the sense of a truthful hope with confidence in God.427 Paul’s understanding of hope is closer to the Hebrew concept than to classical Greek. In Romans 4:18, Paul states that Abraham’s faith was characterized by “hope.” Such faith was not placed on human possibility, but was founded on the unconditional promise of God. Hence, the affirmation is that in this promise Abraham believed and hoped through faith.428 In Romans, Paul expounds on the faith of Abraham and connects it to the faith of the believer (Rom. 4:13–22). This is connected further with the believer’s faith in Christ (Rom. 3:21–26; 4:23–25). Hendrikus Boers rightly observes that Paul in Romans 4:23–25 is not trying to emphasize faith as the main theme, but instead aims to portray God as the God of both the Jews and the Gentiles. Boers adds further that when Paul refers to the justice of God through faith in Christ (Rom. 3:21–22), his purpose is not only to give “justification of faith” a thematic importance, but he also emphasizes the justification of the Jews and the Gentiles, which is made possible through faith in Christ.429 Significantly, in Romans 15:7–13, Paul reminds his readers that the promise to the fathers, which also includes the promise to Abraham, is fulfilled through the act of Christ for both the Jews and the Gentiles. As James Dunn observes, Paul 423 Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 748. 424 For Fitzmyer, the “God of hope” is the “one in whom both Jews and Gentiles believe and find their justification and salvation” (Romans, p. 708). There are also scholars who sideline this verse. Both Nygren and Ziesler in their commentary on Romans pass over this verse without any comments (Nygren, Commentary on Romans, p. 451; Ziesler, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, p. 339). 425 Those who support the reading that in verse 13 Paul refers to God as one who gives hope are: Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 851; Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 747; Murray agrees to this view, but for him it is also difficult to completely suppress the thought of God as the “object of hope” (The Epistle to the Romans, p. 207). 426 Bultmann, “ἐλπίς, ἐλπίζω,” TDNT, vol. 2, pp. 512–520. 427 Bultmann, “ἐλπίς, ἐλπίζω,” TDNT, vol. 2, pp. 521–523. 428 Dunn, Romans 1–8, pp. 219; 237–238. 429 Boers, The Justification of the Gentiles, p. 89.

121

in Romans 15:13 interprets “hope” as that by which God will “fulfill his original purpose in creation and in the call first of Jew, but now also of Gentile.”430 Similarly, Douglas Moo interprets the benediction in Romans 15:13 within the context of Romans 14:1–15:6. For Moo, Paul has in mind the “weak” and the “strong.”431 Moo’s case is eminently possible, but it still makes sense to extend the textual boundary beyond Romans 14:1–15:6 to include Romans 4 or even the entire epistle. This “hope” is a hope of the community, comprising both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 15:6–12). This aspect of hope will be further elaborated in a later chapter of this study. Paul picks up the final word of the Isaianic quotation “hope” (Rom. 15:12) and connects it with the believer’s hope for the future through the power of the Spirit.

F.  The Empowering of the Spirit Being empowered in the Holy Spirit is connected with hope (Rom. 15:13) and it generates joy and peace (cf. Rom. 14:17; Gal. 5:22). This correlation between Spirit and hope frequently occurs in the Pauline epistles, suggesting thereby that hope is one of the blessings of the Spirit (Rom. 5:2–5; 8:23–25; Gal. 5:5; Phil. 1:19–20; Eph. 4:4). Paul’s understanding of “Spirit” is also based on the Jewish Scripture that refers to the Spirit of God as the divine Spirit, who is connected with the presence and the activity of God in the world.432 Paul perceives the presence of the Spirit among the believers as a fulfillment of the eschatological promise that the Spirit would be poured out upon the people of God in the future.433 The life of the believers empowered in the Spirit appears especially in Romans 8. The argument in Romans 8:18–30 takes us back to Paul’s exhortation in Romans 5:2–3 where the significant role of the spirit is described. The spirit helps believers to experience the reality of the presence of God, while it also guarantees the future hope.434 Paul states that with the death of Christ, the Holy Spirit is given to the “weak humanity” in order that they might overcome sin with the guidance of the Spirit. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a believer’s life is also a life 430 Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 853. 431 Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 880–881. 432 The creation account (Gen. 1:2); the story of Balaam (Num. 24:2); Prophetic spirit upon Saul’s messengers (1Sam. 19:20–23); Isaianic passage on the messianic ruler (Isa. 11:2); the spirit of God within Ezekiel (Ezek. 2:2). 433 cf. Isaiah 32:15; 34:16; 44:3; Ezekiel 11:19; Joel 2:28–32. See also Dunn, Romans 1–8, p. 253; Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 124. 434 See Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence. The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody: Hendrickson publishers, 1994), p. 572.

122

characterized by a hope for the future through faith. Paul exhorts the believers to live by the Spirit and not by the flesh (Rom. 8:1–30). Likewise, in Romans 15:13, Paul stresses on the role of the Spirit in the life of the believers in Christ. Paul prays that the “God of hope” would fill both the Jews and the Gentiles with “all joy and peace in believing,” through the power of the Holy Spirit. In connection with the empowering of the Spirit, Paul takes up the example of Christ’s work through which believers have access to the Spirit that ultimately brings salvation (Rom. 5:1–2, 6; 8:3–11). Similarly, the role of Christ in salvation appears also in Romans 15:7–9a. The link of the possession of the Spirit with hope in 15:13 can be connected with the work of Christ in Romans 15:7–9a. Such a link is also discussed in Romans 5:3–6 and Romans 8:18–27. As Gordon D. Fee asserts, the “hope” with which Paul concludes Romans 5:5 is not a “mere wishfulness,” but it “is certainty” based on the love of God. It is appropriated through the work of the Spirit demonstrated by Christ (Rom. 15:6–8).435 Hence, we find that Paul emphasizes the Spirit-filled life not only in Romans 15, but also in Romans 5 and 8. It is not some distinctive social practices that distinguish the believers from the non-believers, but the presence of the Holy Spirit. Hence, Paul emphasizes the “spirit-empowered community”436 after his discussion on the unity of the “weak” and the “strong” and in the wider context of the unity of the Jews and the Gentiles. For Paul hopes that through the empowerment of the Spirit, the Jews and the Gentiles will unite as a community in eschatological worship. The theme of eschatological worship will further be elaborated in the concluding chapter of this study on the interpretive framework. The key in Romans 15:13 is the Holy Spirit for it empowers life in the present and guarantees an eschatological hope.437

VI. Summary We have argued that in Romans 15:7–13, Paul is not only summing up his exhortation on the “strong” and the “weak,” but also reiterates some of the key themes already mentioned in the earlier parts of the epistle. This section relates to the issue of the “strong” and the “weak.” The “weak” refers to those who practice the Jewish ways of life and regard it as important for faith. These are predominantly Jewish believers, but may also include the Gentiles. The “strong” are those whose 435 Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, p. 496. 436 This phrase is used by Toney in Paul’s Inclusive Ethic, p. 123. 437 For the connection between Romans 5; 8; 15 see also Toney, Paul’s Inclusive Ethic, p. 123.

123

faith was based on freedom from the law. These would be predominantly Gentiles, but may also include the Jews. However, Paul widens at the same time the scope of Romans 15:7–13 to incorporate some of the prominent themes of the entire epistle. In Romans 14:1, the exhortation is directed to the “strong” to accept the “weak,” while in Romans 15:7, it is directed to all Roman believers, both “Jew” and “Gentile.” It is clear that Paul’s exhortation is broadened in Romans 15:7. This broadening indicates that Paul aims to take up the Jew-Gentile issue that runs throughout the epistle, especially in his call for the Jews and the Gentiles to accept one another (Rom. 15:7). This is further grounded in the gospel of God, which is about Christ who accepted both Jews and Gentiles. Thus the ministry of Christ gives an opportunity for the Jews and the Gentiles to praise God. It provides a basis for a common praise and worship of God. The themes highlighted in Romans 15:7–13 also indicate that the focus of Paul’s exhortation goes beyond the discussions in Romans 14:1–15:6. First, the truthfulness of God and God’s mercy, which Paul emphasizes in Romans 15:8– 9a, runs throughout the epistle. Second, as a response to God’s truth and mercy, the believers join together in glorifying God. The notion of the praise of God, which Paul emphasizes in Romans 15:7, 9b–11 is also highlighted throughout the epistle. Third, the call for the Gentiles to give glory to God for his mercy and their inclusion into the people of God does in no way diminish the notion of Jewish priority. Fourth, the priority of the Jews does not exclude the Gentiles, but the inclusion of the Gentiles is also rooted in God’s promises to the fathers (Rom. 4; 9; 10; 11). Fifth, Romans 15:12–13 emphasizes the notion of hope, especially the envisioning of the hope for the future (v. 13). This theme is also significant in Romans 5, 8 and 12. Sixth, the believers have a hope for their future redemption through the empowering of the Spirit. The relation between hope and the Spirit also appears in other parts of the epistle. Thus, it is likely that in Romans 15:7–13, Paul sums up his exhortation from Romans 14:1–15:6 and also takes up some of the prominent themes from the entire letter. Paul exhorts the members of the Roman community on the basis of the ministry of Christ to all. This ministry to the Jews and the Gentiles is elaborated further by considering the syntax of Romans 15:8–9a and its semantics in the subsequent chapter.

124

Chapter Four: Syntactical and Semantic Analysis of Romans 15:7–9a I. Introduction Romans 15:7–13, as discussed in the preceding chapter, is a climactic pericope; for in it, Paul not only sums up his exhortation of Romans 14:1–15:6, but he also restates the key themes of the entire epistle. This pericope opens with a call for the members of the Roman Christ believing communities to “accept one another.” Paul develops this plea for acceptance on the basis that Christ’s ministry is both to the Jews as well as to the Gentiles.438 The ministry of Christ is God’s faithfulness to his promises made to Israel, and God’s mercy to the Gentiles. However, in this crucial text lies what C. E. B. Cranfield describes as “specially difficult,”439 or what C. K. Barrett refers to as “obscure” syntax,440 or even what Ross Wagner calls “a syntactical mare’s nest.”441 While the syntax of Romans 15:7–8 does not pose a problem, the syntactical relation of Romans 15:8 to 15:9a is where the problem lies. There is still no consensus among the scholars on how the problem is to be solved. The present study attempts to examine the different proposals offered by scholars and to suggest a reading of the pericope that takes into consideration both its syntax and semantics values. However, we will firstly look into the structure of Romans 15:7–13, in order to provide a context for evaluating the different syntactical readings proposed by scholars.

II.  The Structure of Romans 15:7–13 The pericope begins with an inferential conjunction διό (Rom. 15:7)442 that indicates a summing up of Paul’s discussion in the preceding pericope. With προσλαμβάνεσθε ἀλλήλους, Paul exhorts the Roman believers in Christ (Jew

438 Brendan Byrne argues that the plea for acceptance points to a “universal glorification” of God [Romans, p. 428]. 439 Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 742. 440 Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 271. 441 Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” p. 474. 442 An inferential conjunction usually gives a conclusion or summary to the preceding discussion. Primarily it means therefore, or for this reason. Refer to Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,

125

and Gentile) to accept one another. The second person plural is used both in Romans 14:1 and in Romans 15:7. In Romans 14:1, the address is to the “strong” in faith to accept the “weak” in faith, while in Romans 15:7, the believing communities are assumed to have been composed of these two groups, and Paul is, therefore, exhorting both groups to recognize and accept each other with the use of ἀλλήλους. There is now a shift in Paul’s addressees from the “weak” and the “strong” to the “Jew” and the “Gentile.” In Romans 14:1–15:6, the two groups with differing views are termed “strong” and “weak.” If Romans 15:7–13 is only meant to be a summary of 14:1–15:6, the terms the “weak” and the “strong” could have been continued, but by replacing them with “Jew” and “Gentile,” Paul takes up an important theme that runs throughout the first part of the epistle, i.e., the Jew-Gentile relationship. This theme continues in the subsequent pericope (Rom. 15:14–33), where Paul especially highlights the acceptance of the Gentiles into the family of God. The main clause in Romans 15:7 is προσλαμβάνεσθε ἀλλήλους, and it is also an important motif in Romans 14–15 which continues the theme of glorifying God together in Romans 15:6.

A.  προσλαμβάνεσθε ἀλλήλους (Rom. 15:7) Προσλαμβάνω has a wide spectrum of meanings. It can mean “to grasp,” “to seize,” “to exploit,” “to take aside,” “to receive or extend welcome” or “to take along.”443 From the wide spectrum of meanings, two directions in the interpretation of προσλαμβάνω emerge. First, the active aspect of the word indicating movement and tension is expressed in “to take” or “to bring.” The active aspect especially occurs in the synoptic gospels (Eucharist: Mk. 14:22–23; LK. 24:30,43; Jn. 21:13; Resurrection: Mk. 12:19–22). Second, the less active aspect of the προσλαμβάνω is expressed in “accept,” or “receive” or “acquire.”444 In the New Testament, προσλαμβάνω generally occurs in the middle tense. In such occurrences, προσλαμβάνω can mean “to take to oneself ” (Acts 18:26; 27:33, 36), “with

1996), p. 673. BDAG, Third edition, p. 250. C. E. B. Cranfield suggests that it introduces the summing up of 14:1–15:6 (Romans, II: p 739). 443 For details on this term, refer to, Delling, “λαμβάνω, ἀναλαμβάνω, ἀνάλημψις, ἐπιλαμβάνω, ἀνεπίλημπτος, κατα, μεταλαμβάνω, μετάλημψις, παρα-, προ-, προσλαμβάνω, πρόσλημψις, ὑπολαμβάνω,”TDNT, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1967), p. 5; BDAG, Third edition, p. 833. 444 See A. Kretzer, “λαμβάνω,” EDNT, ed. Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1991), p. 336; Delling, “λαμβάνω, ἀναλαμβάνω…,” p. 5.

126

oneself ” (Mk. 8:32), “to receive hospitably” (Philem. 17; Acts 28:2) and “to take in or incorporate all with no inner reservations” (Rom. 14:1–3; 15:7).445 In the Pauline epistles, προσλαμβάνω occurs only in Romans and Philemon (Rom. 14:1; 15:7; Philem. 17). In Romans, it appears in the context of accepting other people groups and individuals, despite the differences in their ways of life and practices. Likewise, in Philemon, it appears in the context of welcoming into a house. In both contexts, it is a call for incorporating another member or other members in a community or fellowship. Both “accept” and “welcome” can be used interchangeably for προσλαμβάνω, because as mentioned, προσλαμβάνω covers a wide range of meanings. For Joseph Fitzmyer, προσλαμβάνεσθε (Rom. 14:1, 15:7) means “take to oneself, take into one’s household,” i.e., “welcome,” “accept with an open heart.”446 Likewise, James Dunn suggests that προσλαμβάνεσθε (Rom. 14:1, 15:7) means “receive or accept into one’s society, home, circle of acquaintances.” He goes on to cite 2Maccabees 10:15 and Acts 28:2.447 Mark Nanos also uses both “welcome” and “accept” simultaneously.448 In the present study, I use the word “accept,” for it better conveys the meaning of receiving without having to give up one’s way of life, and to grow together as a worshipping community supporting one another. Paul’s exhortation in Romans 15:7–13 begins with a call for acceptance. The double use of προσλαμβάνω in Romans 15:7 indicates the importance of the issue. In the first usage (Rom. 15:7a), προσλαμβάνω refers to believers in Christ receiving one another, while in the second usage (Rom. 15:7b), προσλαμβάνω points to Christ’s accepting the believers. In Romans 14:1, the strong are to accept the weak, while in the present text with the use of ἀλλήλους, Paul makes a more generic reference exhorting the Roman believers in Christ to accept one another. The Greek word ἀλλήλους is an expression used by Paul for individual members and the Christ believing communities in general (cf. Rom. 12:5, 9–16). It is usually not used for those outside the believing community. Such appeal is also found in Romans 15:2, 5 where the believers are encouraged to live in unity. However, in Romans 15:2, Paul does not use ἀλλήλων as in Romans 15:5, 7, but πλησίον, which indicates a wider appeal. The broadening within a Jew-Gentile setting does not indicate that the tension between the “strong” and the “weak,” with regard to Jewish dietary laws and the observance of special days in Romans 14:1–15:6, is resolved or has disappeared. 445 Delling, “λαμβάνω, ἀναλαμβάνω…,” p. 15. 446 Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 689 447 Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 798. 448 Nanos, The Mystery of Romans, p. 95 (welcome); p. 98 (accept).

127

Neither does it demonstrate only that the Jew-Gentile division is the exclusive issue here. Rather, this call for acceptance emphasizes the place of Gentiles in the covenantal promises.449 This is latent in the text, as from this point onward; Paul explicates the doctrinal basis, viz. the confirmation of the promises to the fathers (Rom. 15:8) and the glorification of God by the Gentiles because of God’s mercy (Rom. 15:9a). Furthermore, with the citations from the Jewish Scripture, the status of the Gentiles in the covenant community is justified, where they join the Jews in praising God (Rom. 15:9b–12), and are made an acceptable offering, sanctified through the Spirit of God (Rom. 15:16). The issue of diet in a community gathering consisting of both the “weak” and the “strong” appear in the preceding verses (Rom. 14:2–3, 6b, 14, 20–21). In addition, the cultic imagery in the following verses (Rom. 15:16–17) suggests a worship context. The idea of glorifying God (Rom. 15:7, 8–11) also reflects a liturgical setting. Paul is reminding the Roman believers in Christ of the need to accept one another in the context of community gatherings. Nevertheless, for both groups to accept one another and partake together in common worships and meals, they need to compromise based on strong theological grounding. On the one hand, the Gentiles are not to disregard Jewish dietary habits, but be sensitive to them and accommodate their dietary habits accordingly (Rom. 14:13–23). On the other hand, the Jews are not to consider the adherence to the law as an essential prerequisite for Christian faith. The basis for Paul’s exhortation on acceptance is the service of Christ to the Jews and to the Gentiles (Rom. 15:7). This pattern of presenting his exhortation is consistent with Romans 15:1–3a, where Paul’s exhortation is based on an appeal to what Christ has accomplished. In these verses, the deed of Christ remains the center of Paul’s exhortation. It provides a basis for an important motif in Romans 15:7–13 or even in Romans 14–15, i.e., “accept one another.” Paul refers to the basis for acceptance with the use of καθώς.

B.  Use of καθώς (Rom. 15:7) Scholarship is divided on the function of καθώς in Romans 15:7. For some scholars, καθώς functions as a comparative formula, i.e., just as.450 While others

449 Here the discussions are dependent on Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 845. 450 For Thompson a comparative καθώς better explains the inclusion of the preposition (εἰς), because “Paul has first prayed that his readers will glorify God (Rom. 15:6) by finding unity in their emulation of Christ” (Thompson, Clothed with Christ, p. 230 n.3). Wagner also supports the usual comparative force for it better explain

128

support the rare causal usage of καθώς, i.e., because/since.451 The latter use of καθώς is to be preferred because it fits better with Paul’s way of thinking, especially in this particular pericope. A comparative use of καθώς is improbable for Paul does not seem to be comparing the deed of Christ with that of the believers. Instead, Paul is exhorting the Roman believers to accept one another on the basis of what Christ has done for all. Hence, it is probable that Paul is describing the basis for mutual acceptance. Since Christ has been gracious and accepted everyone, regardless of one’s ethnic origin, likewise, the believers in Christ should accept one another, whether the “weak” or the “strong,” “Jew” or “Gentile.” This reminder to the believers in Christ at Rome is also found in Romans 15:3, 8, where Paul takes up the manner of Christ’s deed through the use of the word διάκονος (servant).452 He employs a servant-model (Rom. 15:8): Christ did not Paul’s emphasis on the example of Christ (“The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” pp. 474–475 n.11); Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, p. 308; Likewise, Joshua Garroway translates it “just as,” the Roman believers need to welcome one another just as Christ welcomed them (“The Circumcision of Christ: Romans 15:7–13,” p. 304). See also, Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 846; Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 701; Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, pp. 888–889; Toney, Paul’s Inclusive Ethic, p. 106; Das, “The Encoded Audience of Romans 15:7–13,” p. 91. Strictly speaking, καθώς is a comparative conjunction either suggesting a comparison between two connected ideas or telling about something that needs to be done (Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, p. 675). 451 In its causal sense, it especially appears as the conjunction in beginning a sentence (Rom. 1:28; 1Cor. 1:6; 5:7; Eph. 1:4; 4:32; Phil. 1:7) (BDAG, Third edition, p. 494). Käsemann is of the opinion that it cannot be a comparative, for it characterizes what follows as eschatological grace for if it is taken as the comparative, then the prepositional phrase at the end would be redundant (Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, p. 385). A few others also suggest that it is better to take καθώς in its causal sense and understand the adverb as causative. For, it states the reason for their acceptance of one another and so it cannot be regarded strictly in a comparative sense. Paul is insisting that the Roman believers in Christ should regard one another as members of the family of God. As Christ accepted them so they ought to accept one another. See Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 739; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 875; Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, p. 194. Brendan Byrne proposes that the whole phrase beginning with καθώς can be interpreted in either a causal or a comparative sense, with the former (cf. Rom. 1:28) having a stronger basis to Paul’s reasoning (Romans, p. 430). 452 According to Ernst Käsemann, διάκονος refers to the earthly work of Jesus and it corresponds to the context and the tradition in John 13 (Commentary on Romans, p. 385). Along this line, Cranfield suggests that διάκονος is the service of Christ as the servant of Yahweh, parallel in meaning to Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 (Romans, II: p. 741).

129

please himself (Rom. 15: 3). We can therefore conclude that with the use of the conjunction καθώς, Paul is appealing to the pattern of Christ as a motivation for the Roman believers in Christ to accept each other.

C.  ὁ Χριστός (Rom. 15:7) In referring to the pattern of Christ, Paul uses ὁ Χριστός in Romans 15:7. In the Pauline epistles, Χριστός and ὁ Χριστός occur without much distinction. Still, it is highly likely that in this pericope, the use of ὁ Χριστός and Χριστός alternatively in verses seven and eight suggest an important differentiation. In Romans 14 and 15, the use of the definite article with Χριστός is constantly maintained (Rom. 14:18; 15:3, 7).453 As in Romans 15:3, the definite article in 15:7 indicates that the emphasis of the text is to highlight the significance of Χριστός, the messiah. Paul in Romans 15:7–13 emphasizes that Christ is the messiah of Jewish origin whose deeds benefit both the Jews and the Gentiles. This is further developed in Romans 15:8–9a. To this, James Dunn adds that Paul is attempting to present Christ in close terms with the Jewish Christian minority, in viewing “the Christ” as the anointed one, the messiah.454 Robert Jewett agrees with Dunn, but makes the Jewish origin more explicit by indicating that the use of the Greek definite article ὁ in verse seven is to remind the Roman believers that the Jewish messiah is their redeemer.455 The ὑμᾶς456 in the same verse has an inclusive reference.457 The reference to the Jewish messiah also contributes to one of the primary themes of Romans, i.e., the Jewish priority. However, the presence of the Greek definite article ὁ also indicates that Χριστός needs to be regarded as a title of Jesus, i.e., the messiah. Unlike in Romans 15:7, Christ in 15:8 appears without the definite article ὁ, suggesting that it is a proper name. As Dunn surmises, “The purpose is to focus on the person 453 Χριστός preceded with article in Romans is found in 7:4; 8:35; 9:3,5; 14:18; 15:3, 7, 19; 16:16. 454 Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 824. Taking this stance are also Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 875; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, p. 385. 455 Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, pp. 864, 888. 456 A few witnesses read ἡμᾶς (B D* P 048. 104. 614. 629. 1506). While ὑμᾶς has superior and more diversified support (‫ ﬡ‬A C F G Y 33. 1739. 1181 and Majority text M). The reading ὑμᾶς is also in harmony with the usage of second person plural in vv 5–7. Cranfield prefers the reading ὑμᾶς for it refers to the fact that Christ has accepted both groups (Romans, II: 739); See Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 3rd edn. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1971). 457 Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, p. 889.

130

rather than on the people as the one in and through the fulfillment of covenant promise and Gentile incoming have been made possible.”458 Hence, the Greek article ὁ with Χριστός in Romans 15:7 is significant. After this, Paul reinforces his appeal by referring to the purpose of Christ’s acceptance of the believers, i.e., εἰς δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ.

D.  εἰς δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ (Rom. 15:7) The adverbial phrase εἰς δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ in Romans 15:7 declares the purpose and is attached to the main clause προσλαμβάνω ἀλλήλους (Rom. 15:7). The theme of the glory of God that provides the climax in Romans 15:1–6 appears again in Romans 15:7b. In Romans 15:6, the believers are called to glorify God together with the “same mind.” This theme is repeated in Romans 15:9 where the Gentiles would glorify God. In both verses, i.e., Romans 15:6 and 9, the emphasis is on the glorification of God. Whereas Romans 15:6 refers to both the “strong” and the “weak,” in Romans 15:9, Paul mentions only the Gentiles. Furthermore, this theme is elaborated in Romans 15:11 with the Gentiles praising God in 15:11a, ultimately leading to its implication, i.e., “and let all the people praise Him” in Romans 15:11b. The worship language of glorifying God is connected with citations from the Jewish Scripture in Romans 15:9b–12. Some scholars suggest that the purpose of Christ receiving the believers is for the glory of God,459 while others propose that it is the believers’ acceptance of each other that glorifies God.460 Still others attach the phrase to both the acceptance of one another and Christ’s receiving the believers.461 However, the phrase εἰς δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ (Rom. 15:7) should be construed as the purpose for Christ’s receiving the believers, as it makes better sense. 458 Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 846. 459 See Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, pp. 384–385; Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 846; Wagner, “The Christ Servant of Jew and Gentile,” p. 475. 460 For this view, see Cranfield, Romans, II: pp. 739–40 (Canfield presents four reasons why the adverbial phrase connects to the main clause). cf. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 875; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 204; Sandy & Headlam, Romans, p. 397. 461 For this proposal, refer to Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 270; Morris asserts that both interpretations, Christ receiving the believers as well as believers receiving one another, are possible or that they can even be applying to both. In his interpretation of the phrase, he takes the last view that God’s glory was promoted in Christ receiving the sinners, which further advance when believers receive one another (The Epistle to the Romans, p. 503).

131

This will be further demonstrated in the following section on syntactical analysis. Although εἰς δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ can also modify the main clause προσλαμβάνεσθε ἀλλήλους in Romans 15:7, the act of Christ to the Jews and the Gentiles in verse seven remains the core of the verse. As Ross Wagner suggests, the phrase εἰς δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ “naturally connects” with the clause that immediately precedes it, i.e., “Christ received you.”462 In this case, if Christ is the subject, then Paul is saying that Christ’s acceptance of the believers is on behalf of God’s glory. However, in considering the preceding verses, one can still argue that the link between acceptance and glorification does not support this interpretation. This is because the connection between “receiving one another” and “the glory of God” is already made in Romans 15:6, where Paul speaks of both the “weak” and the “strong” unanimously glorifying God in one accord. In addition, the entire section from Romans 14:1 deals with Paul’s ethic of acceptance in the context of community fellowship. Within this setting, Paul may be interpreted as reminding the Christ believing community at Rome that their acceptance of one another (weak/strong-Jew/Gentile) will bring glory to God. Nevertheless, such an interpretation creates a lacuna between the phrase εἰς δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ (Rom. 15:7) that declares the purpose and the subject ὁ Χριστὸς (Rom. 15:7). This syntactical scheme construes καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς προσελάβετο ὑμᾶς (Rom. 15:7) as parenthetical. Taking into consideration the syntactical structure and scheme, the view that construes Christ’s acceptance of the believers is for the glory of God fits the syntax of the text best. Furthermore, Romans 15:6–7 becomes the basis for the citations from the Jewish Scripture in Romans 15:9b–12. The catena of citations points to the nations praising and glorifying God. The use of the “glory of God” in this verse reflects the Old Testament context of God alone deserving the highest praise and glory (Ps. 149:9; 117:1). The preposition εἰς highlights the purpose of accepting one another, based on the act of Christ. Paul here is not referring to the triumph of the weak/Jews over the strong/Gentiles or vice versa. Rather, Paul here is emphasizing mutuality, where both the Jews and the Gentiles accept each other in order that God might be glorified. This leads us to Romans 15:8 where Paul restates his stance from Romans 15:7 with the use of λέγω γάρ.

462 Wagner, “The Christ Servant of Jew and Gentile,” p. 475.

132

E.  Use of λέγω γάρ (Rom. 15:8) With λέγω γάρ463 in Romans 15:8, Paul reiterates the theological reason for acceptance highlighted in Romans 15:7. Ernst Käsemann argues that the λέγω γάρ resumes Paul’s proclamation from the preceding text and it is close to “confess.”464 However, if we examine the pericope, γάρ is best seen as connecting verses seven and eight, without the addition of λέγω. In contrast, John Murray proposes that λέγω γάρ introduces an additional argument.465 This formula (λέγω γάρ) also appears in Romans 12:3, where the γάρ in Romans 12:3 connects Paul’s exhortation in Romans 12:1–2. Paul in Romans 12:3 draws out the implication for what he has already set forth in Romans 12:1–2. In Romans 12:3, Paul gives a solemn command with the use of λέγω. It is a command spoken with “prophetic authority.”466 In the New Testament, the first person singular of λέγειν is characteristic of the speeches of Jesus. It is usually followed by an infinitive (Mt. 5:34, 39; Rom. 2:22; Rev. 10:9). In the context of prophetic authority, λέγω also occurs in some other New Testament writings (Gal. 1:9; 5:2; Mt. 3:9; Lk. 3:8; 13:3–5). The conjunction γάρ in Romans 15:8 can be understood as connecting Romans 15:8–12 and the main sentence of Romans 15:7 presenting a more natural connection of thought.467 In Romans 15:7, Paul exhorts the Roman believers to accept one another on the basis that Christ accepted “all” for the glory of God. Paul further validates in 15:8–9 the act of Christ already highlighted in Romans 15:7. In these verses, the act of God for both the Jews and the Gentiles is emphasized. A question, however, remains: “Why is λέγω included in Paul’s exhortation in the text?” It is probable that the inclusion of λέγω is to indicate an important characteristic of his gospel, namely the inclusion of the Gentiles, which is unacceptable to some. It reveals Paul’s conviction, which in this context is controversial. Therefore, he uses λέγω γάρ as a command spoken with the authority of revelation as an apostle to the Gentiles, to emphasize an important matter and to state a controversial issue. As Brendan Byrne suggests, Paul could have brought his discussion to a conclusion with Romans 15:7, but instead he focuses in a 463 Cranfield argues that the γάρ in this verse links 15:8–12 to the main clause of 15:7, rather than to the subordinate clause. He translates ‘I declare’ and objects to “New English Bible” translation ‘I mean,’ as being too weak (Romans, II: p. 740). A few argue that Paul does not intend to bring in a new argument nor does it express an additional reason for the imperative in v. 7 (See Thompson, Clothed with Christ, p. 232). 464 Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, p. 385. 465 Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 204. 466 Cranfield, Romans, II: pp. 611–612; Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 720. 467 Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 740.

133

forceful way (λέγω γάρ) on the saving work of Christ.468 Hence, Paul expands and states his stance concerning his “ethic of accepting one another,” which is emphasized from Romans 14:1, but now with a theological basis. This leads to the two purpose clauses; namely, in order to confirm the promises to the fathers, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God. This is followed by an accusative with infinitive construction, presenting the content of Paul’s declaration Χριστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς (Rom. 15:8).

F.  Διάκονον (Rom. 15:8) The use of διάκονον for Christ is uncommon in the Pauline Epistles (found only here and in Galatians 2:17), but it occurs in the early synoptic tradition (Mk. 0:45, cf. Mt. 20:28), characterizing Christ’s humility in service: that the messiah did not appear in glory as the Jews expected, but came as a servant. Ernst Käsemann construes διάκονον as referring to the earthly work of Jesus corresponding principally to the context in John 13, where Jesus washed the feet of his disciples.469 Others suggest it can also correspond to the thought of Christ as ebed YHWH.470 In the present pericope, the reason for Christ becoming the servant is indicated in the clauses ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων and τὰ δὲ ε̋θνη ὑπὲρ ἐλέους δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν: that Christ might confirm the promises to the fathers consisting in the Gentiles glorifying God for his mercy. The use of the perfect471 infinitive γεγενῆσθαι472 with διάκονον indicates that the role of Christ as the servant from the Jewish origin473 does not reside in the past

468 Byrne, Romans, p. 429. 469 Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, p. 385. Along this line of argument also refer to Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 503. 470 Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 271; Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 741. Contra, Byrne, Romans, p. 431. 471 The perfect tense describes an event in the past, whose result exists in the present time. It denotes a past event with an abiding result (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 573–74). 472 The aorist tense reading γενέσθαι is supported by the following witnesses: Alexandrian Majuscule (B C*), Western Majuscule (D* F G) and Alexandrian Minuscule (1739. 1881), while the perfect γεγενῆσθαι is read by Alexandrian Majuscule (‫ ﬡ‬A C2), Western Majuscule (D1), Alexandrian Minuscule (33) and Byzantine text-type, Majority texts (M). The perfect tense reading is generally accepted, as it is likely that the scribes would alter the perfect tense to the aorist tense then the other way round. 473 “Servant of circumcised” according to Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 846.

134

alone, but continues in his role as the resurrected Christ.474 The confession in Romans 1:3–4, where Jesus is portrayed as the messiah, the Son of God with power from the seed of David, also substantiates the active role of Christ as the servant from the Jews both during his earthly life and after resurrection. The phrase Χριστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς needs further clarification, especially the genitive use of περιτομῆς.

G.  Χριστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς (Rom. 15:8) In Paul’s discussion on the “weak” and the “strong” regarding Jewish dietary laws, περιτομῆς475 (Rom. 15:8) appears for the first time. Some versions like The New Jerusalem Bible translate χριστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς as “that Christ’s work was to serve the circumcised.”476 Others like the American Version translate it as “minister of the circumcision.” Circumcision is a distinctive identity marker especially for the diaspora Jews (Rom. 2:25). Since this Jewish rite is connected with the wider Jewish community, some scholars conclude that this Jewish rite is being referred to because Paul attempts to transpose the division

474 Barrett points that it indicates the state of Christ being a servant who continues to carry out this office (Romans, p. 271). This view is also supported by Byrne, Romans, p. 431; Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 741; Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 847; Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, p. 891; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 877; Toney, Paul’s Inclusive Ethic, p. 107. In contrast, Käsemann follows Ridderboss, suggesting that the perfect tense naturally relates to the result, and not a continuation of the event (Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, p. 385). Along this line of argument, Sam Williams adds that Paul does not speak of Jesus’ earthly ministry. In addition, he agrees with Ernest Burton in interpreting γεγενησθαι as the “perfect of existing state,” where the past act is dropped and the attention is to the existing result. (Williams, “Righteousness of God” in Romans,” p. 287; Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1909), p. 38). 475 In the New Testament, there are diverse meanings of περιτομή. It can either refer to Jewish people who are identified with their most distinct characteristics (Rom. 3:30; 4:9; Gal. 2:7–9; Eph. 2:11) or it can stand for the rite of circumcision (Gal. 5:7; Phil. 3:5). It can also still refer to the state of being circumcised either physical or through faith (of the heart) (Rom. 2:25–28; 3:1; 4:10–11; 1Cor. 7: 19; Gal. 5: 6; 6:15). Considering the several meanings of περιτομή in the New Testament, it is likely that Paul’s usage in the present text can refer to any of them. 476 Leander E. Keck comments that such reading substitutes the work of Christ for his person [“Christology, Soteriology, and the Praise of God (Rom. 15:7–13),” p. 90].

135

between the “weak” and the “strong” to that of the Jews and the Gentiles.477 The rite of circumcision has a broader reference for a Jew as an act of the covenant (Rom. 3:30; 4:12). Thus, Paul presents here Christ as a servant of the covenant, the seal of which is the circumcision.478 However, the argument that the use of this Jewish rite in Romans 15:8 marks the shift in Paul’s appeal, though possible, does not really address the issue of the use of the genitive περιτομῆς, which can have three possible meanings. The first possibility is to regard περιτομῆς as an objective genitive.479 The Jews will then be construed as the object of Christ’s service. As an objective genitive, περιτομῆς stands in opposition to the “Gentiles” (Rom. 15:9a) and refers to the “Jews,” dovetailing with the meaning as in Romans 3:30; 4:12.480 The result is that Paul reaffirms the work of Christ as being performed for Israel.481 Sam Williams 477 Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 740; Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 706; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 877; Toney, Paul’s Inclusive Ethic, p. 107. 478 Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 503; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, II: p. 204–205. 479 Objective genitive is similar to the root-idea of the Genitive as the case of genus or kind. One example is Mark 11:22 (cf. Rom. 3:22). ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ is usually translated to “have faith in God,” though the genitive here is not “in” but stands here for the “God-kind” of faith. This form of genitive is frequent in the New Testament (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of the Historical Research (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman press, 1934), pp. 499–500. 480 View supported by Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 271; Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 740; Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 706; Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, p. 890; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 503; Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, p. 230; Sanday & Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, pp. 397–98; Käsemann argues that περιτομῆς stands for the concrete, i.e., the circumcised. Jesus manifested himself as a servant of the Jewish people (Commentary on Romans, p. 385); Wagner points that circumcision in this verse is in opposition to the Gentiles (15:9a) (Heralds of the Good News, 309); Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” p. 476; BDAG, Third edition, p. 807; Garroway, “The Circumcision of Christ: Romans 15:7–13,” pp. 304–305. 481 For brief discussion on περιτομῆς in Paul, refer to Meyer, “περιτέμνω περιτομή ἀπερίτμητος,” TDNT, vol. 6, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1968), p. 88. While, Garroway argues that, in becoming, the servant of the Jews, Christ fulfilled the patriarchal promises and welcomed the Gentiles as he did to the Jews. This is especially reflected in his death and resurrection, which led to the incorporation of Gentiles enabling them to glorify God for His mercy (“The Circumcision of Christ: Romans 15:7–13,” p. 304). Or it brings back the argument in Romans 3–4 regarding the status of circumcision, which acts as a framework for Christ becoming a servant of circumcision in order that the

136

observes that if διάκονον περιτομῆς speaks of “servant to the circumcised,” then it remains unclear how the statement “I tell you” in Romans 15:8 clarifies the declaration that “Christ accepted you” (Rom. 15:7). The connection fits better if Romans 15:8 is referring to the servanthood of Christ the Jew, to all people.482 However, it is improbable that περιτομῆς is an objective genitive. If the object of the Christ-event were only the Jews, Paul’s argument would have been seriously dismantled, as the Gentiles would have no place in it. In fact, the preceding verses point to Christ’s service as benefitting both “Jew” and “Gentile”/ “strong” and “weak.” Hence, Paul would not be stating that the object of the act of Christ is in opposition to the Gentiles, neither does περιτομῆς in this verse supports that God’s covenantal promises are only for Israel excluding other nations. The theme of the universal fulfillment of the promises of God will be discussed at length in the later part of this chapter. The second possibility is to take περιτομῆς483 as a “genitive of origin.”484 Christ became a servant from the Jewish race. Although Mark Reasoner supports the objective genitive interpretation, he comments that Paul’s description of Christ as the servant of circumcision in the context of confirming the promises refers to the historical Jesus’ Jewish identity. It is a claim to “an interest in the Jewishness of Jesus.”485 The idea of Christ being firmly rooted in Judaism is also mentioned in other texts (Rom. 1:3; 9:5; Gal. 4:4). In a genitive of origin, it means, “Christ has become a servant from the Jews on behalf of God’s truthfulness.”486 This reading contributes to the theme of Jewish priority that runs throughout the epistle to the Romans. It is also supported by the text itself, where emphasis is placed on the messiah from the “shoot of Jesse” (Rom. 15:12) on whom the Gentiles will also hope. Furthermore, we have two citations from the Psalms in Romans 15:9b and 15:11, where David is considered the composer of Psalms and the forerunner of the messiah. Gentiles would be included in the promise. Jewett quotes Ljungman and asserts that the service of the messiah to “circumcision…includes the receiving of the Gentiles” (Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, p. 891). 482 Williams, ‘“Righteousness of God” in Romans,’ pp. 286–87. 483 This Jewish rite has a broader reference to a Jew as an act of covenant (Rom. 3:30; 4:12). 484 The subjective genitive is not easily identifiable, but can be distinguished by the objective genitive only by the context. This form of the genitive akin to the common possessive genitive viewed from a different angle. In itself, the subjective genitive is prone to either point of view, i.e., subjective or objective genitive. Therefore, it can be decided only by the context of the text in which it appears (Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 499). 485 Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, p. 194. 486 My translation.

137

The third possibility is that the genitive περιτομῆς is meant to be ambiguous. Indeed, περιτομῆς itself is ambiguous for it can refer to the Jewish rite or a person. Furthermore, the genitive περιτομῆς may be intentionally ambiguous, carrying both ideas of Christ coming from and Christ serving the Jews. The strength of this interpretation is that it dovetails with the claim that Christ’s service confirms the promises made to the fathers and the divine intent to show mercy to the Gentiles. In the present text, the service of Christ provides the basis for the inclusion of the Gentiles in the promise of salvation. The theme of Jewish priority (Rom. 1: 16; 2:9, 10) in Romans is again reflected in the phrase, but this theme does not exclude the Gentiles. If περιτομῆς were taken as an objective genitive, then the emphasis would be that the service of Christ is “on behalf of Israel.” How is it then possible that Christ being a servant to the Jews gives the Gentiles an opportunity to praise God for his mercy? In this case, the ministry of Christ would be only for the Jews. Such a reading would then contradict the context of Paul’s exhortation, where Roman Christians are to accept one another on the basis that Christ has accepted all (Jews and the Gentiles). Hence, if the ministry of Christ is for both the Jews and the Gentiles, then the reading of περιτομῆς as the objective genitive (Christ a servant to the Jews) cannot be defended. The objective genitive reading would present the Jews as the object of Christ’s service. If περιτομῆς were taken only as the genitive of origin, then the emphasis would only be on the Jewish race of Jesus.487 Such reading of περιτομῆς also highlights an important theme that runs throughout the epistle: the Jewish priority (cf. Rom. 1:16; 2:9; 3:1–4; 9:4–5; 11:13–24). Yet, in emphasizing the privileges of the Jews, Paul never did sideline the Gentiles (Rom. 15:9). Hence, in considering the context, it is best to interpret περιτομῆς as intentionally ambiguous. Such interpretation justifies the ministry of Christ to the Jews, as well as the Gentiles as the context of the text suggests. In this case, the two ὑπὲρ phrases ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας and ὑπὲρ ἐλέους are parallel and they point to the motive of the service of Christ. So also the two prepositional phrases that qualify the phrase “Christ became a servant of circumcision”

487 In contrast, Sam Williams suggests that it is more likely that περιτομῆς indicates ‘origin’ (“The “Righteousness of God,” p. 286).

138

are ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας488 θεοῦ and εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι489 τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων. The first prepositional phrase signifies that the service of Christ is “on behalf of ” or “for the sake of ”490 the truth of God.491 The second prepositional phrase makes known the purpose of Christ’s service to the Jews τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων.492

488 The primary meaning of ἀληθείας is truth. In the present text, it is equivalent to God’s faithfulness to his covenant (See Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 741; Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 847; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, p. 385. Terence L. Donaldson attempts to connect the truthfulness of God with the theme of the “righteousness of God” in 3:3–7. For in 3:3–7 the phrases “faithfulness (πὶστις) of God,” “righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) of God” and “truthfulness (ἀλήθεια) of God” are used in parallel. Therefore, God’s truthfulness can be a way of speaking of God’s righteousness (Rom. 15:8) [Terence L. Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), p. 96]. This is apparent in the phrase χριστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς indicating the ministry of Christ to the Jews and in the purpose clause εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων. Paul now states that God’s truth and the promises to the patriarch’s open the way for the Gentiles (Rom. 15:9). The promise extends beyond the ethnic boundaries of Israel through the divine mercy. This is indicated by taking ἀλήθεια and ε̋λεος as contrast. Note that there are also texts where Paul brings parallelism between mercy and the glory of God (Rom. 9:23), “And that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy that he prepared to glory.” This parallel is further developed in 11:32–36. 489 The original meaning of βεβαιῶσαι is “to maintain firmness” in the sense of being solidly grounded (Schlier, “βέβαιος, βεβαιόω, βεβαίωσις,” TDNT, vol. 1, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1964), pp. 600–602; BDAG, Third edition, p. 138). Yet, this original meaning is not very prominent in 15:8. Its link with ἀλήθεια θεοῦ (truth of God) is worth noting. Paul is trying to justify that the truth of God is fulfilled in the establishment of the promise to the fathers through the ministry of Christ. Thus, βεβαιῶσαι here has the legal sense of embracing, confirmation and fulfillment (BDAG, Third edition, p. 173; Schlier, “βέβαιος, βεβαιόω, βεβαίωσις,” p. 602; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, p. 385). 490 BDAG, Third edition, pp. 1030–1031. 491 The truth of God recalls the theme of the Gospel is the vindication of God’s righteousness or faithfulness in Romans 1:18, 25; 3:4, 7. 492 For the two prepositional phrases, refer to Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” pp. 476–77.

139

H.  τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων (Rom. 15:8) Two scholarly proposals prevail regarding the interpretation of the phrase “τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων.” One view proposes that it refers to the Jewish people,493 while the other view proposes that it indicates the promises made to Abraham.494 In Romans, there are references to the promises made to Abraham and the promise of blessings upon his descendants occurs especially in Romans 4 (4:9–13, 16, 20) and 9. There are also instances of other occurrences like the “promises” and “fathers” indicating the Jewish people (Rom. 9:5; 11:28). In the Pauline epistles, the promise is explained mainly in the context of the Gentiles as people of God (Rom. 4:13–16, 20; 9:4–9; 15:8. cf. Gal. 3:14–22; 4:23– 28). In this case, the Gentiles are also recipients in Abraham’s blessing, which is actualized through Christ. Indeed, as recipients of Abraham’s blessing, the believing Gentiles also share the promises of God to “the fathers.” It is justifiable to interpret the “promises to the fathers” as including the promise to Abraham, for Abraham is also called “our forefather” (Rom. 4:1), “the father of us all” and “father of many nations” (Rom. 4:16–18).495

I.  Language of Praise (Rom. 15:9–12) In Romans 15:8, Paul refers to the “promises to the fathers,” especially in the context of the ministry of Christ to the Jews and the Gentiles. The two infinitives of purpose are βεβαιῶσαι and δοξάσαι, which point to the service of Christ to the Jews and the Gentiles. God’s purpose is to confirm His promises made to the Jews (Rom. 15:8), in that the Gentiles glorify God for his mercy (cf. Rom. 11:29– 30). Therefore, both the Jews and the Gentiles have a reason to praise God (Rom. 493 Jan Lambrecht comments that the plural promises unlikely refer to the specific promise to Abraham and also the opposing δέ referring to the Gentiles in v. 9a corroborates the view (Collected Studies on Pauline Literature and on the Book of Revelation, Analecta Biblica 147 (Roma: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 2001), p. 30). James Dunn and Douglas Moo prefers the reference to the Jewish people specifically (cf. Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 848; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 877–878); Donaldson in Paul and the Gentiles states, “Nowhere in Romans is the salvation to the Gentiles presented as a fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham,” (discussed in pp. 4, 16). 494 Joseph Fitzmyer claims that the Gentiles are included in the promises to the fathers (Romans, p. 706). Also Joshua Garroway relates the promises to God’s promise to Abraham that he would inherit the world in Romans 4:13–16. Garroway intends this reading, for, he regards Paul’s intended audience in Romans as Gentiles (“The Circumcision of Christ: Romans 15:7–13,” pp. 305–308). 495 Also, Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, pp. 503–504.

140

15:8–9a). This concept receives support with the citations from the Jewish Scripture, where both the Jews and the Gentiles give glory to God (Rom. 15:9b–11). The δόξα theme is mentioned several times in the text with different subjects, like in Romans 15:7, “Christ accepted you to the glory of God,” or in 15:9a, “the Gentiles glorify God on behalf of His mercy.” The glorification of God by the Jews and the Gentiles is supported by the citations from the Jewish Scripture. Some scholars496 assume that the catena of citations is intended solely to support 15:9a. Others497 suggest it elaborates on the theme of 15:8–9a, i.e., both Jews and Gentiles together in the believing community. The latter view is preferable for we find a close connection between Romans 15:8 and 15:9a, and γάρ links 15:8, 9b to 15:7. The common features in all the citations are the references to “Gentiles.” Notably, the language of praise is found in the first three quotations. Ross Wagner rightly observes that the catena functions to testify to the purpose of the messiah’s ministry in the creation of a community comprising Jews and Gentiles glorifying God together.498 Paul positions the citation in a manner of presenting the ministry of Christ, the messiah, to the Jews and the Gentiles.499 In the first scriptural citation (Rom. 15:9b of Ps. 17:50 LXX), the messiah is presented as one who will confess God among the Gentiles (Rom.15: 9b). In the next two citations (Rom. 15:11 of Ps. 116:1 LXX and Rom. 15:10 of Deu. 32:43), Christ extends the invitation to both the Jews and the Gentiles to praise God. The last citation in v. 13 (Isa.11:10) speaks of the messiah in whom the Gentiles will hope. This reading of Christ in Romans 15:7–12 presents a more balanced construction of Paul’s exhortation: since Christ has accepted both the Jews and the Gentiles by breaking down the walls of disparity and narrowing the gap between them, so the Roman believers are also called to put away their differences and accept one another based on Christ’s ministry. Furthermore, this same Christ gives praise to God in the midst of the Gentiles and is one on whom the Gentiles hope, thus creating space for both the Jews and the Gentiles to glorify God. The first three citations bring in worship and praise language, while the fourth citation employs the language of hope. As a whole, the catena of citations broadens 496 Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 272. 497 Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 745; Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 848 (Dunn supposes that Paul here broadens the particular issue of Romans 14:1–15:6 to the overall theme of the letter); Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 878; Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, p. 310. 498 Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, pp. 310–11. 499 However, the setting of each individual text will be discussed in the light of their respective literary context in the following chapter.

141

the discussion in Romans 14:1–15:6 from the issue between the “weak” and the “strong” to the inclusion of the Gentiles within the salvific plan of God along with the Jews. The connection between the Old Testament citations and the importance of the theme of glory in this pericope is taken up at greater length in the subsequent chapter. We can plausibly say that the theme of glory and praise is used to bring different groups together. Two implications arise from this. First, the believers’ coming together glorifies God. Second, the believers’ coming together is ultimately what God wants. For as Paul states “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Is sin then only the breaking of relationship with God? Or is it not also related to the breaking up of the community? In this case, if God is glorified it must entail not just the removal of sin, but the bringing together of a community or communities. Thus, the language of praise in this pericope contributes to the acceptance of one another in a community comprising the Jews and the Gentiles. In summary, the syntactical and logical analysis shows that the structure of Romans 15:7–13 is lucid and corresponds to Romans 15:1–6. It begins with a call for acceptance (Rom. 15:7a), presenting Christ as the basis for acceptance (Rom. 15:7b). Then, Paul goes on to characterize the ministry of Christ to the Jews and to the Gentiles (Rom. 15:8–9a). Paul wraps up his argument by appropriating the Jewish Scripture (Rom. 15:9b–12),500 and making a prayer (Rom. 15:13). It is fairly clear that the structure in itself is not complicated and does not pose a problem for the context of interpreting Romans 15:7–13. If there is a problem at all, it is that of trying to relate syntactically Romans 15:8 and 15:9a, a problem, which has been keenly debated among scholars. In this study, we will analyze the prominent proposals before offering an alternate.

III. The Syntactical Relation between Romans 15:8 and 9a: Solutions Proposed Scholars have offered four solutions in an attempt to relate Romans 15:8 to15:9a. In the sections that follow, I will provide diagrams of these solutions. The signs given below will be used in the diagrams that represent the solutions offered by scholars, as well as in my own alternative proposal.

500 Torah (Deu. 32:43), Psalms (Ps. 17:50; 116:1 LXX) and Prophets (Isa. 11:10).

142

Scholars have offered four solutions in an attempt to relate Romans 15:8 to15:9a. In the sections that follow, I will provide diagrams of these solutions. The signs given below will be used in the diagrams that represent the solutions offered by scholars, as well as in my own alternative Object marker proposal. Infinitive marker Object marker

Infinitive marker

Adverb or adjective Stand for phrase Standinfinitive for infinitive phrase

Adverb or adjective

A.  Solution One: δοξάσαι as Aorist Optative

A. Solution One: δοξάσαι as Aorist Optative The firstThe solution, which most commentators reject, isreject, that Romans 15:9a begins first solution, which most commentators is that Romans 15:9a begins a a new sentence with δοξάσαι, considered an aorist optative. In this case, it reads: new δοξάσαι, considered an aorist optative. In this it reads: “For I say that “For sentence I say thatwith Christ has become a servant of circumcision forcase, the truthfulness Christ servant the of circumcision for to thethe truthfulness of may God,the in Genorder to confirm of God,has in become order toaconfirm promises made fathers. But tilespromises glorify God Theodor Zahn cites von Hofmann a reprethe madefor to his the mercy!” fathers. But may the Gentiles glorify God forashis mercy!” Theodor sentative of this view.501 Also, Ernst Käsemann is in favor501 of this interpretation.502 Also, Ernst Käsemann Zahn citesand von Ross Hofmann as ado representative Cranfield Wagner not considerofit this as a view. likely solution and reject it.503 is in favor 502 Rossit,Wagner do not consider it as athat likely of this interpretation. Although Richard HaysCranfield does not and support he nevertheless comments tak-solution and 503 as an aorist optative active rather than as an aorist infinitive offers ing δοξάσαι reject it. Although Richard Hays does not support it, he nevertheless comments that taking the “most natural reading” of the syntax. In this case, the clause would express δοξάσαι an aorist activeglorify rather than aorist infinitive offers the “most natural a prayer as wish: “Mayoptative the Gentiles God as foranhis mercy. ”504 Grammatically reading” of the syntax. but In this case, thedoes clause a prayer this reading is possible, the context not would supportexpress this reading. Thewish: text “May the refers to the praise of God by the Jews 504 andGrammatically the Gentiles onthis thereading basis that is Christ possible, but the Gentiles glorify God for his mercy.” accepted all to the glory of God. The inclusion of the Jews and the Gentiles in context does not support this reading. The text refers to the praise of God by the Jews and the the salvific plan of God is based on the authority of Jewish Scripture. The catena of citations following Romans 15:9a suggest that Paul in verse 9a is not making a wish, but he shows that the praise of the Gentiles is rooted in Scripture, indi500 Torah (Deu. 32:43), Psalms (Ps. 17:50; 116:1 LXX) and Prophets (Isa. 11:10). cating that it has a long tradition. Therefore, instead of being a wish, it is more 501 Theodor Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Rӧmer (Leipzig: Deichert, 1925), p. 594 n. 17. 502 probable that it presents the purpose of ChristMohr, to both thepp.Jews and the Gentiles Ernst Käsemann, An die Römer, HNT 8a (Tübingen: 1973), 368-9. 503 Cranfield bringsina the list of six explanations on the link between v. 8-9a, Romans, II: p. 742; Wagner presents (argued below alternative proposal). three common solutions, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” pp. 477-81. 504 Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, p. 207 n. 74.

501 Theodor Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Rӧmer (Leipzig: Deichert, 1925), p. 594 n. 17. 502 Ernst Käsemann, An die Römer, HNT 8a (Tübingen: Mohr, 1973), pp. 368–9. 503 Cranfield brings a list of six explanations on the link between v. 8–9a, Romans, II: p. 742; Wagner presents three common solutions, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” pp. 477–81. 504 Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, p. 207 n. 74.

143

127

B.  Solution Two: Infinitives as Governed by εἰς τό

ὑπὲρ ἐλέους

τὸν θεόν δοξάσαι

ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ,

τὰ ἔθνη

(Χριστὸν)

περιτοῆς λέγω

γὰρ

Χριστὸν

X

εἰς τὸ

δὲ

γεγενῆσθαι

126

διάκονον

βεβαιῶσαι

τὰς ἐπαγγελίας

τῶν πατέρων

The diagram for solution two is given below.505

505 I am indebted to Dr. Jerry Reisig who offered his insightful diagrams of the solutions to the syntax.

144

The second possibility,506 which is a more widely held view, takes τὰ δὲ ἔθνη δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν (Rom. 15:9a) as being governed by εἰς τό (Rom. 15:8b). In this case, the infinitives δοξάσαι (Rom. 15:9a) and βεβαιῶσαι (Rom. 15:8b) are dependent on εἰς τό (Rom. 15:8), and the two infinitive clauses τὰ δὲ ἔθνη δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν (Rom. 15:9a) and βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων (Rom. 15:8b) are parallel. The ὑπὲρ clauses in Romans 15:8–9a are also regarded as being parallel. In this proposal, the reading would be: “For I say Christ has become a servant of circumcision on behalf of the truthfulness of God in order to confirm the promises made to the fathers and (in order) that the Gentiles might glorify God on behalf of mercy.” The reading of the infinitives as dependent on εἰς τὸ offers a better link between Christ’s ministry and the participation of the Gentiles. This reading is supported by the context, i.e., Paul’s appeal for acceptance as a result of the act of Christ in Romans 15:7. It brings together the two prepositional phrases ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας and ὑπὲρ ἐλέους in referring to the Jews and the Gentiles. With each group, Paul employs a different method of emphasis. For the Jews, it is the patriarchal promises that have primary reference, whereas for the Gentiles, God’s mercy is the focus that of the inclusion of the Gentiles with the communication of Israel. A few scholars agree that the sentence construction of Romans 15:8–9 is rough. However, for them this does not indicate the style of the apostle is clumsy. Rather, the construction points to the double purpose that Paul wanted to express – grace had been imparted to all and at the same time to stress the priority of the Jews.507 Refuting this hypothesis, Sam Williams argues that βεβαιῶσαι and δοξάσαι are not parallels and their order is not reversible, for the second clause needs the first clause. In this reading, the δοξάσαι clause is not directly 506 The following versions of the Bible, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Today’s English Version follows this reading. Advocated by Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 271; Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, p. 892; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 876; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 205–06. A. Andrew Das supports this reading because the syntax construction gives emphasis on the Gentiles as God’s fulfillment of the promise to Israel. Such a construction makes better sense in a letter addressed to the Gentiles. For if Paul is addressing a mixed audience of both Jews and the Gentiles, then he would encourage both the Jews and the Gentiles to glorify God for the confirmation of the promises (Das, “The Encoded Audience of Romans 15:7–13,” p. 96). The view of Das does not receive much support, for as discussed in the preceding chapter Romans 14:1–15:13 or even the whole of Romans give evidence of a mixed audience of both the Jews and the Gentiles. 507 Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, p. 385.

145

dependent on εἰς τό, rather it needs to be connected with the βεβαιῶσαι clause. For Williams, such a reading explains better the reason as to why the Gentiles have a cause to glorify God-for the promise is now fulfilled. According to his analysis, Paul in Romans 15:8–9a says that “Christ has become a servant from the Jews for the sake of God’s truthfulness – in order to confirm the promises to the fathers and so that consequently, the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy.”508 However, the problem with this reading is that the relationship between the phrases ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ and εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι remains ambiguous509 for both statements of purpose in v. 8b and v. 9a are dependent on εἰς τό. Furthermore, ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας and ὑπὲρ ἐλέους in the text seem intentionally brought to correspond with each other, but this reading destroys the correspondence between the two ὑπέρ phrases. If Romans 15:9a is considered a second purpose of Romans 15:8, both the infinitives (βεβαιῶσαι and δοξάσαι) seem to equally explain “the truthfulness of God.” However, in Romans, God’s truthfulness according to Paul is the faithfulness of God to his promises made to Israel.510 Yet, this does not deny the inclusion of the Gentiles as a goal of God’s promises.511 While Paul emphasizes God’s faithfulness to his covenantal promises made to Israel, he also emphasizes the mercy that is extended to the Gentiles. The unfaithfulness of Israel does not nullify God’s covenantal promises; instead God continues to remain faithful.512 A major syntactical problem in this reading is that the prepositional phrase ὑπὲρ ἐλέους (on behalf of mercy) is used to qualify δοξάσαι (to glorify). Such use of ὑπέρ in a context where praise is given to someone is not found in biblical Greek. For in such cases, the prepositions ἐπί or διά fit better (cf. Lk. 2:20; Acts 508 Williams, “Righteousness of God” in Romans,” pp. 287–288. 509 Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 743; Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” pp. 478–479. In contrast, A. Andrew Das argues that this approach does not deny the relationship between ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεου and εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας. Neither does it distort the relationship between God’s truthfulness (Jews) and God’s mercy (Gentiles) [Das, “Praise the Lord, All you Gentiles’: The Encoded Audience of Romans 15:7–13,” p. 93 contra, Luke Timothy Johnson, Romans (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996), p. 432; Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Rӧmer, vol. III. 2nd edn; EKKNT, VI/1–3; (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989), p. 106]. 510 Rom. 3:4; 9:4, 6; 11:1, 11. See Cranfield, Romans, I: p. 184. 511 This is also indicated in the immediate verses that follow where we see citations from the Old Testament (vv.9b–11). Paul affirms in Romans 4:9–17 the promises to the fathers that include the Gentiles in Genesis (Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:24). Also, the grafting of the Gentiles into the olive tree (Rom. 11:17–18) extends God’s promises to the Gentiles. See also Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” p. 478 n. 29. 512 Further discussed in the following chapter.

146

4:21; 2Cor. 9:1). It is possible that the use of the prepositional phrase corresponds perhaps to Paul’s regular use of ὑπέρ with εὐχαριστέω in order to convey the cause for thanksgiving.513 Another problem scholars point to, is the change of the subject in the second purpose clause from Christ to Gentiles. Ross Wagner refers to it as “unexpected and jarring,”514 while Cranfield calls this construction “a stylistic horror in Greek.”515 Yet, if we look at the whole sentence, the change of subject is not unexpected as τὰ ἔθνη is indeed the subject of δοξάσαι, especially if one reads it within a setting where the ministry of Christ benefits both the Jews and the Gentiles. Furthermore, in the Pauline epistles, it is common to expect a change of subject when the particle δέ is used in joining the clauses.516 As indicated, this solution provides a better link between the ministry of Christ and the acceptance of the Gentiles. However, in considering the drawbacks of this particular solution, it is important to inquire for a more satisfactory reading of the relationship between Romans 15:8 and Romans 15:9a.

513 1Corinthians 10:30; Ephesians 1:16; 5:20. See Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” p. 479. 514 Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” p. 478. 515 Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 743. 516 Even within Romans 15, we find clear evidence for the change of subject: Paul turns (δέ) from the “weak” (Rom. 15:1) to the “strong” (Rom. 14:23); from “we” to “God” (Rom. 15:4–5); Paul turns (δέ) from Isaiah to God (Rom. 15:12–13) and from God of hope to himself (Rom. 15:13–14). See Das, “The Encoded Audience of Romans 15:7–13,” p. 94 n.12.

147

148

δὲ

(λέγω )

λέγω

γὰρ

τὰ ἔθνη

Χριστὸν X

δοξάσαι

εἰς τὸ

γεγενῆσθαι

130

ὑπὲρ ἐλέους

τὸν θεόν

τῶν πατέρων

τὰς ἐπαγγελίας

ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ

βεβαιῶσαι

περιτοῆς

διάκονον

C.  Solution Three: Infinitives as Dependent on λέγω

The diagram for solution three is given below.

The third possibility517 interprets the infinitive δοξάσαι (Rom. 15:9a) as dependent upon the main verb λέγω (Rom. 15:8a) and synchronizes it with the perfect γεγενῆσθαι (Rom. 15:7). The clause τὰ δὲ ἔθνη ὑπὲρ ἐλέους δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν in Romans 15:9a is then regarded as syntactically dependent on λέγω (Rom. 15:8a). In this case, τὰ δὲ ἔθνη ὑπὲρ ἐλέους δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν (Rom. 15:9a) parallels Χριστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς (Rom. 15:8a). The translation would be: “For I say that Christ has become a servant of circumcision for the truthfulness of God in order to confirm the promises to the fathers, and also that the Gentiles glorify God for mercy.” This proposal presents a balance in the sentence with the genitive clause Χριστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς corresponding with δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν, and recognizes the correspondence between the two ὑπέρ clauses.518 Both the infinitive γεγενῆσθαι and δοξάσαι are also dependent on λέγω, the main verb. The infinitive constructions εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων and τὰ δὲ ἔθνη ὑπὲρ ἐλέους δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν are intended to serve as a contrast. The contrast would result in an interpretation that suggests that on the one hand, the ministry of Christ to the Jews is to fulfill the promises, but on the other hand, the promises have nothing to do with the Gentiles, for the Gentiles praise God for his mercy.519 517 This solution is adopted by Cranfield, Romans, II: pp. 742–744; Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 847; Fitzmyer, Romans, pp. 704, 706 (but Fitzmyer translates the verb with past tense); Williams, “The “Righteousness of God” in Romans,” p. 287; Walter Schmithals, Der Rӧmerbrief (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1988), p. 519. Luke Timothy Johnson and A. Andrew Das read the syntax with the Gentile audience as the recipients. For Johnson, the conjunction δέ at the beginning of v.9a retains an adversative sense, placing emphasis on the second statement with regard to the Gentiles. This reading regards that the ministry of Christ to the circumcision is only brought about to substantiate what Paul wants to say about the Gentiles especially in support of v.7 [Johnson, Romans, pp. 431–432]. Along this line, Das argues that in 15:8–9a, the response of the circumcised is not stated and therefore this aspect is unstressed. While the focus is on the Gentiles’ glorifying God providing support for the Gentile audience, which Das argues for throughout his essay, (“The Encoded Audience of Romans 15:7–13,” p. 92). 518 Wagner observes that in this construal, the two ὑπέρ phrases does not stand parallel structurally, but does so in a chiastic relationship (refer to diagram two in Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” p. 480). 519 For this reading of the two infinitive constructions, refer to H. A. W. Meyer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC (New York: Scribners, 1906), pp. 541–542. Sanday and Headlam also take a similar stance: “while the blessing came to the Jews ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας to preserve God’s consistency, it came to the Gentiles ὑπὲρ ἐλέους for God’s loving-kindness,” (Sanday and Headlam, Romans,

149

Two objections may be raised regarding this reading of the text.520 The first objection is that in allowing Romans 15:9a to be dependent on λέγω (Rom. 15:8a), Paul’s deliberation on the deeds of Christ and the inclusion of the Gentiles is distorted, for the link is missing.521 As Robert Jewett rightly observes, this construal severs the glorification by the Gentiles from the “Christological center of the sentence.”522 In order to bring the connection between the work of Christ and the reason for the Gentiles glorifying God, Cranfield adds a double ellipsis. Cranfield follows R. Corneley in suggesting that Paul intended a double ellipsis to be implicit in Romans 15:8 and 15:9a in creating a balanced statement of 15:8–9a. In Romans 15:8, the Jewish believers in Christ glorify God for His faithfulness, while in 15:9a, the Gentile believers in Christ glorify God for His mercy. However, this implication in Romans 15:8–9a is indicated clearly so that it does not need further expression or explanation.523 Moreover, it fails to explain how the glorification of God by the Gentiles supports Paul’s appeal to accept one another in Romans 15:7.524 The link in Paul’s thought becomes vague if δέ is also read as a strong adversative, for such reading breaks the connection between the glorification of God by the Gentiles and the ministry of Christ in confirming the promises to Israel.525 Some prefer to regard it as a coordinative conjunction.526 The second objection concerns how λέγω is construed, i.e., it entails it being followed by two different subjects in Romans 15:8b and in 15:9a.527 Moreover, the infinitive δοξάσαι is placed too far away to be dependent on λέγω. This is further complicated by the intervening clause εἰς τό.528

p. 398. Likewise, C. K. Barrett reads, “As the Jews glorify God for his faithfulness, so the Gentiles will glorify him for his mercy,” (Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 398). 520 These two problems are also discussed by Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” pp. 480–81. 521 See Zahn, Der Brief Des Paulus an Die Rӧmer, p. 594 n. 17; Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” p. 480. 522 Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, p. 892. 523 Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 743–744. 524 Toney, Paul’s Inclusive Ethic, p. 111. 525 See Das, “The Encoded Audience of Romans 15:7–13,” p. 93; Cranfield, Romans, II: pp. 742–744. 526 Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 706. 527 Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 271; Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” p. 480. 528 Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, p. 97; Das, “The Encoded Audience of Romans 15:7–13,” p. 92.

150

To this proposal, Ross Wagner comments “Paul has left more unspoken than he has said!”529 To understand what Paul meant, Wagner proposes a fresh solution for the syntactical reading of Romans 15:8–9a, which is discussed below.

D.  Solution Four: Servant to the Jews-Servant to the Gentiles

δοξάσαι (εἰς τὸ) ὑπὲρ ἐλέους (θεοῦ)

ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ

δὲ

τὰ ἔθνη

περιτοῆς

X Χριστὸν λέγω

τὸν θεόν

τῶν πατέρων

βεβαιῶσαι εἰς τὸ

διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι γὰρ

133

τὰς ἐπαγγελίας

The diagram for solution four is given below.

529 Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” p. 481.

151

In the fourth solution,530 δοξάσαι (Rom. 15:9a) stands subordinate to γεγενῆσθαι (Rom. 15:8) as an infinitive of purpose and parallel to the phrase εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων “in order to confirm the promises to the fathers” (Rom. 15:8). Here, Christ is presented as the grammatical subject in becoming a servant of circumcision and the servant to the Gentiles. In this reading, τὸν Χριστόν is the subject of the infinitive δοξάσαι (Rom. 15:9a)531 and τὰ ἔθνη functions as the accusative of respect532 modifying διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι, which stands parallel to περιτομῆς. Also, δοξάσαι becomes the infinitive of purpose and is subordinate to γεγενῆσθαι and stands parallel to the phrase εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων.533 Wagner regards περιτομῆς in opposition to the Gentiles (Rom. 15:9a) in referring to the Jews, as in Romans 3:30 and 4:12. He then points out that διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς is modified by the two prepositional phrases ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ and εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων. The first, i.e., ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ, points to the service of Christ, while the second, εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων, indicates the purpose of the service of Christ, i.e., to the Jews.534 In this case, the reading would be “For I say that the Christ has become a servant of the circumcision on behalf of the truthfulness of God, in order to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and (a servant) with respect to the Gentiles on behalf of the mercy (of God) in order to glorify God.” This reading by Ross Wagner syntactically demonstrates a more balanced construction, as well as a better link between Romans 15:8–9a and their context. The phrase ὑπὲρ ἐλέους modifies γεγενῆσθαι in parallel with ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας, pointing to the motive of Christ being the servant to the Gentiles.535 It also shows 530 Proposed by Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” pp. 481–484. Wagner challenges the approach of Das who proposes that Paul’s focus in 15:8–9a is on the response of the Gentiles to the work of Christ and there is no mention on the response of the circumcised (Das, “The Encoded Audience of Romans 15:7–13,” p. 93). 531 In Greek, it is not always necessary to express the subject of the infinitive especially when used as the subject of the dominant verb. In this sentence, the dominant verb is γεγενῆσθαι. Thus, τὸν Χριστόν in v.8 is the unexpressed subject of βεβαιῶσαι. So also in v.9a the subject of the infinitive is τὸν Χριστόν and not τὰ ε̋θνη (See J. H. Moulton, ed., A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, vol. III: Syntax, by N. Turner (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963), p. 146). 532 The accusative of respect also appears in Romans 7:21 (τὸν νὸμον); 8:3 (τὸ ἀδύνατον); 9:5 (τὸ κατὰ σάρκα); 12:18 (τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν); 15:17 (τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν). 533 Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” p. 482. 534 Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” pp. 476–477. 535 Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” p. 482.

152

the parallelism between the purpose phrases εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι in Romans 15:8 and δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν in Romans 15:9. As Wagner claims, this reading no doubt brings a more balanced parallelism between “Jew” and “Gentile” and between “truth” and “mercy.” Similarly, it brings out Paul’s concern in Romans with regard to the salvific plan of God made known through the deed of Christ, viz., the acceptance of both Jews and Gentiles alike. The faithfulness of God to his promises to Israel is vindicated, while God’s mercy becomes the sole basis of salvation.536 The two ὑπέρ phrases function in a parallel manner in their respective sentences, expressing the motivation of the deed of Christ to the Jews on behalf of God’s faithfulness and to the Gentiles on behalf of God’s mercy.537 Such an interpretation preserves an important theme in Romans, i.e., the good news to the Jews and also to the Gentiles. The advantage of this interpretation is its simplicity where the only real ellipsis is the repetition of διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι.538 However, two problems do arise from this reading. The first is with regard to the interpretation of διάκονον: Paul nowhere else refers to Christ as the servant of the Gentiles; in fact, he considers himself as an apostle to the Gentiles. Therefore, to consider Christ as διάκονον to the Gentiles, in its strict sense as a title, does not receive support from any writing of Paul. We get the impression that Wagner looks at it more as a title in referring to “a servant of the circumcision… and [a servant] with respect to the Gentiles.”539 Hence, it would not be justifiable to read διάκονον as a title. Instead, we can have a softer approach by referring to it as the service of Christ to the Jews and to the Gentiles. The other problem with Wagner’s suggestion concerns the interpretation of the clause διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς as pointing to the service of Christ to the Jews. However, if περιτομῆς points only to the object of Christ’s service to Jews in opposition to the Gentiles, then the inclusion of the Gentiles becomes questionable. Hence, as indicated, περιτομῆς is best regarded as intentional ambiguity to show that the messiah comes from the Jewish race in order to confirm the promises to the fathers and this is fulfilled through the inclusion of the Gentiles (Rom. 15:8–9). 536 Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” p. 483. 537 Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” p. 483. Das, in line with his argument for a Gentile audience, disagrees with Wagner that the truthfulness of God in this text is mainly to the promises to Israel. For him, God’s truthfulness cannot be limited to Israel’s promise (For further discussions refer to, Das, “The Encoded Audience of Romans 15:7–13,” pp. 94–95). 538 Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” p. 482. 539 Wagner, “The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” pp. 481–482.

153

E.  Summary of the Solutions To sum up, as indicated, the first solution with δοξάσαι as aorist optative did not receive much support and it is less likely that Paul at this point would be making a wish. The second solution with the infinitives as governed by εἰς τό and the third solution that regards infinitives as dependent on λέγω both lead to an awkward syntax. Constructing the infinitives as being governed by εἰς τό offers a better reading in the light of the context. However, in the light of the syntax construing the infinitives as dependent on λέγω offers a better reading, but in overstating the awkwardness of the syntax, it altogether sidelines the context that is, Paul’s emphasis on the service of Christ and the inclusion of the Gentiles. The reason for this awkward syntax can be that Paul wanted to incorporate the theme of Jewish priority found throughout Romans and its impact on the Gentiles, i.e., inclusion into the community of the people of God. The fourth solution, i.e., τὸν Χριστόν as Subject, offers a more balanced syntax, but it is not without problems, as indicated with regard to the interpretation of διάκονον and also περιτομῆς. However, this does not mean that the solutions can be outrightly rejected as unimportant for the solutions discussed also inform the alternative proposal. The previous solutions mainly give importance to the syntax. However, the alternative proposal in this study is given in order to incorporate both the syntax and the semantics. This proposal incorporates the “acceptance” motif, which has such a significant role in this section of Paul’s letter.

154

λέγω

γὰρ

Χριστὸν

X

δὲ

τὰ ἔθνη

εἰς τὸ

περιτοῆς

διάκονον

ὑπὲρ ἐλέους (θεου)

ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ

γεγενῆσθαι

137

δοξάσαι

βεβαιῶσαι

τὸν θεόν

τῶν πατέρων

τὰς ἐπαγγελίας

IV. An Alternative Reading: Jewish Origin and the Two-fold Purpose of Christ

The diagram for the alternative reading is given below.

155

In this proposal, the sentence should read, “For I say Christ has become a servant (Christ’s service) of circumcision (Christ is of Jewish origin and Christ served them), (to the Jews /τοὺς Ἰουδαίους) on behalf of the truthfulness of God, in order to confirm the promises of the fathers that also the Gentiles glorify God on behalf of the mercy (of God /θεοῦ).”

A.  Syntactical Consideration The alternative reading that I am proposing builds on Wagner’s proposal, as well as the semantics of the text. The semantics are established by the contextual and the thematic considerations. This reading is proposed in considering the acceptance motif that plays an important role in the text. With most interpreters, I take Romans 15:8b and 9a as two parallel statements. The assumption of this proposal is that διάκονον περιτομῆς is intentionally ambiguous, in order to cover both Jews and Gentiles. This assumption makes sense if we consider the historical and the ecclesial setting in which the call for acceptance appears, and also in considering the theme of Jewish priority and the inclusion of the Gentiles that runs like a thin scarlet thread throughout the epistle as mentioned. The structure of this proposal is as follows: First, unlike the other solutions, περιτομῆς is construed as integral to διάκονον. Here, Christ becomes the subject (following Wagner). This link better presents the purpose of Christ’s service to the Jews and the Gentiles in verses 8–9a. The meaning of περιτομῆς is clarified by considering the clause τὰ δὲ ἔθνη ὑπὲρ ἐλέους δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν in Romans 15:9a as being subordinate to the clause Χριστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς in 15:8a and the parallels between δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν in Romans 15:9a and εἰς τὸ βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων in Romans 15:8b. Christ is of the Jewish race whose deed benefits the Jews, as God remained faithful to the promises to the fathers. The promises are fulfilled in the inclusion of the Gentiles who glorify God for His mercy. The proposal better links the salvation of the Gentiles with the promises to the Jews. Thus, while Gentiles are also beneficiaries of the work of Christ, at the same time, it is also Israel-centered. Second, in our proposal, the elliptical τοὺς Ἰουδαίους is introduced in order to explicate the parallel with τὰ ἔθνη. In introducing this ellipsis, we get a more complete sentence of verse 8b and verse 9a in relation to the Jews and the Gentiles and its dependence on the clause διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς in verse 9a. As indicated, the clause τὰ δὲ ἔθνη ὑπὲρ ἐλέους δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν (Rom. 15:9a) can also be regarded as parallel to τὸ βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων (Rom. 15:8b). For this parallel to be more explicit, one should avoid reading δέ 156

as a strong adversative as it distorts the connection between τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων and τὰ δὲ ἔθνη ὑπὲρ ἐλέου δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν.540 Third, we introduce the elliptical θεοῦ (in line with Wagner’s proposal) in order to give structural balance to the ὑπέρ phrases. Here, the two prepositional phrases, ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας and ὑπὲρ ἐλέους, become parallel and correspond to each other and, in their respective phrases, point to the ministry of Christ to the Jews and to the Gentiles. Fourth, the elliptical εἰς τό is also introduced in order to give a balance to the infinitival clauses. In introducing this ellipsis, the response of the Jews and Gentiles to the service of Christ becomes more explicit. Fifth, the Greek particle δὲ generally can either be used for connecting one clause to another or to express contrast. However, in this particular verse, it expresses the contrariety of the Gentiles to the Jews as seen in the translation “that also the Gentiles glorify God on behalf of the mercy.”

B.  Contextual Consideration As mentioned, the context within the setting of the Claudian edict of expulsion provides us with a historical setting for Paul’s call for acceptance for the believing communities in Rome. This call for acceptance is to the Jews and the Gentiles, on the basis that Christ accepted all as it is indicated in the immediate context of Romans 15:8–9a. Thus, the above syntactical consideration of the variant reading connects 15:8–9a to Paul’s call for acceptance. As C. E. B. Cranfield puts it, “the context leads us to expect a definitely christological content in v. 9a.”541 In Romans 15:7–12, Christ plays an important role in Paul’s call for acceptance to the Jews and the Gentiles. As mentioned, Paul’s exhortation on acceptance has worship as its context, especially the meal setting during worship in the Roman home gatherings of believers in Christ. The Roman believers in Christ in various 540 Dunn suggests that the δέ (v. 9a) should not be read as a strong adversative, for such reading would distort the promises of the fathers and the acceptance of the Gentiles (Romans 9–16, p. 848). Revised Standard Version translates it as a connecting conjunction “and,” while some read it as a strong contrast. The presence of γάρ in v. 8a and the δέ in v. 9a leads Jan Lambrecht to suggest a hidden μέν. In this construction, the first clause is generally agreed upon and the real reason for γάρ occurs in the δέ clause. For reading δέ as contrast, see Lambrecht, Collected Studies on Pauline Literature and on the Book of Revelation, pp. 30–32. 541 Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 743. Wagner suggests along this line of thought by introducing Christ as the main actor beginning from 15:7b (“The Christ, Servant of Jew and Gentile,” p. 484).

157

home gatherings were divided on Jewish dietary laws. In such a context, we find Paul’s call for acceptance, and this call is proclaimed on the basis of the service542 of Christ that benefits all whom he serves. This service of Christ is clearly indicated in Romans 15:8b–9a. Thus, it represents the two-fold purpose of Christ: To the Jews it is God’s faithful promise and to the Gentiles it is God’s mercy. This interpretation contributes to the syntax of verses eight and 9a where the ministry of Christ to the Jews and the Gentiles is indicated. As the Jewish messiah, Christ did not serve only the Jews, but also the Gentiles. The death and exaltation of Jesus was not only meant for the Jews, but his sacrifice was for the whole humanity, both the Jews and the Gentiles. Thus, while Gentiles are also beneficiaries of the work of Christ, at the same time, it is also explicitly Israel-centered. This call for acceptance to both the Jews and the Gentiles is further supported with a catena of citations from the Jewish Scripture. We can conclude that the context of Romans 15:7–12, where the role of Christ is largely described in order to bring out the importance of accepting one another in an ecclesial context, suggests Christ as the subject of Paul’s proclamation in Romans 15:8–9a.

C.  Thematic Consideration This reading is able to maintain the Jewish priority and the unity of the Jews and the Gentiles. One can still argue that such juxtaposition of universality of the gospel and the priority of the Jews potentially contradicts each other. However, when Paul refers to the unity of the Jews and the Gentiles on the basis of the deed of Christ, he does not categorize them into ethnic groupings, rather he calls for unity in the midst of diversity. He remains aware of the fact that they are two distinct people groups. As Terence Donaldson puts it, while “the boundary may have been radically redefined by Christ, nothing would alter the fact that Paul was ethnically as Jewish as his converts were (for the most part) Gentile.”543 Paul maintains the priority of the Jews in the gospel for it justifies the faithfulness of God, because the rejection of Israel would also mean the promises made to Israel 542 However, one should be careful not to treat διάκονον in this pericope strictly as a fixed designation of one holding a specific office as in Phil. 1:1; 1Tim. 3:8, 12. See Beyer, “διακονέω, διακονία, διάκονος,” TDNT, vol. II, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1964), pp. 88–89. Rather, it should be interpreted in line with the service of Christ to the Jews and the Gentiles (cf. the service/action of the servant is also found in 2Cor. 3:6; Gal. 2:17; Eph. 3:6–7; Col. 1:23). 543 Donaldson, Paul and the Gentiles, p. 299.

158

are nullified. If the promises made to the fathers were nullified, then the salvation to the Gentiles would also have no lasting impact, as it could be nullified with time. Hence, Paul strongly maintains the faithfulness of God to his promises to Israel. For the gospel of Christ remains valid in connection with the Jews as the demonstration of God’s faithfulness. The Jewish priority and the service of Christ are further demonstrated in reading περιτομὴ as intentionally ambiguous, i.e., Christ comes from the Jewish race and he served them and this Jewish messiah will be a banner for the Gentiles (Rom. 15:12). In attempting to interpret the service of Christ both to the Jews and the Gentiles, this proposal does not intend to present two different levels of the work of Christ. Sam Williams544 observes that Paul nowhere uses a language that distinguishes between the earthly Jesus and the exalted Christ. In this regard, reading δέ as a strong adversative may contribute to two “levels” of Christ’ work. For such a reading would present the ministry of Christ to the Jews and the Gentiles as contrasting and pointing to two “levels” of the work of Christ. However, if δέ is not read as a strong adversative, then the ministry of Christ to the Jews and the Gentiles would correspond to each other. In this sense, this proposal refers to the service of Christ as a Jew, as being performed for the Jews and the Gentiles. Basing on the Structure and the alternate proposal proposed, the translation of this pericope would be as follows:

V.  Translation of Romans 15:7–13 Verse seven. therefore accept one another, just as Christ also accepted you to (the) glory of God. Verse eight. for I say Christ has become a servant of circumcision on behalf of (the) truthfulness of God, in order to confirm the promises of the fathers, Verse nine. that also the Gentiles glorify God on behalf of mercy, Just as it has been written; Therefore of this will I confess you among nations and I will sing praise to your name Verse 10. and again he says; be glad, nations, with his people Verse 11. and again; praise, the Lord all the nations, and all the people praise him. Verse 12. and again Isaiah says; there shall be the root of Jesse and the (one) rising up to rule (the) nations, in him (the) gentiles will hope.

544 Williams, “The “Righteousness of God,” pp. 285–288.

159

Verse 13. Now the God of hope fill you of all joy and peace in the believing, to abound you in hope in power of (the) Holy Spirit.

VI. Summary To sum up, this study proposes that the syntax of Romans 15:8–9a should be construed in relation to the deed of Christ to the Jews, as well as the Gentiles, and by reading περιτομὴ as intentionally ambiguous. It is built on the strengths of previous proposals. That said, many scholars did not significantly consider the “acceptance” motif. They usually concentrated only on the syntax of Romans 15:8–9a or used these verses to discuss issues, such as the identity of the recipients. However, in doing so, there is the danger of bypassing the key theme in Paul’s exhortation in Romans 14–15. As Ernst Käsemann observes, the key word in Romans 15:7 is “to accept,” and this marks the climax of the argument.545 As indicated, the call for mutual acceptance in Romans 15:7 picks up the theme of Romans 14:1. In Romans 14:1, it is directed to the “strong” to accept the “weak,” while in Romans 15:7, Paul broadens the call for acceptance to the members of the Romans Christ believing communities to accept one another. We find a shift in the addressees, from the “weak” and the “strong” to the “Jew” and the “Gentile.” This shift incorporates the main thrust of the epistle, i.e., the priority and the privilege of Israel in the salvific plan of God and the inclusion of the Gentiles because of God’s mercy. In order to justify that Christ has accepted both the Jews and the Gentiles, Paul further appeals to the Jewish Scripture in Romans 15:9b–12. Noteworthy is Paul’s strategy of interweaving texts from the Law, Prophets and Writings in a closely knitted structure in order to indicate that the acceptance of the Gentiles is found within the key cluster of Scripture. This powerfully provides an avenue for both the Jews and the Gentiles to glorify God together. In order to understand the citations in Romans 15:9b–12, this study will analyze them in their respective settings and also look at its reception in the Pauline text in the following chapter.

545 Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, p. 385.

160

Chapter Five: Scripture Bears Witness: A Universal Call to Praise in Romans 15:9b–12 I. Introduction As indicated in the preceding chapter, Paul presents Christ as the basis for the Jews and the Gentiles to accept one another in Romans 15:7. This is explained with the deed of Christ for both the Jews and the Gentiles in Romans 15:8–9a. In response, Jews are to praise God for His faithfulness to His covenant promises. Likewise, the Gentiles are to praise God for His mercy. Paul further grounds his exhortation with the support of the catena of citations from the Old Testament in Romans 15:9b–12. The role of Scripture in Paul’s gospel is reflected both at the very beginning of the Epistle to the Romans when Paul writes, “proclaimed beforehand by God’s prophets in the Scripture” (Rom. 1:2), and at the end where he mentions “by the Scripture of the prophets” (Rom. 16:26). Among Pauline epistles, the maximum use of the Old Testament (as a direct quotation, an allusion or ideas and themes) is found in Romans. In agreement, Moody Smith believes that among the undisputed Pauline letters, “fully half ” of the quotations from the Old Testament are found in Romans.546 Miller notes that even within Romans, chapters 9–11 contain the “highest density” of Jewish scriptural citations.547 In general, citations from an earlier source text are used when an author wants to justify his/her point or provide an authoritative framework for his/her assertion. Sometimes, this may also be used for the sake of showing the author’s familiarity with earlier literature. Similarly, Paul appeals to Scripture in Romans 15:9b–12, citing from Deuteronomy, Psalms and Isaiah. The present chapter is an inquiry into Paul’s usage of Scripture, especially his attempts to integrate a source text and to fit it into a new context. It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that Paul’s thoughts are largely rooted in the Old Testament re-read from his particular Christological perspective. However, it is only in the nineteenth century that scholars seriously started investigating problems associated with Paul’s use of Scripture or even the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament.548 546 Smith, “The Pauline Literature,” p. 274. 547 Miller, The Obedience of Faith, p. 88. 548 The scholarly works listed below are, but a few of the many that gives attention to Paul’s reading of the Scripture, which the researcher had access to: E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1957), pp. 2–5;

161

II. The Influence of Scripture on Paul’s Proclamation of the Gospel and his Mission Some interpreters suggest that Paul picks language from Scripture that suits his purpose,549 while others say it is to establish a historical background;550 still

Howard Marshall, “An Assessment of Recent Developments,” It is Written-Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, eds. D. A. Carson & H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), pp. 1–21; Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, pp. 5–14; Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature, SNTSMS 74 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 4–28; Christopher D. Stanley, “Paul and Scripture: Charting the Course,” As it is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture, eds. Stanley E. Porter & Christopher D. Stanley, SBL SymposiumSer (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), pp. 3–12. Until recently most of the works on Paul’s use of Scripture emphasizes largely on theological and historical questions, like Gleason L. Archer & Gregory D. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983); D. Moody Smith, “The Pauline Literature;” J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News; Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T & T Clark), 2004. Recently scholars are also considering literary theories of inter-textuality in reading Paul’s citations, popularized by Richard B. Hays and pursued by few others, like Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul; and Hays recent book The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2005); Douglas A. Campbell, “The Meaning of δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Romans: An Intertextual Suggestion,” As it is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture; Neil Elliott, ‘“Blasphemed among the Nations”: Pursuing an Anti-Imperial “Intertextuality” in Romans,’ As it is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Yet, despite the laudable contributions of scholarship to theological, historical and a few literary theories to elucidate Paul’s reading of Scripture, the socio-rhetorical aspect is an area that is still lacking. A contribution by Christopher D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T & T Clark, 2004). 549 Sanday & Headlam, Romans, p. 289; Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 121–123. 550 M. Jack Suggs, “‘The Word is Near you’: Romans 10:6–10 within the purpose of the Letter,” Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, ed. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule & R. R. Niebuhr (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), pp. 289–312; James D. G. Dunn, “ ‘Righteousness from Law’ and ‘Righteousness from Faith’: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture in Romans 10:1–10,” Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis for His Sixtieth Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 216–218.

162

others assume that he wanted to justify his theological stand.551 Christopher Stanley even proposes that a number of citations from Scripture in the epistles of Paul appear foreign to their original context. This suggests that Paul was not copying directly from the pages of Scripture, but from a diverse collection of biblical texts.552 Yet, one should take note that Paul interprets Scripture within the context of his mission in communities comprising both the Jews and the Gentiles. He saw his gospel and his mission in continuity with Scripture. In this regard, it is unlikely that Paul was unaware of the original context of the texts he read from Scripture, especially as a pharisaic Jew who studied under Gamaliel, an important Jewish rabbi in Jerusalem.553 It is rather probable that the Law and the prophets are seen as bearing witness to Paul’s gospel about Christ and his mission to the Jews and the Gentiles. The continuity with Scripture does not mean that Paul is only reproducing Scriptural texts as they appear without considering the recipients of his time. On the contrary, on many occasions, we find Paul giving an eschatological reading of the text to confirm that Scripture bears witness to his gospel, i.e., the inclusion of the Gentiles. However, Paul does not cite from or allude to all the books of the Old Testament, but tends to gravitate towards a few selected books, viz., Isaiah, Psalms, Genesis and Deuteronomy. Probably this has to do with the nature of Paul’s gospel, which is universalistic in approach: a gospel that is offered to all, both the Jews and the Gentiles through faith. As Francis Watson observes, “Paul’s scriptural interpretation finds its focus in soteriology.”554 Isaiah, Psalms, Deuteronomy and Genesis contribute especially to his universal gospel message. Isaiah offers a universalistic and eschatological vision of the restoration of Israel, which is accompanied by the inclusion of the Gentiles. It envisions the coming of the king from the Davidic lineage whose reign would influence the Jews, as well as the other nations. In this regard, Isaiah is an important scriptural source for Paul, especially on the faithfulness of God to Israel and in his exhortation to the believing communities comprising both the Jews and the Gentiles. The citations 551 Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, p. 123; Cranfield, Romans, 2: pp. 522–526; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, pp. 283–292. 552 Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, p. 78. Against this view, some scholars attempt to interpret the scriptural citations in Paul within its original context indicating that Paul knew the context. Like Scott Hafemann who interprets the citations in 15:1–13 within its own canonical context (“Eschatology and Ethics,” pp. 161, 174–187). 553 Acts 22:3; cf. Philippians 3:5; 2 Corinthians. 11:22. 554 Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, p. 20.

163

from Genesis are mostly confined to the story of Abraham, which Paul takes as a prefiguration of the call of Jews and Gentiles through faith. It especially contributes to the gospel Paul preaches, i.e., salvation through faith. The texts from Psalms are used in ecclesiocentric themes as in Isaiah and Genesis, either in the context of the Gentile inclusion,555 or to pronounce judgment upon Israel.556 In a few instances, Paul reads Psalms christologically (Rom. 15:3; 1Cor. 15:27). We find the majority of the citations from Psalms occur in Romans. This is probably because the citations from Psalms contributed to his exhortations to the Roman congregations and it also provided authority of the Old Testament Scripture to his teachings on the Jew-Gentile issue. Paul’s use of Deuteronomy comes as a surprise as this book generally appears to be ethnocentric. In his use of Deuteronomy, Paul draws from the second address of Moses to “all Israel” (Deu. 5–26) and from the final chapters of Deuteronomy, “the Testament of Moses” (Deu. 27–34). Richard Hays suggests that Deuteronomy is not used “as a retrograde voice of legalism,” but “the words of Deuteronomy become the voice of the righteousness from faith.”557 Hays is right that Paul’s gospel through faith can be connected with Paul’s use of Deuteronomy, but this may be only one of the few reasons. The question on how Deuteronomy serves Paul’s gospel is partly clarified by his reading of Deuteronomy 30:11–14 in Romans 10:6–10, where in a believing community, God’s deed empowers the obedience of faith. Furthermore, Paul quotes from the song of Moses in a context of the salvific plan of God (Deut. 32:21 in Rom. 10:19 and Deut. 32:43 in Rom. 15:10). In Romans 10:19 (Deut. 32:21), Paul quotes “I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry.” Within the same context of the salvation of God extended to the Gentiles, Paul in Romans 15:10 quotes “Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people” (Deut. 32:43 LXX).558 It is probable that Paul supports his arguments in his epistles by alluding to Deuteronomy because of its important status in Jewish thought and practice. Even though Deuteronomy appears 555 Romans 15:9, 11 quoting Psalm 18:49 & 117:1. 556 Romans 3:4 quoting Psalm 51:4 and Rom. 11: 9–10 quoting Psalm 69:22–23. 557 Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, p. 163. Also, observed by Dan O, Jr. Via, “God’s life-giving action seems to be interpreted in Deuteronomy as His lifegiving word,” Kerygma and Comedy in the New Testament: A Structuralist Approach to Hermeneutic (Philadelphia: Fortress press, 1975), pp. 62–63. 558 I am indebted to R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, pp. 162–164 on the analysis of how Isaiah, Psalms, Deuteronomy and Genesis especially contribute to Paul’s gospel message.

164

to be ethnocentric, Francis Watson rightly observes that there are also laws and commandments with practical application, which Paul applies to the community of the followers of Christ.559 Hence, the fragmentary references to the Song of Moses in the epistles of Paul may also be seen as witness to the disobedience of Israel, which in turn becomes a witness to the universal scope of God’s mercy.560 Thus, we can assume that Paul’s self-understanding as an apostle to the Gentiles and his missionary journeys that relate to his attempts to take the gospel of Christ to the whole world could explain his tendency to select particular books from Scripture that seem to serve his purpose. The Epistle to the Romans contains a significant number of quotations and amalgamated citations and chains of citations from the Jewish Scripture, probably because Paul wanted to justify the place of the Jews and the Gentiles in the salvific plan of God. In considering that the letter was an attempt to resolve tensions that divided the Jewish and Gentile believers, Paul may have regarded the authoritative Jewish Scripture as a basis for the common ground for his arguments. This is because his claim as an apostle of Christ would not have a great impact as he had no prior relationship with the Christian communities in Rome.561 In this sense, we can say that there is a link between Paul’s inclusion of the citations from Scripture and his exhortation on God’s acceptance of the Jews and the Gentiles through faith. Romans 9–11 draws heavily upon Scripture in order to present Paul’s stand on Scripture and the promises to the fathers. Similarly, in the catena of citations in Romans 15:9b–12, Deuteronomy, Psalms and Isaiah are included in order to support Paul’s exhortation to the Jews and the Gentiles-a theme to which we now turn. 559 Deuteronomy 6:5 in 1Corinthians 8:3; Deuteronomy 13:7 in 1Corinthians 5:13; Deuteronomy 19:15 in 2Corinthians 13:1; Deuteronomy 25:4 in 1Corinthians 9:8–10. Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, pp. 415–416. 560 Ref. Deuteronomy 32:5 in Philippians 2:15; Deuteronomy 32:21 in Romans 10:19; Deuteronomy 32:35 in Romans 12:19; Deuteronomy 32:21, 35, 43 in Romans 10:19, 12:19, 15:8. As argued by Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, pp. 441–442; Richard H. Bell, Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and the Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11, WUNT (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1994), pp. 112–113. 561 This is one possibility out of the three possibilities that Christopher Stanley suggests of why Paul in Romans needed to justify his position with Scripture: First, Scripture was the basis to resolves tensions in the Roman Christian communities. Second, to undo any potential problems that would hinder the support for his mission to Spain. Third, this epistle represents Paul’s anticipated audience in Jerusalem, his perception of his appearance before the apostles in Jerusalem (Arguing with Scripture, pp. 143–144).

165

III.  Catena of Citations in Romans 15:9b–12 After explaining how the work of Christ affects both the Jews and the Gentiles in Romans 15:8–9a, Paul turns to Scripture for support in Romans 15:9b–12. The citations bear close affinities with the LXX.562 The extent to which the citations in Romans 15:9b–12 are in agreement with the LXX rather than the Hebrew text, raises questions concerning Paul’s knowledge of the Hebrew text and language.563 It is improbable that he did not know the Hebrew text or language, for as mentioned in Acts, he studied under Gamaliel in Jerusalem. Some scholars assume that Paul’s mission was among the communities who knew only Greek and no Hebrew.564 However, such an explanation seems to be insufficient. Nowhere do we find in the Pauline epistles that Paul’s communities were only Greek-oriented. In fact, Paul’s communities comprised both the Jews and the Gentiles. Some likely possibilities are: either the early church made use of the LXX more often, or the LXX presents a more universalistic reading of a text than the Hebrew, which suits the universal gospel that Paul preaches. That said, we now turn to the citations. In the catena of citations in Romans 15:9b–12, we find two citations from psalms, one each from Deuteronomy and Isaiah and all quotations open with an introductory formula. In this section, we will analyze the citations in both their original context, as well as Paul’s use of them in Romans.

A.  The first Scriptural Proof: Psalm 17:49 LXX (18:50 MT) The textual data relating to the citation in Romans 15:9b read as follows: MT (Ps. 18:50): ‫על־כן אורך בגוים יהוה ולשמך אזמרה׃‬ LXX (Ps. 17:49): διὰ τοῦτο ἐξομολογήσομαί σοι ἐν ἔθνεσι, κύριε, καὶ τῷ ὀνόματί σου ψαλῶ. Rom. 15:9b:

διὰ τοῦτο ἐξομολογήσομαί σοι ἐν ἔθνεσιν καὶ τῷ ὀνόματί σου ψαλῶ.

The citation in Romans is a verbatim quote from the LXX, with the omission of κύριε.565 The LXX follows the MT closely. 562 Smith, “The Pauline Literature,” pp. 272–273. 563 See Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, p. 12; Smith, “The Pauline Literature,” pp. 272–273. 564 Smith, “The Pauline Literature,” p. 273. 565 A good number of witnesses omit the vocative: corrector of uncial ‫ﬡ‬, a few minuscules, some old Latin and syriac evidence, the Coptic and the Gothic version. While witnesses that add κύριε are ‫ﬡ‬2 33 104 326 330 1505 1874 2495 ar gue t vgcl Syh bomss. Probably these witnesses add κύριε in order to present a verbatim of LXX Ps. 17:50

166

1.  The Context of Psalm 17:49 (LXX) David appears in the titles of 74 psalms and they are regarded as “Royal Psalms,”566 of which Psalm 17 (LXX) is a part. The expression “Royal Psalms” is not a special Gattung from the perspective of the history of literature. In most of its occurrences, the common element in the Royal Psalms is the reference to the kings of Israel.567 The life settings of the Royal Psalms are diverse.568 However, the content of Psalm 17 (LXX) suggests the king made the thanksgiving to Yahweh after a (NA27 does not provide all the witnesses mentioned for the addition of κύριε. The additional witnesses are taken from, Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, p. 886; Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, pp. 179–180). 566 The appearance of David’s name does not indicate authorship, but points to the minor Psalters gathered under the name of David in the late Persian period. The earliest collection of psalms used in the synagogues was under David’s name, a pioneer of religious poetry and temple worship. The reference to the collection of David’s psalms is confirmed by Psalm 72:20 where the psalm concludes the prayers of David. It implies that the collection was a prayer book. Some psalms with David in their titles could not have been in the collection (Psalms 86; 103; 108; 122; 124; 131; 133; 145) as they belong to the Greek period. For the above view on the authorship of the psalms with David’s name, see Charles Augustus Briggs & Emilie Grace Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, ICC 2vols. (Edinburgh: T & T. Clark, 1987), 1. Lxi-lxii. Refer to Briggs for the order and dating of Psalms gathered under the name of David (pp. lxi-lxv). Pius Drijvers also suggests that Psalms 3–41 except Psalm 33 are connected to David, but this does not necessarily place David as the author [The Psalms: Their Structure and Meaning (NY: Herder & Herder, 1965), 18–19]. 567 Examples from the Psalms referring to the ruler are: “called the king” (Pss. 20:10; 21:2, 8; 45:2, 6, 12; 72:1); “son of the king” (Ps. 72:1); “Yahweh’s king” (Pss. 2:6; 18:51); “Yahweh’s anointed” (Ps. 2:2; 18:51; 20:7; 89: 52; 132:10); his ancestor is David (Pss. 18:51; 89:50; 132:10, 17; 144:10). In many of the Royal Psalms, the king appears as the speaker (Pss. 2; 18; 101; 32:1–10; 144:1–11), identifies himself as “Yahweh’s king” (Ps. 18:51), and “anointed” (Pss. 18:51; 89:52). The title “Lord’s anointed” is also a title used in the Old Testament of the reigning king of Israel and not the messiah (Lev. 4:3,5,16; 6:15). 568 I.e., Esther 1:4; Psalms 21; 45; 72; 2Samuel 6:5:15; Psalms 18:33–49; 20:6 20; 144:1–10. Samuel Terrien refers to Psalm 17 (LXX) as “a hymn of gratitude and praise,” (The Psalms: Strophic, Structure and Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans 2003), p. 193). For further reference, Hermann Gunkel, An Introduction to the Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel, trans., James D. Nogalski; (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University press, 1998), pp. 100–102. For the characteristics of Royal Psalms, see Pius Drijvers, The Psalms: Their Structure and Meaning, pp. 183–203. Others suggest the designation “royal psalm of thanksgiving” or “a king’s psalm of thanksgiving,” [for this view refer to Gunkel, An Introduction

167

deliverance from the perils of the enemies, and victory over his enemies. Although the name of David appears in the title and at the close of the psalm, this does not necessarily mean the figure envisioned is David. Still, the situation in the text suits David who was pursued by Saul in the wilderness of Judah (Ps. 18:3–4). Hence, Psalms 17 (LXX) is preserved as a retrospective account in the biography of David in 2 Samuel 22:1–51.569 This psalm was sung in the sanctuary as a form of thanksgiving to a victory granted by Yahweh to his chosen king.570 to the Psalms, p. 99; Peter Craigie, Psalms 1–50, WBC 19 (Waco: Wordbooks, 1983), p. 171]. Categorized under this group is Psalms 2; 18; 20; 21; 45; 72; 101; 110; 132; 144:1–11. In its form, Psalm 17 LXX (18 MT) can be divided into four chants: vv. 2–20 the victory of the Lord; vv. 21–32 declaration of human and divine rectitude; vv. 33–43 self-praise of athletic power; and vv. 41–51 a royal commitment to praise (see Terrien, The Psalms, pp. 193–203). Psalm 18 has general similarities to victory songs or hymns (Judg. 5; Exo. 15:1–18). Yet, the content of the song differs, as it is less specific in Psalm 17 LXX (18 MT). Rather Psalms 17 LXX (18 MT) stands closer to an individual psalm of thanksgiving. In thanksgiving psalms the focus is on God’s act of deliverance for a particular individual, a leader or the community (Pss. 18; 21; 30; 32; 34; 41; 66; 75; 92; 103; 107; 116; 118; 120; 124; 136; 138). John Goldingay refers to it as “war psalm” [Psalms, 3vols. Barker Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Barker Academic, 2006), 1: p. 278]. In Peter Craigie’s view, the title of the psalm indicates a “day of deliverance” although no precise event is associated with it. One can assume that it is a psalm sung at one of Israel’s great annual festivals, probably the Feast of Tabernacles or it may have been occasioned by the deliverance of the king from his enemies. Craigie concludes that there can be no certainty on the precise event of the psalm, (Craigie, Psalms 1–50, p. 171). Kim Huat Tan suggests that possibly the royal psalms (along with enthronement psalms) were composed for ceremonies and festivals celebrated in the temple on Mt. Zion, indicating the importance of Zion [The Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus, SNTSMS 91 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 25–26]. 569 It is beyond the scope of this study to do a comparative study of 2Samuel 22 and Psalm 18. For further investigation on the two texts, especially for the study of textual transmission, see Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, “The Royal Song of Thanksgiving. II Samuel 22 = Psalm 18,” JBL Lxxii/1 (March 1953): pp. 15–34. It is not assigned to a specific episode, as is the case with other Davidic superscriptions (Ps. 3 cf. 2Sam. 15; Ps. 7 cf. 2Sam. 16; Ps. 34 cf. 1 Sam. 21:10; Ps. 51 cf. 2Sam. 12; Ps. 52 cf. 1Sam. 22:9; Ps. 54 cf. 1Sam. 23:19, 26:1; Ps. 56 cf. 1Sam. 27; Ps. 57 cf. 1Sam. 22; Ps. 59 cf. 1Sam. 19:8–17; Ps. 60 cf. 2Sam 8:13; cf. 1Sam 22:5; Ps. 63 cf. 1Sam. 22:5; Ps. 142 cf. 1Sam 24 [MT]). Instead, Psalm 17 (LXX) covers David’s victories during Saul’s pursuits (2Sam. 5:5–25; 15:1–21:22). 570 Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1–59. A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988), pp. 257–258.

168

In general, the psalms of the pre-exilic period had new implication in the exilic context and in Second Temple Judaism. In the exilic context, the psalms were now sung with the fall of Jerusalem in mind. The Royal psalms were sung in the nostalgic mood of what was past, and they looked forward to a promised king from the Davidic lineage.571 Such shift in emphasis and understanding of the Royal psalms is also seen in Second Temple community. Some of the common features of the Second Temple interpretation of the psalms include that it was regarded as a supplement to Torah as a word from God. It was also referred to as the cultic hymnbook for personal and corporate worship during the Second Temple period, not that it was composed for this purpose. Alongside the liturgical use, the future orientation of the psalms also appears, especially in the royal psalms. The Davidic promises and restorations were now understood in messianic terms that anticipated a future restoration of the Davidic monarchy (Pss. 2; 72), which was expected to be fulfilled in the time of the Messianic rulership. With the death of post-exilic prophets (Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi), the prophetic voice in Israel ended. The Levitical singers filled the vacuum of the prophetical voice in the Second Temple period with their eschatological message of hope (1Chron. 15:22ff; 25:1ff; 2Chron. 20:19). Furthermore, there was a shift from the historical Davidic monarchy. In the absence of the monarchy, the royal psalms were even “democratized.”572 It is also probable that Psalm 17 (LXX) was read messianically during the Second Temple Judaism, where the Jews looked forward to a king from the Davidic lineage. Psalm 17 (LXX) affirms Yahweh’s involvement at different times in David’s life and reflects Yahweh’s extraordinary acts in saving David from the perils of his enemies. These saving acts of Yahweh are not for David’s own sake, but for Israel’s sake because the reign of David has a decisive place in the life of Israel.573 The psalmist declares Yahweh’s name among the nations for God has made him “the head of the nations” (Ps. 18:43). The psalmist goes on to say, “As soon as they heard of me they obeyed me, foreigners came cringing to me. Foreigners lost heart and came trembling out of their strongholds” (Ps. 18:44–45). This understanding of the foreigners coming to the psalmist may be connected with the Isaianic citation (Isa. 11:10), where the messiah will be a banner for the nations, 571 William L. Holladay, The Psalms Through the Thousand Years: Prayer Book of a Cloud of Witnesses (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), p. 57. 572 For discussions on the Second Temple interpretation of the psalms, see Bruce K. Waltke & James M. Houston, The Psalms as Christian Worship: A Historical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2010), p. 24–27. 573 Goldingay, Psalms, 1: p. 256.

169

a theme to which I will return to later in this chapter. The psalm points to four things Yahweh has done for David, viz., rescuing him from Saul, saving him from his enemies in general, empowering him against his enemies and making others acknowledge him.574 Because of this (διὰ τοῦτο), David praises God among the nations. The psalm concludes with God’s faithfulness to his promise to “David and his seed forever” (Ps. 18:51). The concluding verses (Ps. 18:47–51) bring the different themes from the Psalm, i.e., distress, deliverance and victory, and connect them to the praise of God. This last colon of Psalms 18 in the MT keeps the psalm open for diverse interpretations. It can be interpreted as a reference to the historical kings from the Davidic lineage, especially those who come after David, or it can be a reference to an eschatological king. Hence, it is not surprising that Paul reads this psalm in Romans 15:9b as the words of Christ. This interpretation appears sound in the light of Romans 15:3 (Ps. 68:10 LXX), which Paul reads as the words of Christ. Still, the question remains as to whether Paul in Romans 15:9b read the Psalm messianically. Or, should the Psalm be read in its original context? This question in particular will be addressed below in our analysis of Romans 15:9b.

2.  The Citation Formula Elaborating on the notion of the praise of God, the first citation from Psalm 17:49 (LXX) begins with the conventional introductory formula, καθὼς γέγραπται. In the Pauline epistles, the introductory formula occurs very often. The introductory formula indicates that the words following it are citations taken from the Jewish Scripture or Scripture as the speaker.575 Or it can be referring to human figures like prophets and kings in the Scripture.576 It can even be that the agency of the divine utterance is either to a particular person or the wider general context.577 The conventional introductory formula καθὼς γέγραπται appears frequently in Romans with slight variations.578 Francis Watson makes a noteworthy observation regarding the significance of the conventional introductory formula καθὼς γέγραπται: First, it does not indicate the source of the citation, which

574 575 576 577 578

170

See Goldingay, Psalms, 1: pp. 278–280. Romans 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2. Romans 4:6; 9:27, 29; 10:5, 16, 20; 11:9; 15:12. Particular person-Romans 9:12; 11:4. Wider context-Romans 9:25; 10:21. καθὼς γέγραπται (Rom. 1:17; 2:24; 3:4; 9:13, 33; 10:15; 11:8, 26; 15:9). Preceded by ἀλλὰ (Rom. 15:3, 21). Followed by ὅτι (Rom. 3:10; 4:17; 8:36). γέγραπται γάρ (Rom. 12:19; 14:11).

means the readers do not necessarily need to recognize the text cited, but they are to understand and accept that the words are found in the normative body of writings. Second, the conventional introductory formula gives importance to the written character of the text cited, which is authoritative and permanently valid. Third, the conventional introductory formula does not become integral to the discourse, even though it is important for Paul’s argument, but the word “as” brings a correspondence between the citation and the antecedent resulting in a degree of repetition.579 Besides this formula, ἡ γραφὴ λέγει and λέγω, with or without subject, also appear in Pauline epistles.580 However, the formulas are not a Pauline innovation. We find that many Jewish writers also use the introductory formulas and there are parallels in the Old Testament as well.581 Looking into Romans 15:9b, we find that the conventional formula καθὼς γέγραπται introduces the catena of citations. This same formula appears in Romans 3:10 and 11:18, where it introduces a catena of citations indicating the divine authority of the Scripture. It implies that the notion of “God speaking and the individual hearing” is already rooted in Scripture.582 In Romans 15:9, the correspondence between the citation and its antecedent is clearly visible.583 This verse reads, “and the Gentiles glorify God on behalf of his mercy, just as it is written; Because of this I will confess you among nations and I will praise your name.” The correspondence is the inclusion of the Gentiles. This indicates that Paul’s gospel of the inclusion of Gentiles is derived from Scripture and it is primarily the language of Scripture. Paul probably wanted his readers to understand that his gospel as an apostle to the Gentiles has a long tradition and that he was not forcing his readers to accept something outside Scripture. Apart from it, the 579 I have only brought out the significance of the conventional introductory formula, but Watson brings this in his comparison between the conventional formula and the alternative formulae. For a detail comparison between the two, refer to Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, pp. 44–47. 580 For a list of introductory formula that Paul uses in the citation of Scripture, refer to Smith, “The Pauline Literature,” pp. 268–272. See also Appendix II of Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament; Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, pp. 43–47; Stanley, Arguing with Scripture, pp. 142. 581 Exodus 24:4; 2 Chronicles 23:18; 2 Kings 14:6, Daniel 9:13; 4 Kgdms.14.6; 4Q174 1.i.12. 582 H. Hübner, “λέγω,” EDNT, vol. 2, ed. Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1991), p. 347. 583 Francis Watson brings such connection in Romans 1:17. He points out that, “the citation corresponds both to its exemplar and to its antecedent” (Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, p. 43).

171

formula also brings a broader link between the catena and Paul’s exhortation in Romans 15:7–9a. It not only links the citation to the exhortation that in Christ, the Gentiles glorify God in Romans 15:9a (τὰ δὲ ἔθνη ὑπὲρ ἐλέους δοξάσαι), but also to the prior phrase λέγω γὰρ χριστὸν διάκονον γεγενῆσθαι περιτομῆς in Romans 15:8.584 As Thomas Schreiner suggests, the word καθώς introducing the scriptural catena should be understood as a ground for the notion that both the Jews and the Gentiles are beneficiaries of God’s covenantal mercy.585

3.  The Identity of “I” in the Context of Romans Paul cites Psalm 17 (LXX) in his exhortation to the Jews and the Gentiles who are to accept one another on the basis that Christ accepted all. In such a setting, the question that is engendered is, “How do we interpret the psalmist praising God?” There are diverse interpretations offered by interpreters. For some scholars, the Royal Psalms concern the earthly kings from the Davidic lineage and not a poetical personification of the people. If the messiah is intended, then the congregation would have prayed that he may come, but in the Royal Psalms, the king is already present. Historically considered, the king in the psalms does not refer to an eschatological figure, but to a contemporary figure. John Goldingay asserts that Psalm 18 historically considered, does not offer an eschatological connotation, indicating something God will do in the future, nor is it messianic. It does not offer any indication of referring to Jesus of Nazareth and so does not really support a Christological interpretation.586 Leander Keck likewise argues that it is improbable that the one praising God along with the church is Christ.587 Thus, historically considered, the king points to a contemporary figure from the Davidic lineage. James Dunn proposes that they are words of a devout Jew (David), and a prefiguration of the situation of the Jews 584 Also, Richard B. Hays, “Christ Prays the Psalms: Paul’s use of an Early Christian Exegetical Convention,” The Future of Christology: Essays in Honor of Leander E. Keck, eds. Abraham J. Malherbe & Wayne A. Meeks (Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1993), p. 124. 585 Schreiner, Romans, p. 756. 586 Goldingay, Psalms, 1: p. 280. 587 Keck, “Christology, Soteriology, and the Praise of God (Romans 15:7–13),” p. 91. Robert Jewett asserts that the content of the citation does not fit Christ, for, he did not praise God in the midst of the Gentiles as his ministry was primarily confined to the Jewish population. Jewett is right that the content does not support Christ, but his presentation of the ministry of Christ is not justifiable from the gospels. (Romans: A Commentary, p. 894).

172

in the diaspora, and in Paul’s time to the Jewish Christians.588 Others like Ernst Käsemann and Robert Jewett understand the words of Psalm 17:49 (LXX) as a prefiguration of Paul’s own mission as an apostle to the Gentiles and so the “I” in the first citations is identical with that of Romans 15:8 in the context of Paul’s mission.589 However, if Paul wanted to indicate that he is the speaker, he would have used the first person singular λέγω as in Romans 15:8 instead of the third person singular γέγραπται. This is his normal practice.590 Furthermore, the above interpretations do not take into consideration the immediate context of the text for both in Romans 15:1–3 and 15:7–9a, the deed of Christ is particularly emphasized. Nonetheless, the deed of Christ cannot take place in a vacuum, but within an ecclesial community. Read in this way, one may agree with the interpreters that the words of the psalm prefigure Paul’s mission. However, in considering the immediate context and the emphasis of Paul on the resurrected Christ, it is best to read the psalm messianically, i.e., typologically. It is plausible that the idea of the messiah is derived from the ideal king presented in the Royal Psalms. For the poet, the ideal king was either realized or hoped to be realized. To this extent, the messianic interpretation of the Royal Psalms is justifiable. The omission of κύριε contributes to a messianic interpretation because it is now the κύριος who speaks. Interpreters who take this view argue that Paul puts the words into the mouth of Christ Jesus, who declares God’s glory among the Gentiles. In this reading, the text is seen as echoing Psalm 68:10 in Romans 15:3, where the first person of the Psalm refers to Christ.591 There are also a few 588 Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 849. Dunn suggests David, as it provides a better flow of order: David (v. 9), Gentiles (vv. 10–11) and both (v. 12). 589 View supported by Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, p. 386; Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, pp. 893–894. 590 Romans 9:1; 10:18; 11:1, 13. Otherwise, he commonly uses the third person singular (Rom. 15:10, 12-λέγει. cf. Rom. 8: 36; 10:20–21; 11:9; 12:19; 14:11). 591 Advocates of Christological interpretation view that in the original context of Psalm, David is the speaker, but it is likely that Paul reads the text typologically. Sanday & Headlam, Romans, p. 398; Cranfield, Romans, II: pp. 745–746; Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, Jesus Christ in the Old Testament (London: SPCK, 1965), pp. 153–160; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 878–879; Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, p. 886; Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, p. 312; Brendan Byrne presents the risen Christ as the “choirmaster” among the Gentiles leading their praise of God (Romans, p. 432). Richard B. Hays contends that the notion of Christ praising God among the Gentiles fits the purpose of the citations in vv. 9b–12 where Christ is projected as standing amidst an eschatological community comprising Jews and Gentiles, (“Christ Prays the Psalms: Paul’s use of an Early Christian Exegetical Convention,” pp. 123, 135);

173

other texts from the New Testament that bear witness to the interpretive tradition of reading the words of psalms as words spoken by Christ.592 This indicates that such a reading of the psalms would not be alien to the early Christian interpreters who construe the texts from Scripture eschatologically. Thus, the messianic interpretation of Romans 15:9b makes sense, especially if Paul’s reading of Scripture is taken eschatologically where the risen Christ stands in the place of David. Therefore, in Romans, the risen Christ praises the name of God among the Gentiles.593 The causal clause διὰ τοῦτο in Psalms 17:49 (LXX), which is included in the citation in Romans 15:9b, suggest that Paul wanted his readers to recollect the larger context of Psalms 17:49 (LXX) where Yahweh delivers David from the threat of death (Ps. 17:1–24 LXX), and helps him destroy his enemies (Ps. 17:31–42 LXX). He is made the head of nations who submit to him (Ps. 17:46–48 LXX), “because of this” (διὰ τοῦτο) David gives thanks to Yahweh and sings praises to His name among the nations. Like David, Jesus has also been delivered from death and his enemies, and hence vindicated through resurrection. Therefore, in Romans 15:9a, the risen Christ takes the place of David and confesses God among the nations who are called to his saving lordship through his resurrection.594 This interpretation is plausible because, unlike in the other epistles of Paul, the notion of resurrection is very prominent in Romans. However, others like Robert Jewett suggest that from the flow of Paul’s argument, διὰ τοῦτο probably refer to the deed of Christ to both the Jews and the Gentiles.595 Jewett comes to such a conclusion because he sees Paul as the one confessing God among the Gentiles. In fact, the image of Christ praising God among the Gentiles in Romans 15:9 citing Psalm 17:50 LXX should not be considered an isolated proof text about Gentiles, but should be regarded as an allusion to the whole of Psalm 17 (LXX) where David praises God for delivering him.

592 593 594 595

174

Leander E. Keck, with reservations views that the “I” probably refers to Christ as the pre-existent one declaring the purpose of his impending incarnation. He concludes that Paul’s emphasis is not on “I,” but on the rationale behind the citations (“Christology, Soteriology, and the Praise of God (Romans 15:7–13),” p. 93). Some examples are John 19:28 where Jesus’ thirst in the passion narrative is seen as a fulfillment of Psalm 69; In Mark 15:33 the words of Psalm 22 is put into the mouth of the dying Jesus on the cross; Hebrew 10:5–7 reads Psalm 40:7–9 as words of Jesus. Also, Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans,” Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic/ Nottingham: Apollos, 2007), p. 689. Also, Seifrid, “Romans,” p. 688. Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, p. 894.

In this context, it is less likely that the psalm in Romans 15:9 is a prediction about the coming of the messiah. Instead, it needs to be read retrospectively, where one may witness the prefiguration of the suffering and the glorification of the messiah.596 In reading David’s song as a prefiguration of Christ, we see that it rhymes with the preceding verses where a citation from psalms is put on the mouth of Jesus (Rom. 15:3). Such prefiguration of the psalm is also in line with the Christological context of Romans 15:1–12. Paul refers to the deed of Christ as the basis for Roman believers to accept one another in Romans 15:3. This is explicitly brought out in Romans 15:7 in his call for acceptance.

4. Reception in Romans 15:9b in the Context of Glorifying God among the Nations It is natural for a psalmist to praise God, but it is surprising that the psalmist wants to praise God among the nations. Psalm 17 (LXX) is a thanksgiving song sung by the king after defeating his enemies and delivering him from the hands of death (Ps. 17: 1, 4–6, 33–49 LXX). This individual thanksgiving praise to God is a response of David for God’s saving power. In delivering David from his enemies, God is being faithful to His covenant promises in establishing the Davidic dynasty, despite Israel’s history of disobedience (2Sam. 7:14–17). For this reason, David makes known God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises among the nations. In Psalm 18:50 (MT), God is not only faithful to David His chosen, but also to “his seeds forever,” the latter reference to “his seed” indicating an eschatological fulfillment, beyond the time of David.597 In Romans 15:9b, Paul takes the colon where the psalmist, i.e., David, praises God’s name among the Gentiles to support his argument with regard to the Gentiles praising God for His mercy in Romans 15:9a. In Romans 15:9b, we find two praise terms, ἐξομολογήσομαι and ψάλλω. The expression ἐξομολογήσομαι represents a response to God for His promise of blessing or deliverance. It is an acknowledgment of God in thanksgiving.598 596 Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination, pp. 114–115. Idem, “Christ Prays the Psalms: Paul’s use of an Early Christian Exegetical Convention,” pp. 133–134. Richard B. Hays mentions that in reading it as Christ’s song, it should be read as post-resurrection in praising the eschatological victory of God (p. 135). We will notice below that this view of Hays in asserting Christ’s resurrection in an interpretation is in line with our reading of Isaiah in Romans 15:12. 597 Also Hafemann, “Eschatology and Ethics,” p. 176. 598 It comes from the root ἐξομολογέω, which originally means “confess” or “profess.” From its original meaning emerged the general connotation “to praise,” in

175

In the LXX, ἐξομολογέω appears with ψάλλω and αἰνέω,599 and it is commonly translated as “praise” or “sing praise.” The verb ψαλῶ (future form), which literally means to “sing songs of praise” or “sing praise,” translates the Hebrew ‫ אזמרה‬as “playing of an instrument” or “sing praises.”600 Psalm 17:50 (LXX) refers to David’s praise of God among the nations.601 This Paul combines with Isaiah 11:10, indicating the messiah from the “shoot of Jesse” who will redeem the nations. The argument from Scripture establishes the truthfulness of God to the promises in the service of Jesus. Because of this vindication, the resurrected Christ will give glory to God. The catena of citations begins by referring to the psalmist praising God among the nations for His faithfulness. In response to the psalmist praise of God, Romans 15:10 brings the next citation from Deuteronomy, where the Gentiles are invited to praise God along with the Jews. The common praise becomes explicit in the second Scriptural proof from Deuteronomy.

B.  The Second Scriptural Proof: Deuteronomy 32:43 The textual data relating to the citation in Romans 15:10 are as follows: MT:

‫הרנינו גוים עמו‬ ‫כי דם־עבדיו יקום‬ ‫ונקם ישׁב לצריו‬ ‫וכפר אדמתו עמו׃‬

4QDeutq: ‫הרנינו שׁמים עמו‬ ‫והשׁתחוו לו כל אלהים‬ ‫כי דם בניו יקום‬ ‫ונקם ישׁיב לצריו‬ ‫ולמשׁנאיו ישׁלם‬ ‫ויכפר אדמת עמו׃‬

acknowledging the divine greatness. BDAG, Third edition, p. 351. In Rom. 14:11, ἐξομολογέω is also used in a sense of praise. 599 Cf. Psalms 17:50; 34:18; 56:10; 99:4. 600 Its original meaning was to “pluck” or “play” a stringed instrument or “sing to the accompaniment of a harp.” BDAG, Third edition, p. 1096; H. Balz, “ψάλλω psallo Sing; Sing Praise,” EDNT, vol. 3, ed. Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1993), p. 495. The LXX references are Psalms 32:2; 97:5; 104:2; 146:7. 601 In 4Q381 Frag. 24, we find the idea of Israel, i.e., specific messianic understanding of Psalm 17 (LXX).

176

LXX: Εὐφράνθητε οὐρανοὶ ἅμα αὐτῷ



καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ εὐφράνθητε ἔθνη μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ Θεοῦ ὅτι τὸ αἷμα τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ ἐκδικᾶται καὶ ἐκδικήσει καὶ ἀνταποδώσει δίκην τοῖς ἐχθροῖς καὶ τοῖς μισοῦσιν ἀνταποδώσει καί ἐκκαθαριεῖ Κύριος τὴν γῆν τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ.

Rom. 15:10: εὐφράνθητε, ἔθνη, μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ.

1.  The Context of Deuteronomy 32:43 Deuteronomy 32:43 is a difficult text with textual variants arising early in the history of its interpretation. The evidence of the “Dead Sea Scrolls” from Qumran and the LXX suggests that the MT tradition, which is authoritative in Judaism and constitutes the basis for most modern translations, does not preserve the “Song of Moses” in its oldest form. As the above text shows, the Greek text has eight cola, whereas MT has only four, and 4QDeutq has six. The divergences in the number of colas have led to the question about the oldest source. The MT consists of four cola and their somewhat parallel counterparts in LXX are cola three, five, six and eight. The six colas of 4QDeutq have counterparts in LXX in cola one, two, five, six, seven and eight. Thus, only colon four in the LXX has no counterpart in any form with the MT and 4QDeutq.602 Colon four in LXX reads καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ Θεοῦ. In the LXX, cola one and three are closer to Hebrew. Hence, Francis Watson assumes that cola three and four of the LXX could have originated from a Hebrew exemplar where a two-part call to rejoicing was expanded. He concludes that 4QDeuteronomyq is probably the earliest accessible Hebrew text, and LXX is an accidental expansion of it.603 The MT is the shortest and its first colon reads literally, “Rejoice, O nations, his people.” The text of Qumran is unpointed and so ‫ עמו‬can probably be translated as “with him” because Yahweh is the object and Israel is only incidental in the Qumran version. The LXX remedies the MT’s lack of preposition by adding a

602 For a detailed reference on the comparison between the three texts, refer to John William Wevers, LXX: Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy (SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), pp. 533–535. 603 Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, p. 451.

177

preposition “μετά” before “τοῦ λαοῦ.”604 The text from Qumran and the LXX picks up the motif of verse nine and focuses on the status of Yahweh, as the one who is sovereign, whereas MT puts emphasis on the fate of Israel. The nations are called to rejoice because Yahweh had taken vengeance on the enemies of Israel and Israel as a nation is restored.605 In the Jewish liturgical tradition, Deuteronomy 32:1–52 is the tenth of the 11 weekly portions in the lectionary cycle of the Torah readings.606 Within this text, what is commonly called the “song of Moses” (Deut. 32:1–43) is included. The song of Moses presents a “covenantal theology,” already anticipated in Deuteronomy 31:19. As an independent unit, it indicates the shift from the covenantal commands of Deuteronomy to the covenantal history beginning in Joshua 1. Thus the song presents the readers with a bird’s eye view of the entire history to follow in the book of Joshua through to the books of Kings.607 The didactic emphasis of the song suggests that the book of Deuteronomy is more than a collection of laws.608 Based on an analysis of its contents, it is probable that the song of Moses is a didactic and prophetic announcement in hymnic form. The song begins with a didactic call with wisdom overtones (Deut. 32:1–2), and praises God for his provision for Israel (Deut. 32:3–14). Apart from the didactic opening, there is a prophetic announcement (Deut. 32:36–41), in a hymn-like form that runs throughout the chapter. This hymn-like form persists especially for verses 43f, as also noted by Gerhard von Rad who sees in verse 43, “a hymn-like ending.”609 The entire history of Israel is presented in Deuteronomy 32:15–42, and 32:43 forms the doxology of praise. The portrayal of the entire history of Israel suggests a post-mosaic origin of the song.610 Looking at the content of the 604 For further reference, see Mark E. Biddle, Deuteronomy, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys, 2003), p. 469. 605 Biddle, Deuteronomy, p. 481. 606 Daune L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12, WBC 6b (Nashville: Thomas Nelson publishers, 2002), p. 784. 607 Walter Brueggemann, Deuteronomy (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries (AOTC); Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), p. 277. 608 For views on the genre of the Song of Moses, see Gerhard Von Rad, Deuteronomy. A Commentary (London: SCM Press, 1966), p. 200; S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, ICC (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986), p. 345. 609 Von Rad, Deuteronomy, p. 196. 610 The content of the song point to the period of exodus as a distant past (vv. 7–12), with Israel already settled in Palestine (vv. 13–14) and into idolatry (vv. 15–16). The consequence of idolatry is that the whole nation is on the verge of complete destruction (vv. 20–30). At such a juncture, Yahweh intervenes and is faithful to rescue

178

song, Mark Biddle writes, “Moses’ song summarizes the panoramic message of Deuteronomy.”611 The song of Moses can be divided into three parts: Deuteronomy 32:1–14; 32:15–29; and 32:40–43. The first section of the song exemplifies Yahweh’s mercy and faithfulness. It speaks of Yahweh’s providence that brought Israel out from the wilderness (Deut. 32:1–14). The second section of the song shifts to Israel’s indulgence in idolatry, which provokes Yahweh’s punishment upon Israel, leading to a national disaster (Deut. 32:15–29). The final section of the song focuses on God’s continued covenant loyalty. Hence, despite Israel’s disobedience, God hears the cries and delivers the people by returning the retribution on her adversaries (Deut. 32:30–43). The song establishes the faithfulness and generosity of Yahweh to the covenant promises, despite Israel’s infidelity. It concludes with the summoning of the nations to praise Yahweh, who “avenged the blood of his servants.” Such invitation addressed to the nations in verse 43 indicates that God’s dealing with the nations has an impact on the wider human community. This act of God shows that Israel is not abandoned, but God is faithful to His promises. Paul, in Romans 15:10, does not cite the entire text of Deuteronomy 32:43, but picks up only one colon on the call to the Gentiles to praise God along with Israel and fits it into the catena of citations in Romans 15:9b–12. In the previous citation from psalm, the psalmist praises God among the nations for His faithfulness. As a response to the praise, this citation from Deuteronomy points to the Gentiles who are invited to praise God with His people, for His faithfulness and mercy.

2.  The Citation Formula The text from Deuteronomy in Romans 15:10 begins with an additional opening clause καὶ πάλιν λέγει. The reference now is to Scripture. The Greek word πάλιν is a marker of a discourse or a narrative item like the series of quotations that witness to the same theme (cf. 1Cor. 3:20; Heb. 1:5; 2:13a,b; 4:5). It is translated as “again,” i.e., to return to a position.612 The repetitive use of πάλιν in the present text may mean two things: (1) First, πάλιν can mean that Scripture in its entirety gives a united witness. In this sense, it may suggest unity or a unitary witness. (2) Second, πάλιν can mean not just a unitary witness but also profusion-there

His people from the heathens (vv. 34–43). Therefore, the context indicates that the political condition of Israel in the song is post-Mosaic origin and the exodus event lies a distant past (see Driver, Deuteronomy, pp. 345–346). 611 Biddle, Deuteronomy, p. 471. 612 BDAG, Third edition, pp. 752–753.

179

are many of such passages. So Paul can say his case actually is very strong, because it is not just an isolated text, but there are many different texts that deal with this particular issue. The second view is probable. Paul utilizes these different texts to tackle the problems in Rome. This is also because Paul was not the founder of the Christ believing communities in Rome. Therefore, he had to bring a basis from the Jewish Scripture, which was regarded as authoritative. Thus, this formula in Romans 15:10 indicates that Paul’s exhortation on the place of the Jews and Gentiles in Romans 15:7–9a has support from different texts. Since the citations are taken from Psalms, Deuteronomy and Isaiah, πάλιν demonstrates continuity in the citations and indicates that the different parts of Scripture contribute to Paul’s exhortation in Romans 15:7–9a. The citation is joined to the preceding one with the use of καὶ πάλιν. The reference to λέγει is definitely not Paul, for when Paul refers to himself, he uses the first person singular λέγω as in Romans 15:8. For the first person, λέγω is an expression of “his mission” or “his apostolic calling.”613 However, when the third person singular λέγει is used, it either refers to God, Scripture or the prophets. In view of the citation formula γέγραπται of the preceding verse, the subject attached to λέγει would probably be ἡ γραφή (cf. Rom. 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2) rather than Μωϋσῆς or ὁ θεός, for Paul is trying to indicate what is written in Scripture by using “it says.”

3. Reception in Romans 15:10 in the Context of Gentiles Praising God with Jews Deuteronomy 32 figures prominently in Romans.614 In the original context, Moses calls on the nations to praise God because of his greatness. However, in Romans, the text from Deuteronomy is broadened by extending the invitation to the Gentiles to rejoice along with Israel. In Romans 15:10, a colon from the song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32:43, which has a parallel in 2Samuel 22:50, is brought out. The citation in Romans 15:10 agrees with the text of LXX. The Hebrew text literally translated reads, “Rejoice, O you nations, His people.”615 The Hebrew text is intended as a promise of the covenantal faithfulness of God to His people; hence, it is hostile to the nations. Yet, in Romans 15:10, Paul develops a universalistic approach to fit into his exhortation on the place of the Jews and

613 H. Hübner, “λέγω,” p. 346. 614 Romans 10:19 cites Deuteronomy 32:21 and alludes to the same text in Romans 11:11–14, and Romans 12:19 cites Deuteronomy 32:35. 615 Though some find that the cola Paul selects from the song of Moses is probably a rendering of MT (Schreiner, Romans, p. 758).

180

the Gentiles. This all-embracing approach is already evident in the LXX Deuteronomic text, with μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ providing a more sympathetic posture toward the Gentiles. It fits the exhortation for a community comprising both Jews and Gentiles in Romans 15:7–13, for it clearly extends the invitation to the Gentiles to rejoice with Israel. In Deuteronomy 28–29, Moses predicts that Israel would disobey God and face God’s judgment. In their afflictions, God would change their hearts and they would turn to Yahweh (Deut. 30:6). In Romans 9–11, Paul appeals to Deuteronomy 32:21 in order to demonstrate that the rejection of the gospel of Christ by Israel is part of God’s plan in order to extend salvation to the Gentiles, which ultimately would result in the redemption of Israel from their disobedience and hard-heartedness (cf. Deut. 32:19–21). Paul takes Deuteronomy 32:43 as an indication that the turning to Yahweh would not be reserved for Israel alone. The nations are also summoned to join Israel in the eschatological praise to God. Along this line, Ernst Käsemann interprets the Deuteronomic citation as a reference to the Gentile believers in Christ who in Romans 11:17–19 are grafted into the people of God to form an eschatological community.616 Ross Wagner presents a broader outlook by asserting that “Israel’s deliverance results in blessing not only for God’s people, but also for the entire cosmos.”617 This text balances the preceding citation from Psalm 17:50. Their emphasis is on the call to praise. The psalmist praises God in the company of the Gentiles (Rom. 15:9). Witnessing this praise, the Gentile worshippers praise God with the Jewish worshippers (Rom. 15:10). The citation in Romans 15:10 thus points to a common worship for the salvific act of God in Christ, which is universal in its scope.618 The praise term in this citation is εὐφράνθε, from the root εὐφραίνω. This term commonly means “to cheer,” “to be glad” and to “rejoice.” It frequently appears in the context of relationships.619 In the Old Testament, the rejoicing in the context of relationship is primarily related to the presence and help of Yahweh.620 In the view of S. Pederson, “Jubilant joy presupposes the experience of the realisation 616 Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, p. 386. 617 Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, p. 317. For Ross Wagner, Paul reads the entire song of Moses in 15:10 (Deut. 32:43 LXX) and 10:19 (Deut. 32:21 LXX) as revealing the faithfulness of God in the redemption of Israel and through Israel, the redemption of the entire world (pp. 190–201, 316–317). 618 Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, p. 452. 619 S. Pederson, “εὐφραίνω,” EDNT, 2: p. 86. cf. 2Corinthians 2:2; Romans 15:10; Lk. 15:22–32. 620 LXX Psalms 9:3; 30:8; 39:17f; 68:33; 2Chronicles 6:41; Zechariah 10:7.

181

of community.”621 The universality of the notion of “joy” is especially indicated in Romans 15:10 in the citation of Deuteronomy 32:43 (LXX). The “joy” expressed in Romans comes from a community comprising both Jews and Gentiles, where the Gentiles who were considered outside the covenant people are invited to praise God along with the covenant people. As Francis Watson puts it, From the song Paul learns that God has caused a no-people consisting of Gentiles to enter the fullness of the blessing promised to Israel. He also learns that Israel will gradually recognize this and, becoming jealous, will find its own way back to its ancestral heritage. Thus, beyond the jealousy and the hostility, Gentiles and Jews will praise the one God of Israel.622

The reason for praise by the Jews and the Gentiles harkens back to Paul’s exhortation in Romans 15:8–9a, which is about the deed of Christ for all. The notion of universal praise is further strengthened with the citation from Psalm 116:1 (LXX) (117:1 MT).

C.  The Third Scriptural Proof: Psalms 116:1 LXX (117:1 MT) The textual data relating to the citation in Romans 15:11 are as follows: MT:

‫הללו את־יהוה כל־גוים‬ ‫שׁבחוהו כל־האמים‬

LXX:

αἰνεῖτε τὸν κύριον πάντα τά ἔθνη, ἐπαινέσατε αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ λαοί

Rom. 15:11: αἰνεῖτε, πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, τὸν κύριον καὶ ἐπαινεσάτωσαν αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ λαοί

The citation in Romans 15:11 agrees with LXX with minor changes, viz., the transposition of τὸν Κύριον and πάντα τά ἔθνη, the insertion of καί623 and the

621 S. Pederson, “εὐφραίνω.” EDNT, eds., Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, vol.2 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1991) pp. 86–87. 622 Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, p. 452. 623 A few minor texts omit καί (Tischendorf cites 17 42 63 109 aSCR C SCR al fere SyrSch), but Pauline tradition read καί before ἐπαινεσάτωσαν. While within the LXX tradition there are witnesses that insert καί with the second and third person forms of the verb. Καί occurs with ἐπαινέσατε in R LaG Or and the Old Latin. Whereas καί appears with ἐπαινεσάτωσαν in A1’ Did Eus, but none of the witnesses with καί follows Paul in reproducing the first colon of Psalm 116:1. Hence, one cannot rule out a possibility of an independent addition in both the Pauline and the LXX tradition. For the witnesses on the omission and the addition of καί, refer to Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, p. 182.

182

replacement of ἐπαινεσάτωσαν624 for ἐπαινέσατε.625 The LXX follows the MT closely.

1.  The Context of Psalms 116:1 LXX Psalm 116 (LXX) is known for its brevity. However, many do not try to understand this psalm further and probe deeper into its theological significance. “The shortest of all the psalms is theologically one of the grandest,” writes Mitchell Dahood.626 Such a remark stands true, for the psalmist explicitly indicates that the faithfulness of Yahweh to Israel provides a reason for “all nations” and “all gods” to praise Yahweh. The brevity of the psalm has led interpreters to attach it with Psalm 115 (LXX) or Psalm 117 (LXX). Some take this psalm as a conclusion to Psalm 115 (LXX).627 Others consider Psalm 116 (LXX) as a “hermeneutical key to Psalm 117 LXX” or a “bridge psalm” between Psalm 115 (LXX) and Psalm 117 (LXX).628 Still others regard the psalm as an independent psalm.629 Interpreters have a good reason for considering Psalm 116 (LXX) as a conclusion to Psalm 115 (LXX), because Psalm 116 (LXX) does not have a heading of its own. However, if Psalm 116 (LXX) is attached to Psalm 115 (LXX) or Psalm 117 (LXX), then there would be

624 The third person plural ἐπαινεσάτωσαν, which Paul uses, is found in the earlier and more reliable witnesses (P46 ‫ ﬡ‬A B C D Y 81 88 326 365 1319 1505 1506 1573 1739 1881 2495 pc. However, none of the witnesses in Pauline tradition advances πάντα τά ἔθνη as we find in the text. See Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, p. 182. 625 The second person plural imperative ἐπαινέσατε is in conformity with the LXX text of Psalm 116:1 and it is found in the following witnesses: F G L P 6 33 69 104 323 330 424 614 945 1175 1241 1243 1735 1836 1874 2344 M latt sy. 626 Mitchell Dahood, Psalms, The Anchor Bible vol. 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1966–1970), p. 152. 627 See Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150, WBC 21 (Waco, Texas: Wordbooks, 1983), p. 117; I. Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967), p. 210, n. 2; John H. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms (London: SCM Press, 1976), p. 82. 628 Frank Lothar Hossfeld & Erich Zenger, A Commentary on Psalms 101–150, vol. 3, Hermeneia-A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), p. 224. So also, Fanie Snyman considers it as the start of the subsequent psalm (“Reading Psalm 117 against an Exilic Context,” VT 61 (2011): p. 112. 629 See A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, 2vols. New Century Bible (London: Oliphants, 1972), pp. 795–796. Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms. A Commentary, trans. Hilton C. Oswald vol. 2 (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989), p. 390; Snyman, “Reading Psalm 117 against an Exilic Context,” p. 112.

183

no primary use for the psalm. Rather it would only have a secondary place within a larger psalm. Yet in reading this psalm, there are valid reasons to consider the psalm as a unit by itself despite its brevity. For the structural marks of the hymn of praise are discernible in Psalm 116 (LXX): the call to praise in verse one, followed by the reason for the praise in verse 2a,b and the concluding hallelujah acclamation in verse 2c.630 In addition to the structural characteristics of a hymn of praise, Psalm 115 (LXX) closes with “praise the Lord,” while Psalm 116 (LXX) opens and ends with the same kind of praise. Therefore, it is unlikely that Psalm 116 (LXX) was a part of Psalm 115 (LXX).631 Some scholars argue that the liturgical characteristics of Psalm 117 (LXX) will be disrupted if Psalm 116 (LXX) is read as part of the subsequent psalm.632 The upshot of all this is that the psalm is not attached to the preceding or the subsequent psalms, but forms an integral unit as a hymn of praise. Some scholars regard the hymn as a general congregational hymn of praise.633 Others specify it as a song sung at the Passover.634 Notwithstanding this disagreement, it is preferable to regard the Sitz im Leben as most probably a hymn of praise belonging to a cultic situation. It is an address by the priest inviting the congregation gathered for a festival to sing praises to Yahweh.635 As Leslie Allen puts it, “v 2, as summary of Israel’s covenant-oriented theology, would admirably suit any festival.”636 The psalm is incorporated into the Hallel, giving it eschatological overtones relating to the restoration of Israel. The Christological witness 630 See Robert G. Bratcher & William D. Reyburn, A Handbook on Psalms (New York: UBS, 1991), p. 985; John Goldingday, Psalms, Vol. 3, Barker Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Barker Academic, 2008), p. 351. 631 Snyman, “Reading Psalm 117 against an Exilic Context,” p. 112. 632 Arthur Weiser, The Psalms. A Commentary (London: SCM Press, 1962), p. 721. 633 Elmer A. Leslie, The Psalms: Translated and Interpreted in the Life of Hebrew Life and Worship (New York: Abingdon – Cokesbury, nd), p. 28; Robert G. Bratcher and William D. Reyburn also asserts that the psalm was used at the beginning of a service in the temple (A Handbook on Psalms, p. 985). Or sung by pilgrims who have gathered in the sanctuary. (Weiser, The Psalms. A Commentary, pp. 721–722). 634 Geoffrey W. Grogan, Psalms (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 2008), 193. 635 Artur Weiser regards the psalm as a call at the opening of worship where the congregation is called to praise God (The Psalms. A Commentary, p. 721); Likewise, Fanie Snyman suggests a cultic context where priests met with ordinary people in worship (“Reading Psalm 117 against an Exilic Context,” p. 114; See also Anderson, The Book of Psalms, pp. 795–796; Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms. A Commentary, 2: pp. 390–391. 636 Allen, Psalms 101–150, p. 117.

184

of the Hallel psalms already appears in the interpretation of Scripture in early Christ believing circles.637 The psalm begins with an imperative exhortation directed to “all nations.” There is no specific reference to the addressees in the psalm. This allows the interpreter to assume that the addressees neither “really” hear the invitation of the Psalter, nor are they “really” present. Thus, the exhortation can be understood as an “indirect speech-act” or a “rhetorical imperative.” However, in saying that it is not a “real” appeal to the nations, Psalm 116 (LXX) loses its function in the context of Psalms 113–118. In considering that in Psalm 116:1 (LXX) Israel exhorts all the nations to praise Yahweh for His love and His saving works for Israel, it needs to be read within the framework of Psalm 113–118 (MT). Psalm 113 is a worldwide call to praise Yahweh. This is followed in Psalm 114 by the community’s concern over YHWH’s reputation, which is at stake because His people are in a state of distress and weakness. For this reason, they praise God for hope of deliverance in the midst of other nations and idolatry.638 We find an appeal to YHWH to show his love and faithfulness for Israel before the nations in Psalm 115. Then, in Psalm 116 the king bears witness to YHWH’s acts of deliverance in times of crises. This is followed by Psalm 118 that refers to the nations who together with Israel celebrate Yahweh’s everlasting life. Against this contextual background, Psalm 116 (LXX) can be understood as a “real” invitation to praise Yahweh and to laud Him. The reason for this imperative exhortation is Yahweh’s love for His people and His faithfulness towards his people and all nations.639 It is amazing how a short psalm like Psalm 116 (LXX) explicitly presents the significance of universalism in the Psalter. The revelation of Yahweh does not stop with Israel as the chosen people; rather Israel becomes the instrument through whom Yahweh will manifest His greatness and faithfulness among the nations. The reference to “all nations” and “all gods” suggests an inclusive outlook. It looks forward to a common worship where all nations will join Israel in praising Yahweh. This element of inclusion appears in the book of psalms, especially in Psalms 65–67. Psalm 65, which is also composed for a festival, expresses the 637 Hallel is part of the important liturgical cycle of psalms (Pss. 111–117 LXX, 113–118 MT). There are occasions when the New Testament writers in order to refer to Jesus uses the Hallel psalms especially Ps. 118 (MT). Eg. Lk. 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1Peter 2:7 (Ps. 118:22 MT); Mk. 2:10–11; Mt. 21:42 (Ps. 118:22–23); Mk. 11:9; Mt. 21:9; Jn. 12:13 (Ps. 118:25–26); Mt. 23:39; Lk. 13:35; Lk. 19:38 (Ps. 118:26) (Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, pp. 313–314). 638 Allen, Psalms 101–150, pp. 110–111. 639 Also, Hossfeld & Zenger, A Commentary on Psalms 101–150, pp. 224–225.

185

people’s praise. The universal note is again reflected in Psalm 66 where the psalmist calls the entire world to a joyful shout in praise of God’s act of power against the enemies of David. The universal note in Psalms 65–66 comes to a climax in Psalm 67, where the entire psalm emphasizes the universal praise with cosmic applicability. Similarly, the address to the nations in Psalm 116 (LXX) provides a universal outlook and is characteristic of the message of Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 40–55) where the nations are summoned to look to Israel (Isa. 41:1; 43:9; 49:1) who is restored from exile and acknowledge God’s authoritative control over all situations. The Psalter also portrays a similar picture when it invites the nations to praise Yahweh for His faithfulness manifested to the Israelites. Its universal applicability also gives a reason for Paul to cite the first part of this psalm in his exhortation in the context of the Jew-Gentile relationship in Romans 15:11.

2.  The Citation Formula The third scriptural citation begins with the formula καὶ πάλιν. It picks up the formula in Romans 15:10. A few manuscripts add the verb λέγει,640 whereas text critics prefer the majority text, which is without λέγει.641 As indicated in the preceding formula, πάλιν points to a discourse of similar nature. In line with the preceding citation, ἡ γραφή becomes the subject, and Paul in Romans 15:11 brings another citation to support his exhortation relating to a Jew-Gentile relationship.

3. Reception in Romans 15:11 in the Context of ἔθνη and οἱ λαοί Praising God The repeated use of πᾶς puts emphasis on the notion of the universal praise of God, and it is not limited to any ethnic group.642 The word πᾶς in this verse can be taken as a counterpart to Romans 15:10 in the song of Moses, where the Gentiles join the Jews in praising God.643 Hence, the word πᾶς indicates that everyone appears within the scope of the saving work of God. It supports the call for a universal worship. Both ἔθνη and οἱ λαοί appear in the citation. ἔθνη generally refers to the Gentiles, whereas the term λαός is ambiguous and is open to a variety of meanings. 640 The witnesses are B D F G 1505 1735 2495 pc it sy ambst. 641 The witnesses are ‫ ﬡ‬A C P Ψ 6 33 69 104 323 330 424 614 945 1175 1241 1243 1319 1506 1573 1739 1836 1874 1881 2344 M ar t vg. 642 Cranfield asserts that the emphasis on πᾶς indicates that no one is to be excluded from praising God (Romans, p. 746). 643 Seifrid, “Romans,” p. 689.

186

The context usually determines its meaning. Its spectrum of meaning in the New Testament includes tribe, population, people, people of God or the believing community.644 There are instances when the plural λαοί is regarded as synonymous with ἔθνη.645 In the LXX, λαός normally refers to people other than the Israelites, especially in the psalms.646 In the Pauline epistles, λαός primarily appears in Old Testament citations.647 The term λαός can refer to either the Gentiles or it can mean the people of God as we find in Luke (Lk. 2:30–31), or it can be generalized as referring to all, including both Jews and Gentiles. The true λαός are those who are called from the Jews and Gentiles on the basis of faith (Rom. 9:25 from Hos. 2:25). Similarly, in Romans, especially in chapters 9–11, λαός occurs in the context of the theme of the people of God. The plural form appears only in this text and it draws upon the LXX. In this case, one can think of it as people other than Israel or perhaps the people including Israel. Paul includes this psalm in his exhortation (Rom. 15:7–13) to the Roman believers in Christ in order to support the notion that Christ has accepted all without any distinction for the glory of God. Basing on the deed of Christ, the Roman believers in Christ comprising Jews and Gentiles are to accept one another. In the light of this interpretation of Romans 15:7–13, the Greek word ἔθνη would refer to the Gentiles and οἱ λαοί can be generalized.648 In this verse, we also find two “praise” terms, αἰνεῖτε from the root αἰνέω and its compound form ἐπαινεσάτωσαν from ἐπαινέω. Except in Romans 15:11 citing Psalm 116 (LXX) where it stands for “praise God,” on all other occasions it appears in instructions probably meaning “approval” or “sanction.”649 The reason for the praise is indicated in Psalm 116:2 (LXX): it is because of God’s mercy and His faithfulness. Only the first verse of Psalm 116 (LXX) is cited in Romans 15:11, but if we look at the next verse of the psalm, the psalmist refers to ἔλεος and ἀλήθεια. These motifs are not cited in Romans 15:11. However, “mercy” and

644 For references in the New Testament, refer to H. Frankemӧlle, “λαός, οῦ, ὁ,” EDNT, 2: p. 340. 645 H. Frankemӧlle includes Romans 15:11; Revelation 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 21:3; Luke 2:30– 31; Acts 4:25–27. λαός does not occur in any fixed association with salvation history (“λαός, οῦ, ὁ,” EDNT, 2: p. 340). 646 Cf. 1Kings 8:43, 60; Psalms 2:1; 44:6, 18; 66:4, 6; 96:6; 98:1; 168:11. 647 Cf. Romans 9:25–26; 10:21; 11:1–2; 15:10; 1Corinthians 10:7; 14:21; 2 Corinthians 6:6. 648 For my interpretation of ἔθνη and οἱ λαοί as referring to Gentiles and Jews praising God, I am indebted to Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, pp. 314–315. 649 Cf. 1Corinthians 11:2, 17, 22. See O. Hofius, “ἔπαινος, ου, ὁ,” EDNT, 2: pp. 16–17.

187

“truth” are important terms used in Romans 15:7–13. As mentioned, both “mercy” and “truthfulness” are connected to the deed of Christ to the Jews and the Gentiles in Romans 15:8–9a. The terms can therefore be connected to the theme of common praise. So the preceding text from Deuteronomy, which Paul cites, calls for the Gentiles to praise God along with the Jews. The psalm is universal650 in its scope for because of God’s mercy Gentiles are embraced and God’s faithfulness provides an opportunity for everyone (both Jews and Gentiles) to join in a common praise. The element of universalism in the citation from Psalm 116 (LXX) culminates with the citation from Isaiah 11:10 in Romans 15:9b–12, where the Gentiles “hope” in the ruler from the “shoot” of Jesse.

D.  The Fourth Scriptural Proof: Isaiah 11:10 The textual data relating the citation in Romans 15:12 read as follows: MT:

‫והיה ביום ההוא‬ ‫יש אשׁר עמד לנס עמים‬ ‫שׁרשׁ ׁי‬ ‫ידרש והיתה מנחתו כבו‬ ‫ׁו‬ ‫אליו גוים‬

LXX:

καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἡ ῥίζα τοῦ Ἰεσσαὶ καὶ ὁ ἀνιστάμενος ἄρχειν ἐθνῶν ἐπ̓ αὐτῷ ἔθνη ἐπλιοῦσι καὶ ἔσται ἡ ἀνάπαυσις αὐτοῦ τιμή.

Rom. 15:12: ἔσται ἡ ῥίζα τοῦ Ἰεσσαὶ Καὶ ὁ ἀνιστάμενος ἄρχειν ἐθνῶν, ἐπ’ αὐτῷ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν.

The Pauline text follows the LXX text of Isaiah 11:10 closely, except for the omission of the initial καί and ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ after ἔσται. The reasons are discussed below.

1.  The Context of Isaiah 11:10 Isaiah 11:1–10 presents the readers with a royal ideology in poetical form. The hand of Yahweh in guiding the Israelite rulers is envisioned in this poem.651 The wider context of Isaiah 11:1–10 depicts the downfall of Assyria (Isa. 10:5–19; 11:14–16), and an anticipation of the future promise for the remnant 650 Universalism in this study is not in a philosophical sense of referring to one God, but it refers to people coming together as a worshipping community to glorify God. 651 John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, WBC 24 (Waco, TX: Wordbooks, 1985), p. 176.

188

(Isa. 10:20–23; 11:11–13; 12:1–6). Furthermore, in line with its larger context of Isaiah 10:24–34 and Isaiah 11:11–16, the text gives emphasis to the work of Yahweh.652 It is within this larger vision of the call not to fear the Assyrians in Isaiah 10:24 that we find the prophet envisioning a ruler from the Davidic lineage in Isaiah 11:1–10. The idyllic picture of an anointed ruler ushering in an era of peace and prosperity is in contrast to the threat of the Assyrian king.653 The coming of a new ruler is portrayed through the metaphor of the stump of a tree. Usually when a royal lineage is traced, David is mentioned, but not in this text. Sigmund Mowinckel asserts that this lacuna signifies the ruler is the new David.654 For John Watts, ‫ חטר‬or ‫ נצר‬spring from the old stump or root, and this signifies that Jesse’s descendants will take on a new life.655 The future ruler portrayed is a new royal figure in the near future that would bring about a reversal of the present situation. With the failure of the Davidic dynasty leading to the exile, Isaiah envisions a new ruler from the royal lineage to restore Israel and the nations. We encounter two views on the interpretation of Isaiah 11:10. One view upholds the notion that the primary focus of the text is on the restoration of God’s people, the historical Israel.656 The other view upholds a universal interpretation of the text, wherein the Davidic ruler will bring about the restoration of Israel and the transformation of the nations.657 The latter view fits the text better (Isa. 11:1–10). The place of the future ruler in the restoration of Israel is seen in Isaiah 11:1–5; this is made available to the created order (Isa. 11:6–9) and extended to the nations (‫[ גוים‬plural] Isa. 11:10). Hence, the advent of the future ruler will be a signal of the transformation of the nations.

652 Watts, Isaiah 1–33, pp. 70–174. 653 Hilary Marlow, “The spirit of Yahweh in Isaiah 11:1–9,” Presence, Power and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, eds., David G. Firth & Paul D. Wegner (Nottingham: Apollos, 2011), p. 222. 654 Sigmund Mowinckel, He that Cometh. The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament & Later Judaism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W. B. Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 161–162. cf, Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary (London: SCM Press, 1972), p. 157. 655 Watts, Isaiah 1–33, p. 171. 656 Supported by John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 1–39 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), pp. 286–287. 657 For Walter Brueggemann, the vision in Verse 10 “goes public beyond Jewishness,” [Isaiah 1–39 (Louisville, KT: Westminster John Knox Press 1998), p. 104]. Also, Richard L. Schultz, “Nationalism and Universalism in Isaiah,” Interpreting Isaiah. Issues and Approaches, eds. Firth & Williamson (Nottingham: Apollos, 2009), p. 132ff.

189

Isaiah 11:10 is embedded within the wider context of Isaiah chapters 10–11 that deal with God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises to deliver Israel from their oppressors and to gather the scattered exiles from the four corners of the earth (Isa. 11:11–12). Israel is made to suffer under the Assyrian yoke because of Israel’s sins, but the Lord will not let the oppressors of Israel take pride in condemning His people (Isa. 10:5–9). God will deliver His people from the hands of their oppressors by bringing down the Assyrians from their high places and, once again, Israel will trust in YHWH alone (Isa. 10:20–34). The restoration of Israel will be established through God’s chosen servant from the house of Jesse (Isa. 11:1). Being empowered with the Spirit of the Lord, he will rule by “the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord” (Isa. 11:2). “In that day” of the restoration of Israel, “the shoot of Jesse” will be a “banner” for the Gentiles (Isa. 11:10). In terms of structure, Isaiah 11 may be divided into two units, vv. 1–9 and vv. 11–16, with verse 10 as a bridge connecting the two oracles. Verses 1–9 portray the ideal king from the Davidic lineage. The Davidic dynasty is brought down to a stump of a tree because of its disobedience and its unfaithfulness. Verses 11–16 are an oracle with an eschatological promise concerning the restoration of the remnant. Verse 10 connects the two units of Isaiah 11 by picking up the phrase “stump of Jesse” from verse one and combines it with the noun “signal” from verse 11.658 Verse 10 connects the oracle together to a larger unit by picking up key words from verses one and 12. Furthermore, verse 10 helps the two units in Isaiah 11 to interpret each other mutually. Throughout Isaiah 11,659 there is interplay between the Davidic themes and Yahweh’s action or direct intervention. While David’s descendants appear in verses one and 10, on other occasions, we find the emphasis on the Spirit in verse two and the fear and knowledge of Yahweh in verses 5–9. The genre of the royal psalms is reshaped by minimizing the position of the king only to two verses (vss. 1, 10). Yet, the two verses in which it occurs in the text are significant, for they begin and end the text, indicating a confirmation of the renewal of a dynasty.

658 For the comments on the two units of Isaiah 11, see Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), pp. 99–105, esp. 99, 104–105. 659 Isaiah 11:1–10 is probably from the stock of literature belonging to the lore of the Davidic monarchy. We find parallels of such literature in the poems dealing with royal ideology and other Old Testament writings (Pss. 2; 21; 45; 72; 110; 2Sam. 7; 1Kgs. 2–3 & Mic. 5:2–6, in line with Mic. 5:2–5a and Ps. 72:2–4, 13). See Watts, Isaiah 1–33, pp. 169, 173.

190

In Romans 15:12, a verse from Isaiah 11 is included in order to strengthen further the exhortation on the faithfulness of God to Israel and the place of the Gentiles. This text refers to the messianic promise from the Davidic lineage on whom the Gentiles will hope, a theme clearly indicated only in the LXX.

2.  The Citation Formula In this final citation, the formula appears as καὶ πάλιν Ἤσαϊας λέγει. This citation from Isaiah brings to an end the call for acceptance in Romans 15:7–9a. As already discussed, πάλιν in this text has the function of a profusion of witnesses. However, unlike the other citations where the subject refers in general to Scripture, here the text explicitly points out that the citation is taken from Isaiah.

3. Reception in Romans 15:12 in the Context of the Gentile’s Hope in the “Shoot” of Jesse Israel was exiled for being unfaithful to the covenant. However, the disobedience leading to the exile did not nullify the promise that God had made with Israel. This understanding of God as the one who is faithful, despite Israel’s unfaithfulness, is reflected throughout the prophetic writings, especially in Isaiah. The prophet announces the deliverance of God’s people from exile. The hope for restoration is that to which many faithful exiles looked forward. This larger context of God and Israel is behind the use of Isaiah in Romans, especially in legitimating Paul’s mission to the Gentiles and expounding his understanding of Israel’s place in covenant history.660 As indicated, the Pauline text follows the LXX, except for the omission of the initial καί and ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ after ἔσται. Omitting the initial conjunction καί is Paul’s usual approach in order to bring the flow of ideas from text to citations.661 On the omission of the phrase ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ, there are different proposals offered by interpreters. James Dunn regards the omission of ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ as occasioned by Paul’s desiring to reserve it for the final Day of

660 Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, pp. 29–31. 661 See Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, p. 183. In Romans 15:21, we find a quotation from Isaiah 52:12. Here Paul omits the initial ὁτι in order to bring about a smooth transition from his argument to the language of the citation. There are also a few occasions where initial conjunctions are retained, especially when the conjunctions play a vital role in linking any two composite citations (Rom. 4:17; 8:36; 9:2; 11:35; 2Cor. 6:17; Gal. 3:16).

191

Judgment.662 In contrast, Ross Wagner asserts that the omission of “in that day” implies that the prophecy is no longer in the future, but is in the process of being realized in the lives of Paul and the believers through the resurrected Christ. Wagner sees in this Isaianic citation, the presence of a “Christological” hermeneutic.663 Christopher Stanley also assumes a Christological interpretation of this text, yet he believes that one can still argue that Paul in omitting the phrase is emphasizing the present access of the Gentiles to come to God through faith in Christ.664 From the text, we can say that an eschatological reading is probable, especially by linking the prophecy to the age of salvation with the coming of the messiah. The first part of the citation is the promise of the ideal king from the Davidic lineage, which takes us back to Jesse, the father of David. C. K. Barrett assumes that “Paul in general shows no interest in the Davidic descent of Jesus and offers no exposition of it here.”665 However, the Davidic messiahship of Jesus is not completely sidelined. The Christological confession from the Davidic lineage appears at the opening of the letter (Rom. 1:2–4), and to this notion, Paul refers at the close of the body of the letter in the catena of citations. The theme of the Davidic messiah appearing at the beginning and at the end of the epistle suggests that the citation in Romans 15:12 forms an inclusion with Romans 1:2–4,666 and guides us in the understanding of the key themes of his epistle. The messianic interpretation of Isaiah 11 (especially verses 1–5) also appears in some writings of the Second Temple Period, especially the Psalms of Solomon

662 Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 850. As in Romans 2:5, 16; 13:12; 1Corinthians 1:8; 3:13; 5:5. 663 Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, pp. 318–319. 664 Christopher Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, p. 183. Furthermore, Stanley asserts that Paul’s Greco-Roman counterparts could also have influenced him, but it is not certain if he absorbed the techniques of reading a text directly from his GrecoRoman environment or was mediated through his Jewish upbringing. Greco-Roman writers exhibit flexibility and originality in their incorporation of citations into their own thoughts. The wording of the text also experiences modifications and the extent of change varied from one author to another. For a more detailed reading, refer to Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture, especially the section on the citation technique in Greco-Roman literature (pp. 267–291). 665 Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 272. 666 Also, Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination, p. 116; idem, “Christ Prays the Psalms,” p. 135; Timothy Johnson, Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys, 2001), p. 207; Miller, The Obedience of Faith, p. 88.

192

and the Dead Sea Scrolls.667 The Psalms of Solomon, where the psalmist articulates a type of messianic expectation, describes a figure of one who will liberate Jerusalem and usher in an era of peace. The Gentiles will come before him from the ends of the earth to witness his glory.668 Likewise, the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to the expectation of a Davidic messiah. Isaiah 11:1–5 occurs in the fragmentary Pesher from Cave 4, with reference to an eschatological Davidic king.669 Like the Hebrew ‫ׁשרׁש‬, in the LXX text of Isaiah 11:1, ῥίζα means “root.” In its normal usage, “root” stands for origin, the part that holds the plant. However, Isaiah and Romans are not speaking of origin, but a successor who would come from the line of Jesse. The “shoot” of Jesse would be a better translation. It is likely that in Isaiah 11:10, both ‫ ׁשרׁש‬and ῥίζα mean “shoot” or “scion” as in Isaiah 53:2.670 Apart from Scripture, the title “shoot” was an established title for the messiah from the Davidic lineage in the Apocryphal writings and the Dead Sea Scrolls.671 In the Isaianic context, ‫ ׁשרׁש‬/ῥίζα stands for an individual king of the Davidic dynasty, who will be a rallying point for the “Gentiles.”672 Romans 15:12 accommodates this understanding of the Davidic age to Jesus as the anointed king from the Davidic lineage, the messiah in whom the Gentiles hope. In Romans 15:12, Paul is not trying to prove the messiaship of Jesus, but intends to indicate that the prophets already bore witness to the inclusion of the Gentiles within the eschatological

667 The messianic expectation during the second temple period, especially in Psalms of Solomon and in the fragmentary pesher, are further elaborated in John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2nd edn (1st edn. 1995; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2010), pp. 52–78. 668 Psalms of Solomon 17:34. Furthermore, the author of the Psalms of Solomon portrays the rule of the messiah (Ps. Sol. 17:32; 18:5, 7) that alludes to Isaiah 11 (Isa. 11:2–3 in Ps. Sol. 17:37–40; Isa. 11:4 in Ps. Sol. 17:24, 35–36). 669 In 4QpIsa,a we find reference to Isaiah 10 and 11. See Maurya P. Horgam, PESHARIM: Qumran Interpretation of Biblical Books, CBQ MonographSer. 8 (Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979), pp. 70–86. 670 Cranfield, Romans, p. 746. Schreiner, Romans, p. 758. While, Joseph A. Fitzmyer translates it as ‘root’ (Romans, p. 707). Its reference to the messiah in Scripture is found in Isaiah 11:1–5; Revelation 5:5; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15. 671 Sirach 47:22 reads “and to David a root from his own family” (NRSV with Apcrypha); In 4QFlor 1:10–13 ‫ בית‬is brought out in relation to the royal house of David. The verses are a citation from 2Samuel 7:10–11a and refers to an eschatological community [George J. Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4Q Florilegium in the Jewish Context, SBL SuppSer.29 (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), pp. 129–144. Cf. Maurer, “ῥίζα,” TDNT vol.6 (1968, repr; Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1983), pp. 986–988]. 672 Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 707.

193

community of Israel. This eschatological community is realized through the messiah from the “shoot of Jesse.” Through him, the Jews and the Gentiles are brought together for God’s glory. The second part of the citation further describes the messianic ruler who would rise to rule the Gentiles. The Greek word ἀνιστάμενος is from the root word ἀνίστημι. It generally means “to rise,” “to waken” and “to erect.”673 There are two primary views in the reading of ἀνιστάμενος. One view suggests that ἀνιστάμενος is a direct reference to the resurrection of Christ, whereas the other view proposes that it has a general connotation of the rise of a ruler and it is not referring to a particular event. Those in favor of the latter view find strong arguments against reading ἀνιστάμενος as referring to the resurrection of Christ.674 The arguments are that ἀνίστημι can simply mean “arise,” hence, the coming of a ruler or “appear.” In its original context in Isaiah, ἀνιστάμενος is parallel to the rise of a king, but does not particularly refer to the resurrection of Christ. Such is the case of Exodus 1:8, where ἀνίστημι speaks of the rise of a ruler. The debate with regard to ἀνιστάμενος is discussed below with the aim of resolving the debate. The text of the LXX only paraphrases the Hebrew text. The LXX reads καὶ ὁ ἀνιστάμενος ἄρχειν ἐθνῶν (and the one rising to rule the nations) where the Hebrew text has ‫( אשׁר עמד לנס עמים‬he will stand as a banner for the people). In Isaiah 11:9, salvation applies only to Judah/Israel with the mention of the holy mountain of Yahweh. However, in Isaiah 11:10, the messiah becomes a banner for the people. This suggests that the messianic king will stand upon Zion as a signal to show the people where they are supposed to gather (cf. Isa. 18:3), in order to receive directions. In the ancient understanding, the people brought their gifts to the ruler in Zion, but now a shift occurs. Zion becomes a place where people of the world gather to receive directions and answers to their questions. Yet, there is no specific mention of what their questions are. The answer and directions do not come directly from Yahweh, but from the one anointed by Yahweh.675 This

673 Büchsel, “ἀνίστημι, ἐξανίστημι, ἀνάστασις, ἐξανάστασις,” TDNT, vol. 1, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: WM. B Eerdmans, 1964), pp. 368–373. 674 Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 747 n. 4, also cites 1 Maccabees 14:41 where ἀνίστημι stands for the rise of a royalty, as against the reference to resurrection. See also Schreiner, Romans, p. 758; J. Kremer, “ἀνάστασις, εως, ἡ,” EDNT, vol.1, ed. Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1990), p. 89. 675 Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12, trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), p. 482.

194

understanding of the ruler as a banner supports the first citation from Psalm 17:49 (LXX) where the psalmist praises God in the company of the Gentiles. In the literal rendering of the Hebrew text, the messianic aspect is more evident than in the LXX, but without a possible reference to the resurrection of Christ. Hence, a literal rendering of the Hebrew dismisses the possibility of any reference to the resurrection of Christ, whereas the LXX provides a catchword for creative interpretation within the context of Christ’s resurrection. There are many occasions in the New Testament where ἀνίστημι is employed to speak of resurrection, though the epistles of Paul generally employ ἐγείρω in referring to resurrection.676 In the epistles of Paul, Christ is interpreted frequently in relation to his resurrection. Similarly, the lordship of Christ is associated with his resurrection.677 This being the case, when the messianic interpretation of the Isaianic text is generally accepted, it would not be inappropriate to look at Paul’s use of Isaiah in Romans 15:12 from the perspective of the lordship of Jesus, associated with his resurrection. The reference to the “shoot” of Jesse in Romans 15:12 goes back to Romans 1:3–4, and even the expression ὁ ἀνιστάμενος (Rom. 15:12) echoes the opening of the epistle, ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν (Rom. 1:4) in the context of resurrection. In considering Romans 15:7–13 as a retrospect of the epistle, ὁ ἀνιστάμενος can be read in connection to the resurrection of Jesus. Daniel Kirk likewise proposes a literary and theological aspect that connects this text to the theme of resurrection. Kirk concludes that both theologically and in line with the broader context and contours of the epistle, reading resurrection in Romans 15:12 is appropriate. He contends that both texts (Rom. 1:1–5 and 15:7–12) are positioned at significant parts of the letter’s argument. Apart from it, the term “hope” appears in Romans 15:12–13. Hope is generally connected with “resurrection faith” and it frequently appears in this context in Romans.678

676 However, there are occasions when he uses ἀνίστημι for speaking of resurrection (Rom. 1:4; 6:5; 1Cor. 15:12, 13, 21, 42; 1Thess. 4:14, 16; Phil. 3:10; Eph. 5:14. It also appears frequently in the book of Acts: Acts. 2:24, 32; 3:26; 9:41; 13:33f; 17:3, 31). 677 Also, Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle, p. 245. 678 J. R. Daniel Kirk, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2008), pp. 51–55 esp. 51, 53 (The word “hope” in relation to resurrection occurs in the story of Abraham who exercises resurrection faith [Rom. 4:18]). It also occurs in Romans 5:2–5 where Paul brings out the eschatological end where believers would share in God’s glory. In Romans 8, the resurrection hope is spoken in terms of the bodily resurrection of Christ. In favor of the resurrection allusion is Robert Jewett, Romans. A Commentary, p. 896. Jewett also points to numerous conceptual connections between the opening section of the letter and

195

Nevertheless, the over-emphasis on the resurrection hermeneutic as Kirk’s position often amounts to, results in sidelining altogether the community-oriented nature of the discourse. Yet, this does not mean that the resurrection hermeneutic is to be totally dismissed. It is of vital importance as this event in the life of Christ provides the impetus to found a community that comprised both the Jews and the Gentiles. In line with the broader context, Leander Keck claims that Paul dismantles the “imperialistic messianism” of Isaiah and establishes its “universal religious/soteriological” theme by reading ἀνιστάμενος as referring to Christ’s resurrection.679 Similarly, Brendan Byrne suggests that in line with the credal formula in Romans 1:3–4, it is probable that an allusion to the risen Christ is intended in Romans 15:12.680 It is surprising that this same word is used for the coming of the ruler from the Davidic lineage. If the text is read as the prefiguration of the messiah from the “shoot of Jesse,” then one can probably interpret it as referring to the resurrection of Christ Jesus from the dead. However, it can still be argued that such a reading of the text removes it from its original context or even from within the context of Paul’s exhortation where communal concerns are paramount. Furthermore, the Greek word ἀνίστημι does not solely occur in the context of being raised from the dead, but it also occurs in the context of the appearing or the coming of a person.681 In this regard, it is also likely that ἀνίστημι in Romans 15:12 indicates a ruler coming to power, or one who would rule the cosmos. Nonetheless, in considering the possibility of the verbal, theological and literary aspects that allude to resurrection, we can conclude that in Romans 15:12 (Isa. 11:10), apart from the vivid reference to the Davidic ancestry of the messiah, the prophetic fulfillment of the resurrected Christ is adumbrated.682 This glorified resurrected Christ from the Davidic lineage makes known the salvation of God to both the Jews as well as the Gentiles. In the resurrected Christ, God is justified and both the Jews and the Gentiles as

679 680 681 682

196

Rom. 15 (see esp. pp. 96–116). See also, Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 850–853; Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, p. 387; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 880. Keck, “Christology, Soteriology, and the Praise of God (Romans 15:7–13),” p. 93. Referring to Christ’s resurrection is also Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 387; Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 850. Byrne, Romans, p. 432. Likewise, Ernst Käsemann points out that it refers to the risen and exalted Christ (Commentary on Romans, p. 387). Of prophets-Acts 3:22 (Deut. 18:15); of kings-Acts 7:18 (Ex. 1:8). Also, Wagner, Heralds of Good News, p. 319; Hafemann, “Eschatology and Ethics,” p. 186; Kirk, Unlocking Romans, pp. 54–55.

a believing community glorify God. This is potently expressed in the citations from Deuteronomy and Psalms (Rom. 15:10–11). Another Greek word that characterizes the ruler from the Davidic lineage is ἄρχειν from the root ἄρχω, which originally means “be first” or “begin,” and it is commonly translated as “rule.”683 In taking ἀνιστάμενος as referring to Christ’s resurrection, ἄρχειν can rightly stand for the lordship of Christ, the ruler over all, including the Gentiles. The lordship of the resurrected Christ allows the Gentiles to share in the praise along with the Jews. Following this line of interpretation, we have Ernst Käsemann who rightly observes that the accent in Romans 15:12 is on the infinitive ἄρχειν, indicating the universal lordship of the resurrected and exalted Christ. Christ came to rule over the cosmos and for this reason, he is the object of hope (Rom. 15:13; 8:20).684 Leander Keck also asserts that ἀνιστάμενος refers to the resurrection of Christ and so ἄρχειν stands for the universal lordship of Christ.685 Hence, in accordance with its original context in Isaiah 11:10, the citation in Romans 15:12 may be interpreted as indicating the eschatological coming of the messiah from the “shoot of Jesse” on whom the Gentiles will set their hope and who would rule the Gentiles.

IV.  The Citations: Structure and Progression The content of the catena of citations in Romans 15:9b–12 suggests that Paul is not randomly trying to fit different texts of Scripture together in order to justify his arguments. Rather, the citations point to a sequence of thought. The different aspects that point to a sequence of thought in Romans 15:9b–12 are discussed below.

A.  Introductory Formula Romans 15:9b Romans 15:10 Romans 15:11 Romans 15:12

καθὼς γέγραπται καὶ πάλιν λέγει καὶ πάλιν καὶ πάλιν Ἤσαϊας λέγει

Just as it is written And again it says And again And again Isaiah says

683 O. Merk, “ἄρχω,” EDNT, vol.1, ed. Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1990), p. 166. 684 Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, pp. 387. 685 Keck, “Christology, Soteriology, and the Praise of God (Romans 15:7–13),” p. 93.

197

As the chart shows, all four quotations in Romans 15:9b–12 begin with the usual Pauline customary introductory formula in opening a citation or a catena of citations. In this regard, Scott Hafemann observes Paul’s argument in verses 9b–12 as one long continuous argument, with four stages, the last three introduced with καὶ πάλιν λέγει (cf. the similar use of πάλιν in 1Cor. 3:20). He explains it by referring to “the switch in verbs from γράφω in verse 9b to λέγω in verses 10–12, the subsequent threefold repetition of καὶ πάλιν λέγει in verses 10–12, and the unpacking of the perfect tense in verse 9b (γέγραπται) by the present tenses in the introductory clause of verses 10–12 (λέγει).”686 Against this conclusion, Leander E. Keck claims that the introductory form “καὶ πάλιν” distinguishes the citations one from the other and they do not form a single “passage” as in Romans 3:10–18.687 However, Keck fails to explain the reason for asserting that καὶ πάλιν differentiates the citations. As indicated in the chart, the catena of citations opens with καθὼς γέγραπται in Romans 15:9b. This formula καθὼς γέγραπται indicates the authority of Scripture in the exhortation to the Jews and the Gentiles by linking the catena of citations to the exhortation in Romans 15:7–9a. All citations are linked with καὶ πάλιν, indicating the same subject is being discussed. For, as pointed out above, πάλιν is a marker to show similar nature. In view of the citation formula γέγραπται that opens the catena, the subject attached to λέγει would probably be ἡ γραφή. It is only in the last citation that the book from Scripture is specified as “Isaiah.”

B.  Logical Progression Most interpreters688 refer to the “Gentiles” as the word that links the citations. However, a few689 also include the praise language. It is true that the common element in all the citations is the catchword “Gentiles.” However, the way the citations are presented may indicate another crucial theme. Noteworthy is Paul’s appeal to three parts of the Scripture, viz., the Law, the Prophets and the Writings, along with the use of diverse praise vocabularies. The praise language is elucidated with parallel terms as given in the chart below. 686 Hafemann “Eschatology and Ethics,” p. 174. 687 Keck, “Christology, Soteriology, and the Praise of God (Romans 15:7–13),” p. 91. 688 Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 206; Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 705; Keck, “Christology, Soteriology, and the Praise of God (Romans 15:7–13),” p. 91; Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 272. 689 Douglas Moo makes a passing reference that the praise language does connect the citations, but he does not explicate how it binds the citations or even links the citations to the entire pericope (The Epistle to the Romans, p. 878).

198

Praise language Romans 15:7 εἰς δόξαν τοῦ θεοῦ (note that this verse is not a citation, added for reference to show the praise language that dominate in this text) Romans 15:9b τὰ δὲ ἔθνη ὑπὲρ ἐλέους δοξάσαι τὸν θεόν Parallel terms Romans 15:9b διὰ τοῦτο ἐξομολογήσομαί σοι ἐν ἔθνεσιν καὶ τῷ ὀνόματί σου ψαλῶ. Romans 15:10 εὐφράνθητε, ἔθνη, μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ Romans 15:11 καὶ ἐπαινεσάτωσαν αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ λαοί

Glory To glorify Praise Sing Rejoice Give praise

The first citation (Psalm 17:49 LXX) bears a note of confession in which the psalmist praises God among the Gentiles. Here, David exalts the name of God for delivering him from the hands of his enemies. The second citation (Deu. 32:43) is an invitation for the Gentiles to rejoice with Israel. The third citation (Ps. 116:1) emphasizes the universality of praise. The fourth citation (Isa. 11:10) speaks of the cause of the inclusion of the Gentiles and the reason for the Jews and the Gentiles for praising God. The references to the Davidic lineage and kingship in Psalm 17:49 (LXX) and Isaiah 11:10 in the first and the last citation of Romans 15:9b–12 provide the basis for the call to praise from Deuteronomy 32:43 and Psalm 116:1 (LXX). In Romans 15, the praise of David is prefigured in Christ who exalts the name of God for manifesting His power in and through his life. The resurrected Christ exalts the name of God among the nations. As a response to this exaltation, the Gentiles join the Jews in praising God, as indicated in the second citation from Deuteronomy 32:43. The inclusion of the Gentiles results in a common praise of the Jews and the Gentiles in the citation from Psalm 116:1 (LXX). As indicated, οἱ λαοί (the people) can be generalized as neither Jew nor Gentile. The psalm emphasizes the universal glorification of God. The cause for this universal praise is the messiah from the “shoot of Jesse” who will restore Israel and on whom the Gentiles will hope. The scriptural citations from the Writings, the Law and the Prophets demonstrate that the whole of Scripture bears witness to God’s faithfulness and mercy to the Jews and the Gentiles, resulting in a universal praise.

C.  Catena of Citations and its Connection to Romans 15:7–9a Scholars part ways in linking the citations with the preceding verses in the pericope. For some scholars, the catena of citations in Romans 15:9b–12 only supports verse 9a; that is, the catena is included to justify the inclusion of the Gentiles with the chosen people. For these scholars, Christ became a minister of circumcision 199

to bring salvation upon the Gentiles.690 Upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that the proposal cannot stand up to scrutiny. In verse 9a, it is the Gentiles who glorify God, whereas in verse 9b, it is not the Gentiles, but the psalmist who is praising God among the Gentiles. Therefore, in view of the connection between verses 8–9a (as indicated in the preceding chapter on the syntactical analysis) and their relation to verse seven, it is more probable that the catena of citations supports not just verse 9a, but also the entire exhortation from verses 7–13.691 This is because in the catena of citations, both the Jews and the Gentiles are included as members of the believing community united in common worship. Several interpreters object to the above view, and argue that Paul refers to a mixed group of Jews and Gentiles in the citation from Deuteronomy in Romans 15:10.692 Ernst Käsemann is right in suggesting that the catena of citations should be ascribed to Paul’s mission and his apostleship. Still, for him, this mission and apostleship is strictly from a Gentile standpoint, for he asserts that in Romans 15:9–12, there is no indication of the unity of the church in Rome, but the emphasis is on “the acceptance of the Gentiles as an eschatological miracle,” already indicated in Romans 9:30; 10:18ff. Hence, he concludes that the citations are directed pedagogically at the Gentiles.693 Yet, in his interpretation of Romans 15:12, Käsemann also notes that the participle ἀνιστάμενος points to the notion that Christ came not only to include the Gentiles, but to rule over the whole cosmos.694 Käsemann’s view that Romans 15:9–12 was not directed to the unity of the Christian communities in Rome, but its emphasis was on the Gentiles does not receive support from the context, the historical context as demonstrated in chapter two of this study, as well as the immediate context of the “strong” and the “weak.” In these contexts, as demonstrated, Paul’s call for acceptance is directed to both the Jews and the Gentiles. The gospel of Christ is not directed to a particular group, but it 690 Supporting this stand is Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 206; Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 272. Basing on the stand that the citations are from Gentile standpoint, Leander Keck also asserts that the rationale behind the catena of citations is the claim that through Christ the Gentiles are called to praise God [“Christology, Soteriology, and the Praise of God (Romans 15:7–13),” p. 93]. 691 See also, Cranfield, Romans, II: p. 745; Likewise, Moo and Morris assert that the series of quotations are meant to support vv. 8–9 and not simply v. 9a. They recognize the citations as witnessing the place of the Gentiles in God’s salvation (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans Morris, p. 876 The Epistle to the Romans, p. 505). 692 Luke Timothy Johnson notes that the catena of citations in 15:9b–12 brings out the notion of praising God in connection with Gentiles (Reading Romans, p. 219). 693 Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, pp. 384, 386. 694 Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, p. 387.

200

is broadened to include all. As Christ has accepted all and so the believers, both Jews and Gentiles, are obligated to accept one another (Rom. 15:1–7). Therefore, Paul’s gospel and mission cannot be solely interpreted from the standpoint of the Gentiles alone, but it must include both Jews and Gentiles. On the surface, only the citation from Deuteronomy explicitly mentions Jews and Gentiles praising God together. However, this does not mean that the other citations do not contain the theme, for, they all support the universality of worship. In the first citation, the psalmist praises God in the company of the nations for delivering him from the hands of his enemies and making him lord over the nations. The words of David are used as a prefiguration of the resurrected Christ, the exalted messiah. The citation from Deuteronomy balances the first citation. In witnessing the praise of God, the Gentiles respond by praising God with Israel. This is further supported with the citation from Psalm 116:1 (LXX) that emphasizes the universality of worship. Hence, both Jews and Gentiles are included in the common praise. The last citation from Isaiah 11:10 also speaks of the Davidic messiah on whom the Gentiles will hope. The theme of “mercy” and “faithfulness” also appears in the conclusion of Psalm 117. Though these themes are not cited, they appear in Romans 15:8–9a. Furthermore, the citations validate the section of Romans 15:7–9a, where there is a balance between the faithfulness of God to the Jews and the inclusion of the Gentiles. James Dunn furthers this argument by asserting that the quotations in Romans 15:9–12 elaborate the theme of Romans 15:8–9a, where the discussion of a particular issue in Romans 14:1–15:6 is broadened to embrace the overall theme of the letter; that is, the inclusion of the Gentiles within the community of God’s people.695 In Romans 15:7–9a, the case is made concerning the gospel about Christ, whose deeds benefit both Jews and Gentiles. Hence, the catena of citations supports the gospel and mission to both the Jews and the Gentiles. As Ross Wagner claims, the catena of citations supports Paul’s declaration in Romans 15:8–9a and Scripture testifies that the divine purpose of the messiah is to see a community of Jews and Gentiles glorifying God together. He also asserts that the first three citations employ worship and praise language, while the citation from Isaiah employs the language of “hope” to refer to the Gentile’s allegiance to Yahweh. The citations are linked to one another and to the entire pericope (Rom. 15:7–9a, 13). This “network of intertextual connections” reveals that God in Christ discloses His righteousness for both Jews and Gentiles.696

695 Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 848. 696 See Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, pp. 310–311.

201

The Davidic lineage of the messiah appears in Romans15:9b and 15:12. Christ comes as the promised messiah in restoring Israel in fulfillment of the promises to the fathers (Rom. 15:8) and in accordance with the prophets (Rom. 1:3–4). Through the promised messiah, both Israel and the nations benefit. Hence, both groups have a reason to praise God: the Jews because of God’s faithfulness and the Gentiles because of God’s mercy (Rom. 15:8–9a). This means both groups are united in worship. This common praise is presented as being prefigured from Deuteronomy and the Psalms. The cause of this praise is the messiah from the “shoot of Jesse,” who will restore Israel and on whom the Gentiles will hope. Hence, the citations further Paul’s argument on the deed of Christ to both the Jews and the Gentiles, i.e., faithfulness and mercy for which praise is expected.

V. Summary As seen above, Scripture for Paul bears witness to the gospel and his mission to the Jews and the Gentiles. He neither quotes Scripture randomly nor is unaware of its original context. The gospel he proclaims and his mission are presented in continuity with Scripture. Paul includes four citations, one each from Deuteronomy and Isaiah and two from Psalms. We find a thematic progression in the catena of citations in Romans 15:9b–12. The psalmist confesses God’s name among the nations, which Paul believes as pre-figuring the risen Christ in Romans 15:9b. The Gentiles, once foreigners and outside the covenant promise of God, now look up to the messiah who praises God in their midst (cf. Ps. 18:44–45 the nations submit to David). The risen Christ exalts the name of God among the Gentiles. In response, the Gentiles are invited to praise God along with the Jews in Romans 15:10 with a citation from Deuteronomy 32:43. In the Deuteronomic context, Israel is assured of its place in the covenantal promise and for such an assurance, “praise” is an appropriate response. The nations are to join the Jews for a common praise. This call for a common praise is further supported with the citation from Psalm 116:1 (LXX) in Romans 15:11. This citation refers to a universal praise and on this rests the messiah’s call to the Jews and the Gentiles. The identity of the messiah who invites the Gentiles to praise God along with the Jews is fundamental and is revealed in Romans 15:12 with a citation from Isaiah 11:10. This messiah who is linked back to the “shoot of Jesse,” would be the hope for the Gentiles. The ruler from the “shoot of Jesse” is prefigured in the resurrected Christ whose deed benefits both the Jews and the Gentiles. Therefore, both the Jews and the Gentiles have a christological reason to praise God.

202

Hence, the citations are not only connected to each other, but are interpreted within the context of the deed of Christ and they serve as support for Paul’s exhortation in Romans 15:7–9a. In this sense, they unpack the significance of the ministry of Christ to the Jews in his faithfulness to his promises and to the Gentiles in showing mercy. This, in turn supports the call for the Roman believers in Christ to accept one another on the basis that Christ has accepted everyone to the glory of God. Thus, having demonstrated the place of the catena of citations within the context of Paul’s call for acceptance in Romans 15:7–13, we now turn to the interpretive framework of the acceptance motif in the subsequent chapter.

203

Chapter Six: An Interpretive Framework of the Acceptance Motif in Romans 15:7–13 I. Introduction Having identified Romans 15:7–13 as an important pericope within its historical and social context, and having examined the syntax and the citations closely, we will develop an interpretive framework of the “acceptance motif ” in this chapter.

II.  Interpretive Framework From our analysis of Romans 15:7–13, we can draw out three aspects in our interpretation of the acceptance motif: acceptance and obligation, acceptance and redefining relationships, and acceptance and relational eschatology.

A.  Acceptance and Obligation Although the word “obligation” is not found in Romans 15:7–13, the idea is nevertheless present in Paul’s exhortation. This is seen principally from the fact that Paul’s call for acceptance is on the basis of what Christ did that affects both the Jews and the Gentiles, i.e., Christ accepted both the Jews and the Gentiles through his life, death and resurrection. Hence, they too have their obligations to accept one another. This may be developed along the following lines, and in this, we find the emphasis on reciprocity.697

1.  The Notion of Obligation in Romans In the Epistle to the Romans, there are a few explicit references to the notion of obligation.698 These references can be understood in relation to the Roman law of obligations. In the Roman society, the morality of obligation can be seen in the exposition of terms like officium (duty) and beneficium (gift-giving). There are texts that highlight the ethic of reciprocity involving the interchange of the acts 697 Richard P. Saller refers to the “ethic of reciprocity” in Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (1982; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 19. Mark Reasoner in his discussion on the “weak” and the “strong” brings out “obligation” as Paul’s solution to the controversy in Romans 14:1–15:13. He defines obligation as the “ethic of reciprocity,” a term that he borrows from R. P. Saller (The Strong and the Weak, p. 176). 698 Romans 1:14; 8:12; 11:35; 13:8; 15:1; 16:2.

205

of kindness, which is an important principle of obligation (Cicero, De Officiis 1. 20–23). Likewise, others emphasize obligation and gift-giving, where a return service becomes obligatory after an initial gift was received (Seneca, De Beneficiis 1.1.8–10). Apart from such exchange in the context of goods and services, relationships of obligations also existed on an interpersonal level, where one is indebted either in service or in relating to another individual and their social surroundings (Cicero, De Officiis 1. 33, 41). While it is likely that the obligation described is mainly in the context of the elite in Rome where exchanges occurred between people of equal status, nevertheless, it can function as well within the wider Roman society. Patronage was an important aspect for social relationships in Roman society; it is personal in nature and it defined relationships between people of unequal status.699 Apart from Roman society, scholars also detect patronage in the early Christian writings.700 Likewise, 1Clement 38.2 points to obligation within the church and employs the language of reciprocity. Hence, it is possible that there existed some form of reciprocity in the relationships within the early Christ believing communities. Given this understanding of obligation among believers in Christ, it is not impossible to consider Paul’s exhortations in Romans within such a setting. Paul discusses the notion of obligation both in the context of the believing communities and within the social sphere. Paul at the beginning of his epistle states that he is obligated to all (Rom. 1:14). Within the context of the Roman believers, Paul highlights the believer’s ethical orientation as an obligation toward one another. The believers are under obligation not to the flesh (Rom. 8:12), but they are obligated to God and to one another in the Spirit-led relationship as children of God (Rom. 8:13ff). The individual believer’s obligation to God as a response to God’s saving action is also highlighted in Romans 12:1–2, where the emphasis is on a witness that is pleasing to God. In the context of the believing community, members are reminded of the need to conduct themselves in humility (Rom. 12:3–21). Paul uses the body metaphor in order to show the inter-connectedness among the members. He stresses on the importance of all 699 For discussions on the notion of obligation in the Roman society, refer to Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, pp. 176–186. Reasoner discusses in detail the background of obligation and relates it to the “reciprocity ethic.” 700 Some examples are how John K. Chow applies patronage and “social-networks” to 1Corinthians [Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth, JSNTSup. 75 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992)]. G. W. Peterman applies social reciprocity to Philippians [Paul’s gift from Philippi: Conventions of Gift Exchange and Christian Giving, SNTSMS 92 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)].

206

the individual gifts, which equally contribute to the community. The service of all the individual members is not only directed to God, but also to the community. William Campbell also argues that Romans 12–15 emphasizes Paul’s argument with regard to the “legitimation and continuance of diversity” among the believing communities.701 He says, “the freedom for all groups of Christ-followers in Rome is safeguarded not by a theology concerning ‘indifferent things,’ but rather by the obligation to the weaker brother for whom Christ died” (Rom. 14:15).702 The obligations within the Christ believing communities are extended to the wider society. In relation to the wider social sphere, Paul emphasizes the fact that believers in Christ are accountable to it (Rom. 12:9–21; 13:8–10). Paul could have been aware of the previous disturbances among the Jewish communities in Rome, which resulted in the different warnings from the Roman authority, leading to expulsion. Therefore, Paul does not only portray the life of believers as an exclusive community, where only the followers of Christ live with one another, but also of life lived within the wider Roman society (Rom. 13:1–7). The believers in Rome are not only obligated to one another within the believing communities, but are also obligated to the Roman authorities. Paul stresses on the understanding that all authority is God’s appointment (Rom. 13:1) and in this context he is referring to the Roman imperial authority as instituted by God. This political authority is also a gift from God and so believers in Christ have the obligation to submit themselves to the governing authorities. Hence, the believers in Christ are called to be obedient and faithful citizens by paying their taxes (Rom. 13:5–7), for fulfilling this duty is also a fulfillment of the conduct to love their neighbors, as “love does no wrong to a neighbor” (Rom. 13:8–10).703

2.  Acceptance and Obligation in Romans 14:1–15:13 The notion of obligation is further developed in Romans 14–15 in the context of the believing communities. In his call to the Jew and Gentile to accept one another, Paul demonstrates the life of faith. This life, William Campbell observes is a “life of commitment rather than of vacuous freedom, of obligation to Christ and 701 Campbell, “The Addressees of Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” 186. See also “The Rule of Faith in Romans 12:1–15:13: The Obligation of Humble Obedience as the only Adequate Response to the Mercies of God,” Pauline Theology: Romans, eds. David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson, vol. III (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), pp. 277–278. 702 Campbell, “The Addressees of Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” p. 188. 703 For my discussions on obligations within a social context in Romans, I am indebted to Francis Watson’s public lecture on “The four spheres of the Christian life” at Trinity Theological College, Singapore on October 2, 2014.

207

to other humans.”704 In this study, the discussion on obligation within the Roman Christ believing communities fit Mark Reasoner’s application of obligation and ethic of reciprocity as Paul’s solution to the problems of the “weak” and the “strong.” Reasoner suggests that Paul used the social forces bound up in patronage for the communities and fits it with the love command. In this regard, Reasoner observes that in Romans 14:1–15:13, Paul’s argument presents a progression on the notion of obligation, which includes the “element of reciprocity.”705 However, I am also aware that the acceptance motif has an important place in Paul’s exhortation in Romans 15:7–13, hence this study will primarily consider Paul’s call for acceptance as an obligation for the believers on the basis of Christ’s acceptance of all. Paul begins with social obligations that the members owe to one another (Rom. 14:1–4; 14:13–15:3; 15:7). The “strong” are obligated to accept the “weak” (Rom. 14:1–3), and the “weak” are obligated not to judge the “strong,” neither the “strong” are to judge the “weak” (Rom. 14:3, 4, 13), because every individual believer has a distinct relation with God. This indicates that judging one another is taking the place of God as the judge (Rom. 14:4). It is to God alone that all believers are accountable. In their personal faith relationship, individuals are thankful for the act of Christ and fulfill their obligation toward the deity. This obligatory act, which is already practiced toward the deity, is used by Paul to bring the groups to perform it at the community level, where the members unite and glorify God together.706 Thus, the primary obligation in giving thanks and glory to God is accomplished in the present obligation of accepting one another within the believing communities in Rome. The present obligation of social harmony, according to Mark Reasoner, is fulfilled by “remembering the eschatological obligation to glorify God.”707 The obligation to give thanks and glory to God is on the basis of divine benefits through the deed of God in Christ (Rom. 6:12–8:39), and also with the thought of future benefits in the immediate life and the final state of

704 William S. Campbell, Unity and Diversity in Christ: Interpreting Paul in Context. Collected Essays (Eugene, Oregon: CASCADE Books, 2013), p. 61. 705 For discussion on the progression, see Mark Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, pp. 187–199. Gerd Theissen in his title The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1982), pp. 138–140, takes up the issues of obligation, especially the “love-Patriarchalism” in the context of Corinth, but he does not incorporate the ethic of reciprocity that we find in the Roman context. 706 For the line of argument in this section, see also Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, pp. 190–191. 707 Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, p. 191.

208

life. The obligatory gratitude occurs in hope for further benefactions, i.e., hope of return benefits.708 However, this obligation to glorify God cannot be accomplished by the superior attitude of the “strong” over the “weak” or in judging one another, but only in their coming together as a faith community. The “strong” are obligated to love and not to offend the “weak” (Rom. 14:13,15), for the “weak” also share a special relationship with Christ. The accountability to God is indicated in the first scriptural citation in Romans 14:11 and explicitly emphasized in Romans 14:12. The obligation in relation to this relationship of accountability is that none should pass judgment on the other believer, but accept one another, as all are accountable to God in Christ. In Romans 15:7–13, the emphasis on “common obligation”709 is indicated in the phrase προσλαμβάνεσθε ἀλλήλους (Rom. 15:7). Paul exhorts both groups on the importance of accepting one another. In the preceding chapters on the syntactical and semantic analysis, our hypothesis is that the act of Christ is extended to the Jews as well as the Gentiles. This activity through the saving work of God in Christ is presented as a basis for the obligation (Rom. 14:9; 15:3; 15:8–12). The primary obligation is to glorify God (Rom. 15:11) regardless of the differences of practices between “weak” and “strong.” Robert Jewett notes that the obligation to glorify God is not accomplished by the victory of the “strong” over the “weak,” but only when there is a peaceful coexistence between them.710 The obligation toward one another is based on the relationship between believers and Christ (Rom. 15:7). Hence, the relationship between believers and Christ impacts the relationship between members of the believing community. In this regard, καθώς should be read as causal. James Dunn asserts that “the righteousness of God denotes the fulfillment of his obligation to the people chosen by him to be His covenant partner.”711 Israel remained unfaithful, but this unfaithfulness in no way stands against the faithfulness of God to his promises to the fathers. Indeed, Paul does raise the question “has the word of God failed?” (Rom. 9:6). This question follows his exposition of God’s faithfulness and the identity of Israel in Romans 9–11. God is obligated towards Israel as a chosen race and the faithfulness of God to the promises to the fathers remains valid (Rom. 15:8). In fulfillment of the promises, God extends his mercy to the Gentiles by accepting 708 Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, pp. 193–194. 709 The phrase “common obligation” is used by Mark Reasoner in the exhortation of Paul in accepting one another (The Strong and the Weak, p. 194). 710 Robert Jewett, Christian Tolerance: Paul’s Message to the Modern Church (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), pp. 40–42. 711 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, p. 502.

209

them into the community of believers. Therefore, both the “Jews” and the “Gentiles” are obligated to accept one another on the basis of God’s faithfulness and mercy through the act of Christ (Rom. 15:8–9a). Paul’s call for acceptance in Romans 15:7 thus demands a common obligation. The practice of acceptance among the Roman believers fulfills the obligation to glorify God (Rom. 15:7b), since the basis for being obligated to accept one another is rooted in a divinehuman relationship (Rom. 15:7–13). This, then results in the redefinition of relationships.

B.  Acceptance and Redefining Relationship In the Pauline epistles, especially in Galatians, Romans and Corinthians, many Pauline discourses revolve around the issue of the relevance of particular Jewish religious practices. This is connected directly or indirectly to identity, especially with respect to the question whether non-Jews who are included into the covenant promises should adopt Jewish practices. In this regard, the Epistle to the Romans proffers the idea of an inclusive community. This entails the redefining of boundaries, which must not be construed as a call for renunciation of their old identities and roles. Instead, it is about redefining the believer’s relationship with God and fellow believers. This notion of redefining relationships will be explicated below.

1.  Redefining Boundaries The notion of an inclusive community of both Jews and Gentiles is especially indicated in Paul’s call for acceptance in Romans 15:7–13. In this call for acceptance, Paul urges the Jews and the Gentiles to be open to one another. Consequently, any exclusive Jewish claim to divine election is relativized. Moreover, the meaning of Israel in its strict sense as referring to an ancestor, land or a descent from the tribe of the patriarch is also enlarged upon (Acts 2:36; 7:41; Rom. 9:27; 2Cor. 3:7; Phil. 3:5; Heb. 8:8; Judith 6:2; 3Esdras 1:30).712 Such redefinition arises from the act of God in Christ. A brief analysis of Paul’s exhortation in relation to the identity of the believers would give us a clearer picture. In Romans 5–8 (esp. in chapter eight), the inclusive “we” (ἡμῶν) dominates. Paul states that “in Christ” and “in the spirit,” the Roman churches share a new identity, which is built on Israel’s understanding as a people chosen by God.

712 H. Kuhli, “ Ἰσραήλ,” EDNT, vol. II (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 202–204.

210

The new identity is emphasized with the use of diverse terms like υἱοί (Rom. 8:14,19); υἱοθεσία (Rom. 8:15,23); τέκνα θεοῦ (Rom. 8:16,21); οἱ ἀγαπῶντες τόν θεόν (Rom. 8:28); καλεῖν/κλητός (Rom. 8:28, 30); προγινώσκειν (Rom. 8:29); and ἐκλεκτοὶ θεοῦ (Rom. 8:33).713 However, Paul in Romans 9–11 constructs a negative identity of the Gentile recipients by referring to them as “outsiders” or as spectators, while Paul unfolds God’s plan for Israel (Rom. 9:1–11:10). Nevertheless, the Gentiles do not remain spectators for long, as Paul includes them in Romans 11:13–14 in a significant way. This positive identity is constructed on the basis of God’s mercy (Rom. 15:9a). In this regard, Ross Wagner’s view that Paul constructs such an identity of the Gentiles in order “to establish their identity anew on the sole basis of God’s mercy and to form in them a mindset–a way of thinking, feeling and acting–appropriate to their new, God-determined identity” is on target.714 Prior to Romans 9, Paul frequently refers to “Jew and Gentile,” but from Romans 9–11 there is a shift in the terminology to “Israel” (Rom. 9:6b). James Dunn argues that Paul is not trying to merge two distinct identities, “Jew and Gentile,” but through the shift in terminology to “Israel” Paul opens a “different possibility.” The term “Jew” or “Jews” represents an ethnic identifier or has a geographical connotation. It refers to Jewish people in order to distinguish them from the other nations. The term “Israel,” on the other hand, connotes an “insider” perspective, connected with the covenant. Dunn’s conclusion is that “Jew” is understood in relation to the land, whereas “Israel” is understood within the sphere of a believer’s relation to God. However, it is possible to include “Gentiles” within “Israel” and this is what Paul is attempting to do in Romans 9–11 with the shift in terminology.715 In the new identity, Israel is not defined in relation to physical descent, but in relation to the divine call. Καλεῶ (Rom. 9:6–29) is the key word for determining Israel’s identity.716 Such a definition is also taken up in Romans 11:28–29. The children of God are, therefore, the children of promise and not children of the flesh. Neither is election determined by works, but by God’s calling (Rom. 10–13).

713 J. Ross Wagner, ‘“Not from the Jews Only, but also from the Gentiles”: Mercy to the Nations in Romans 9–11,’ Between Gospel and Election (ed. Florian Wilk & J. Ross Wagner WUNT 257; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), p. 418. 714 Wagner, ‘“Not from the Jews Only, but also from the Gentiles,” p. 420. 715 Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, pp. 506–514. 716 See also Johann D. Kim, God, Israel, and the Gentiles. Rhetoric and Situation in Romans 9–11, SBL Study Series 176 (Atlanta: SBL, 2000), p. 126.

211

Clearly, the boundary of historical Israel is redefined and this arises from God’s salvific act in Christ. This redefined boundary is explained with the citation from Hosea, “I will call those who were not my people, ‘my people,’ and I will call her who was unloved, ‘my beloved’” (Rom. 9:25–26; Hos. 2:23; 1:10), and the analogy of the grafting of a wild olive shoot in Romans 11:17–21. The character of Israel also draws on the concept of the “remnant” of Israel in Romans 9:27–29 in which divine call does not exclude the remnant of historic Israel. Paul does not dismiss the notion of historic Israel as the recipient of God’s blessing and the vehicle of God’s saving purpose (Rom. 9:4–5). Indeed, the citation from Hosea and the analogy of the olive tree indicate that Israel is still very much the subject of the purpose of God, whose identity is now clarified as being defined by grace and faith. Hence, in defining the identity of Israel through the call of God, Paul does not deny the election of historic Israel, but redefines it,717 not by physical descent (Rom. 9:7–12), but through life in Christ. The life in Christ is not a label of identity, but it is a description of belonging for Israel and the other nations. Thus, the coming together of the Jews and the Gentiles remains an important dimension in Paul’s emphasis on the theme “in Christ.” Paul even states that the act of Christ actualizes a universal praise (Rom. 15:7–12). For Paul, the promises of God to the fathers are confirmed and actualized in Christ (Rom. 15:7–8). This act of faithfulness actualized in Christ opens up to the Gentiles, who through mercy praise God along with the Jews (Rom. 15:9–12). Paul proceeds to show how in this redefinition the promises of God to the fathers are not nullified. Paul believed that the covenant promises with Israel remain valid and he has frequently emphasized the priority of the Jews in Romans (Rom. 1:16; 2:9, 10; 3:9, 29; 9:24; 15:7). This priority remains because of God’s promises to their ancestors (Rom. 11:28–29). The inclusion of the Gentiles in no way nullifies God’s promises to Israel. As mentioned in chapter three of this study, if God’s promises are nullified, then the salvation to the Gentiles would have no guarantee. Thus, Paul in Romans 15:8–9a shows that God in Christ remains faithful to the promises to the fathers, but at the same time extends his mercy to the Gentiles, who look up to the Jewish messiah as a banner (Rom. 15:12). Thus, the divine act of God in Christ to the Jews and the Gentiles in accepting all redefines the boundary of Israel. This relationship becomes evident and is expressed in a community composed of believers who wanted to adhere to the Jewish way of life and those who wanted freedom from it. 717 As also, Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, pp. 510, 514.

212

In redefining the identity of the people of God as being linked to the life in Christ, Paul does not demand of both Jews and Gentiles the renunciation of their ethnic identities. In fact, the identity as people of God adds to the believer’s multiple identities and roles. To be sure, Paul does not directly use words like “multiple identities” and “roles” in relation to the believers in Christ. However, the idea that as a follower of Christ, believers continue to belong to the world and participate in the public and private spheres is conspicuous in the Epistle to the Romans. In Romans 12–13, Paul highlights the four spheres of the believers’ life: the individual sphere (12:1–2), the Christ believing communities (Rom. 12:3–13), the social sphere (Rom. 12:14–21; 13:8–10) and the political sphere (Rom. 13:1–3). A believer in Christ continues to belong to the world for he/she is neither removed out of the world nor set back into it.718 The notion of embracing multiple identities and roles is also emphasized in Paul’s call for acceptance in Romans 14–15. He asks neither parties or people groups to renounce their practices nor to judge the other. Instead, he calls for acceptance (Rom. 15:7). He exhorts the “strong” to accept the “weak in faith” (Rom. 14:1) and not to despise them (Rom. 1:3). Conversely, the “weak” are not to judge the “strong” (Rom. 14:10). For Paul “the one who observes the day does it for the Lord. The one who eats, eats for the Lord because he gives thanks to God, and the one who abstains from eating abstains for the Lord, and he gives thanks to God” (Rom. 14:6). He further adds to his exhortation by stating that the kingdom of God is not only food and drink, but also “righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17). These kingdom values can be visible only if the members of the believing communities live in harmony, despite their diverse practices and ethos. In accepting each other, they will be able to strengthen one another and grow together as a community of faith (Rom. 14:19; 15:2, 5, 7). This leads inexorably to the redefining of their relationships, not based on strict Jewish practices, but through the deed of Christ.

2.  Community-Oriented and Christian Faith The shift from an individualist to a community-oriented interpretation of Pauline theology is an important contribution since the onset of the sociological approach.719 On the question of community identity or interpreting Paul as a cultural critic, Daniel Boyarin rejects Paul’s universalism as naive, but at the same

718 I am indebted to Francis Watson for the insight on the four sphere of the believers’ life, from his public lecture at Trinity Theological College, Singapore on October 2, 2014. 719 This stands in contrast to Bultmannian existential reading of Paul.

213

time he also recognizes the dangers of insisting on Jewish “difference.”720 There is no doubt that Boyarin presents an intense and engaging reading of Paul. However, the danger in Boyarin’s interpretation is his conviction that Paul’s desire for an ideal universal society beyond difference and hierarchy is motivated by a Hellenistic desire for one, i.e., universal human essence.721 This combined with “Hebrew monotheism,” made Paul to interpret Christ as ushering sameness.722 The view that Paul’s system required the eradication of all human cultural specificities is not really convincing. Perhaps Boyarin comes up with this conclusion because he looks at Paul primarily through the lenses of Galatians 3:28. Taking into account the present pericope (Rom. 15:7–13), especially in considering identity and community, such an interpretation of Paul can sideline themes like accepting and accommodating one another. Paul is not asking the Roman believers to give up their practices or ethos. The “weak” are not asked to give up their practices, neither are the “strong” and the “weak” to judge one another, but the “strong” ought to bear with the “weak” (Rom. 14). Both groups are “to accept” one another on the basis that Christ accepted everyone (Rom. 15:1–7). Thus, we see here Paul’s call for acceptance of one another, which ultimately results in a universal glorification of God. In contrast, John Barclay offers an alternative perspective for reading Paul in a multicultural age. According to Barclay, Paul relativizes circumcision by claiming for “faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6), and he rightly states that faith and love are given shape in the life of a community (Gal. 5:13–6:10). Likewise, in the Roman churches, the distinction in food and drink does not define the communities, but Paul replaces them with “righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17). These principles are to have immediate impact in their common life as well as common meals (Rom. 14:1–15:6). Barclay believes that Paul’s allegorization of the Jewish particulars is not an attempt to create a “universal human essence” (contra Boyarin); instead it is to “enable an alternative form of community,” which could bridge divisions by “creating new patterns of common life.”723 In this sense, Paul relativizes “cultural specificities,” yet, Paul does not present the gospel as if it carries a whole new cultural package, designed to eradicate and replace all others. It is rather a cluster of values, focused in love, which 720 Boyarin, A Radical Jew, p. 6. 721 Boyarin, A Radical Jew, pp. 7–8. 722 Boyarin, A Radical Jew, pp. 9, 156. 723 John M. G. Barclay, “‘Neither Jew nor Greek’: Multiculturalism and the New Perspective on Paul,” Ethnicity and Bible, ed. Mark G. Brett, Biblical Interpretation Series. Vol. 19 (Leiden/New York/ Köln: E. J. Brill, 1996), p. 210.

214

enables the creation of a new community in which variant cultural traditions can be practiced. It applies to his exhortation on the practices and attitude of the “weak” and the “strong” in Romans 14–15. Some members with a Gentile origin of the Christ believing communities in Rome believed that freedom in Christ means they are not obligated to the Jewish law (Rom. 11:13–24; 14–15), supported by their understanding of their role and status in salvation history in relation to the Jews.724 This attitude made the “strong” or the Gentile believers think that they were superior to the believers who adhered to the Jewish way of life. Paul is able to defend the rights of the “weak.” He does not forbid the “weak” who wanted to uphold the Jewish ways of life, i.e., diet and days. Nevertheless, he also warns those believers in Christ who took pride in their tradition rather than in their common faith. Likewise, he warns the “strong” who practiced freedom from the Jewish ways of life, not to regard the Jewish law as incompatible with the Christian faith. Such attitude destroyed community harmony. Therefore, Paul discourages any form of superior and arrogant attitudes in his exhortation to “weak” and “strong” in Romans 14–15. By this, Paul was opposing the misconception of faith by the Jewish and Gentile believers in Rome. In fact, their superior and arrogant attitude contradicted their common faith, i.e., believing in Christ. Thus, in the redefined relationship, the common faith of the believers represented in their allegiance to God in Christ becomes the basis for unity and harmonious growth. The “faith” (πίστις) or “believing” (πιστεύειν) of the “weak” and the “strong”/the “Jews” and the “Gentiles” brings about division as well as unity (Rom. 14:1–15:13). The “weak” are presented as “weak in faith” because of their adherence to the Jewish practices and their ways of life (Rom. 14:1–2), i.e., to abstain from meat and wine and to observe special days. On the contrary, “believing” means one may eat everything (Rom. 14:2). This position in itself is justifiable, but when it gives way to division and differences, it becomes unjustifiable. Hence, in order for harmony to prevail, one’s faith should be practiced only “before God” (Rom. 14:22), for whatever is not from faith, is sin (Rom. 14:23). Common to the Jew and Gentile is “believing” (Rom. 15:13) in the act of God in Christ.725 The common belief in Christ strengthens their bond as a community. Therefore, in order to promote and appreciate their common identity in Christ, Paul admonishes against a judgmental and arrogant attitude, as it contradicts his call to accept one another as a community of faith. William Campbell remarks,

724 Campbell, Unity and Diversity in Christ: Interpreting Paul in Context, p. 98. 725 Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, p. 231.

215

“the lifestyle to which their faith commits them is not something about which to boast above other believers.”726 Thus, Paul is exhorting that if “believing” becomes the basis for unity, then the believers as a worshipping community experience joy, peace and abound in hope through the empowering of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 15:13). Being empowered by the Holy Spirit narrows the gap between the Jewish and the Gentile believers in their acceptance of one another. Paul relates this Spirit-led relationship to the common identity, which is built on the characteristic of Israel’s understanding as the people chosen by God. In their common identity in Christ, the place and the role of the Gentiles is revised in their empowerment by the Holy Spirit. Hence, Paul calls for a community of both the Jews and the Gentiles who glorify God for his faithfulness and mercy (Rom. 15:8–9a). Paul further supports this with the catena of citations in Romans 15:9b–12. Worship language predominates in this catena so that the relationships are redefined in the context of a community coming together in worship, with hope toward an eschatological glorification. In their coming together as a community, the believers strengthen one another and in such a gesture their hope abounds as they look forward to the eschaton. This takes us to final point on the notion that acceptance concerns relational eschatology.

C.  Acceptance and Relational Eschatology727 Eschatology literally refers to the “doctrine of the end,”728 that is, a life in the future, which is entirely a new state of reality.729 Early Christian eschatology primarily concerns death, afterlife, judgment and resurrection.730 However, eschatology in the Old Testament writings is defined as an ideal future with importance given to 726 Campbell, Unity and Diversity in Christ: Interpreting Paul in Context, p. 65. 727 The phrase “relational eschatology” is also employed by Jürgen Moltmann in the context of the Spirit (The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology (London: SCM Press, 1992), p. 134. 728 Donald E. Gowan, Eschatology in the Old Testament (2nd edn; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), p. 2. The envisioning of the ideal future appears primarily in Ezekiel 36:22–38, but there are also texts that promise the end of sin (Jer. 33:18); of war (Mic. 4:3); of human infirmity (Isa. 35:5–6), and of harming of any living thing (Isa. 11:9). David L. Peterson refers to it as the teachings about the “last things” [“Eschatology,” ABD, ed., David Noel Freedman, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), p. 575.] 729 Peterson, “Eschatology,” p. 575. 730 Moshe Kochavi, “Early Christian Eschatology,” ABD, ed., David Noel Freedman, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), p. 594.

216

Zion, but not necessarily the resurrection of the dead. The Old Testament eschatology is pictured in relation to the restoration of Israel and the reign of a righteous king whose governance would provide a platform both for Israel and all nations to live together in peace. Yet, the ideal future that is envisioned remains discontinued from the present state of affairs of the world.731 The Jewish eschatological vision provides a broader scope, especially in our treatment of Romans 15:7–13 within the framework of the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. According to Jürgen Moltmann, “Every relationship to another life involves the future of that life, the future of the reciprocal relationship into which one life enters with another.”732 The concept of “relational eschatology” may be introduced here, for it concerns the restoration of Israel, the truthfulness of God to His promises (Rom. 9–11; 15:8), and it concerns the future of the Gentiles, their place in the promise of salvation (Rom. 15:9–12). This ongoing relationship is built on the truthfulness and the mercy of God (Rom. 15:8–9a), and provides hope for future glorification. The Jews and the Gentiles, in their acceptance of one another worship God together, and their present worship anticipates the eschaton.

1.  The Eschatological Language of Hope Paul ends the pericope on the call for acceptance (Rom. 15:7–13) by emphasizing the notion of hope (Rom. 15:12b–13). An eschatological emphasis is clearly indicated in these concluding verses. Still, the question of how is eschatology linked to acceptance remains. The notion of “acceptance” provides hope, for it involves the future of a relationship between individuals, communities or groups. For Paul, accepting one another is not an end in itself. Instead, it empowers believers to continue in hope while building and nurturing this relationship in a meaningful direction. Such a hope is a move towards building a sense of connectedness between the Jews and the Gentiles through the Spirit empowered relationships. The believers remain part of the present world in which suffering and difficulties are inevitable (Rom. 5:3–5). Hence, in their coming together as a worshipping community, the believers strengthen one another and abound in hope as they look forward to the final glorification. Francis Watson observes that the concept of hope in Romans has a social significance, and it is developed in connection with the situation of the Roman 731 For discussions on the Old Testament eschatology, see Gowan, Eschatology in the Old Testament, pp. 1–3. For further discussions on Zion as the center of Old Testament eschatology, refer to Gowan, pp. 4–20. 732 Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, p. 134.

217

believers and Paul’s purpose of writing the epistle. Using Romans 5:1–11, Watson shows how the notion of hope binds together the different themes. It is connected to the preceding exhortation on the promise to Abraham (Rom. 4). To this, Romans 15 is seen as the answer. The purpose of the Scripture is to kindle hope (Rom. 15:4). Moreover, Paul prays that the Jewish and the Gentile believers in Rome may live in harmony and worship together (Rom. 15:5–6). The citations from the Jewish Scripture are included to emphasize God’s desire for the Jews and the Gentiles to worship together (Rom. 15:7–12). After this appeal, Paul’s prayer in verse 13 is that the believers may receive joy and peace through the God of hope and that in the power of the Holy Spirit they may continue to abound in hope. Verse 13 is not just an expression of a pious aspiration, but also a consequence of a united worship of the Jewish and the Gentile believers. Watson further provides an insightful sociological interpretation of why a shared worship and a common identity lead the Roman believers to abound in hope. He regards “hope” as a “subjective confidence” in the reality of the future salvation, to which the “community” and its “individual members” at Rome look forward. Such understanding of salvation is “unseen” (Rom. 8:24–25) and its reality either explicitly or implicitly is generally denied. It is a challenge for the believers to maintain “subjective confidence” in an “unseen” future reality in the context of everyday life realities, especially in the event of suffering and hostilities. Abraham is an example of possessing such “hope” where he has subjective confidence in the unseen (Rom. 4:18–22). The everyday reality and the hostility of the surrounding atmosphere can always be a threat to the believer’s hope for the future salvation. In such a context, and in order to maintain the subjective confidence in the reality of the future salvation, “hope requires social support.” This according to Watson is possible through the community’s coming together for fellowship “in hymns, praises, readings from Scripture (cf. Rom. 15:4), teachings and exhortations” (cf. Rom. 15:14). By participating in the communal worship, an individual believer is able to resist the threat from the realities of his/her surroundings. The believer’s abounding in hope is attributed to “the power of the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 15:13), whose dwelling place is the “Christian community.” Hence, it becomes clear that the united worship of the Jews and the Gentiles will lead to the increase in hope.733 733 Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, pp. 270–273. In his reading of 1Corinthians, Wayne A. Meeks also emphasizes how the community-oriented functions like psalms, hymns, teachings and admonitions contribute to the up-building of the believers in the community (1Cor. 14) [The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), p. 145].

218

We may add to Watson’s case by pointing out that the united worship is possible only through the acceptance of one another. In their willingness to accept one another and to put on an attitude of openness towards the “other,” the Jewish and Gentile believers are able to come together to a common table for meal fellowship and common worship. In this gesture of openness, they abound in hope. Hence, as Watson suggests, if “hope” is dependent on “social support,”734 then the acceptance of the Jewish and the Gentile believers in worship and meal fellowship would help the believers in Christ to encourage and strengthen one another and abound in hope (Rom. 15:13). To judge the other or to impose one’s views on the other (Rom. 14:3–4, 10–13) would disrupt communal relations, and hence, becomes a threat to the hope of universal praise. In bringing the language of hope at the end of his call for acceptance, Paul clearly intends to emphasize the continued progress and up-building as a community. It indicates that Paul does not stop with the initial experience of acceptance and coming together as a worshipping community. This initial experience is kept alive in the actual gathering of the believers in glorifying God, a platform where they strengthen and uplift one another. In doing so, the believers can abound in hope through the empowering of the Spirit. It is the Spirit that connects the believers and gives them the hope to a final consummation. Such a relational role of the Spirit especially makes sense in the context of the Jew-Gentile relationship. The relational role of the Spirit is also highlighted in other parts of the epistle, especially in Romans 8 where the fictive familial images give shape to the Spirit-guided intimate relationship both at the personal and the corporate level. In the Roman context, the Spirit-guided relationship narrows down the gap between the Jewish and the Gentile believers through their acceptance of one another. Hence, it is the Spirit that empowers the believers towards a sense of connectedness both at the individual and the corporate level of relationship. This Spirit-guided relationship provides relational freedom in relating to God and with fellow believers by redefining boundaries, not from the standpoint of historic Israel as the only people chosen by God, but in the saving work of God in Christ. The notion of hope is always linked to looking forward for something to come, and this eschatological connotation in relation to hope is indicated in Romans 15:13. The Holy Spirit empowers the believers in their present worship and in their coming together as a community of faith strengthens them to look forward to a hope for universal worship (Rom. 15:13). In Romans 15:13, we find hope connected with worship. Such connection also 734 Watson, Beyond the New Perspective, p. 273.

219

appears in Romans 5:2 where hope is connected with giving praise to God. This is a hope that is unseen (Rom. 8: 24–25) but kept alive in the believer’s acceptance of one another and in their common worship.

2.  Present Worship Anticipates Eschaton As mentioned in our discussion on the historical context, the Jews who returned from expulsion found themselves in a new situation where Gentiles formed the majority in the Christ believing communities. The Jews who returned wanted to retain their Jewish practices and ways of life, whereas the Gentiles who were in the majority did not strictly adhere to this. It is in such a tense setting that Paul exhorts the Roman believers to accept one another and this call for acceptance as indicated, is situated in a worship context. The worship of God is supported with citations from the Scripture (Rom. 15:9b–12), since instructions in the Scripture are meant to help the believers to persevere and abound in hope (Rom. 15:4). Paul again incorporates the notion of hope at the end of his exhortation on judgment and worship (Rom. 15:12–13). The reference to hope in Romans 15:12–13 can point to the eschatological worship in Romans 14:11 in the context of God’s judgment. A case may be made to demonstrate that, for Paul, the followers of Christ have their identity as the people of God in relation to their common gatherings. These gatherings are usually described with the term ἐκκλησία, (1Cor. 1:2; 2Cor. 1:1; 1Cor. 11:22; 1Thes. 2:14; 2Thes. 1:4).735 Another term, κοινωνία, is relevant here as it designates various community relationships that come into being through a common participation. Furthermore, it is reciprocal in nature (Rom. 15:27; 2Cor. 1:7; Gal. 6:6; Phil. 1:5; 4:15).736 Paul also uses different terms that point to the gathering of the people, which is actualized in their coming together in worship. What is of significance is that Paul maintains that the Scripture is also written for the nations (Rom. 15:4). The nations have so far failed to give glory and honor to God and have chosen to serve the creature rather than the creator (Rom. 1:21– 25). However, through Christ they turn to the living God (1Thess. 1:9) from their “distorted worship.” They are assemblies of people who through Christ become part of the story of belonging to God. The promises of God to the nations are confirmed through Christ (Gal. 3:14; Rom. 9:7–13) 735 For a general view on ἐκκλησία, see J. Roloff, “ἐκκλησία,” EDNT, vol. I (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 411–415. 736 J. Hainz, “κοινωνία,” EDNT, vol. II (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 303–305.

220

In the Pauline epistles, we do not find a full eschatological scenario, but only snippets. One of these may be found in Romans 14:1–15:13. This major section contains material that relates to the attitudes and practices of two groups within the community of the followers of Christ. The members of the community have differences of opinion over dietary laws and special days. In such a context, the members are likely to be judgmental towards one another. In this light, it becomes clear as to why Paul mentions the judgment of God and eschatological worship together. The notion of eschatological worship within the context of judgment is not a Pauline creation, but it also appears in the apocalyptic literature like 1Enoch. The theme of judgment runs throughout 1Enoch 37–71 and it is within the context of judgment that worship is also incorporated in 1Enoch 37–39, 60–62. Paul would not have directly depended on it, but such literatures could also have illuminated Paul’s eschatological hope, especially his exhortation on judgment and worship. In the context of the eschatological judgment, Paul brings in worship language. This is present in the citation from Isaiah 45:23 in Romans 14:11. The same citation also appears in Philippians 2:9–10, a Christological passage where the relationship of Jesus to God is expounded. Paul uses an Isaianic text to support his ethical exhortation. In it we find the concept of universal worship and this eschatological motif appears at the climax of a Christological passage. In Isaiah 45:23, Cyrus functions as God’s anointed agent in the time following the capture of Babylon. The worship spoken of is still a future event. Hence, keeping in mind the eschatological worship that is awaited in the prophetic text, it is not unreasonable to read eschatologically the worship of Christ as κύριος in Philippians.737 In Philippians 2, the emphasis is on the eschatological implication. This is also found in the use of Isaiah 45:23 within the context of Romans 14:1–15:13. However, in the context of Romans, the worship is said to occur on the “Day of Judgment.” Furthermore, in the context of Romans 14–15, Paul stresses on the present situation that leads to the eschaton. We will now examine the eschatological judgment and worship closely in the context of Paul’s citation of Isaiah 45:23 (LXX). Paul cites Isaiah 45:23 (LXX) when he takes up the internal conflicts within the Roman congregations (Rom. 14:1–15:13). In response to the differences of opinions over diet and days, Paul calls upon the “weak” and the “strong” to refrain from judging (Rom. 14:4) and to accept one another (Rom. 15:7), in order that the members of the Roman

737 For the discussion on Isaianic context, see L. Joseph Kreitzer, Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology. JSNTSupSer. 19 (Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1987), p. 117.

221

believing communities can worship and glorify God in one accord (Rom. 15:6). Within this framework of Paul’s exhortation, he brings Isaiah 45:23 (LXX), where the motifs of eschatological judgment and universal worship are present.

3.  Universal Worship The universal worship is brought out in Romans 15:6 and affirmed with the catena of citations in Romans 15:9b–12, with both the Jews and the Gentles included in worshipping God. As ἐξομολογέω in Romans 15:9b, a citation from Psalm 17:50 LXX, is considered a confessional praise that parallels other praise terms like δοξάζω, ψάλλω and αἰνέω in 15:6–11,738 so may ἐξομολογέω in 14:11 be regarded. This is supported by the fact that Romans 14:10–12 portrays the universal reverence as occurring before the βῆμα of God. The Greek word βῆμα is another way of referring to the “throne of God” (Dan. 7:9; 1Enoch 7:3). Within the Roman courtroom setting, βῆμα stands for the “portable official seat” which was used by the Roman officials in their responsibilities as a judge.739 The use of βῆμα in the context of judgment expresses God’s sovereign rule and the worship before the judgment seat of God expresses the notion of surrender of all to the authority of God. Hence, Paul exhorts the believing communities in Rome against judging one another, for judgment belongs to God as every believer will have to appear before the βῆμα (Rom. 14:10). In Romans 14–15, the “now and not yet” eschatological depiction of universal worship is apparent. The envisioning of the Jews and the Gentiles worshipping God is revealed in their acknowledgment of the divine act of God in Christ, but its final consummation is still awaited. The hope for the future is strengthened in their present coming together as a worshiping community. In Romans 14:11, there is interplay between the identity of κύριος and θεός. The text reads, “As I live, says the κύριος, that all knees will bow to me and all tongue will confess to θεῷ.” Paul in his epistles generally differentiates between κύριος and θεός, and such differentiation also applies to his usage in Romans. In Romans, κύριος generally refers to Christ740 and θεός refers to God.741 The debate remains with regard to the reference to κύριος and θεῷ in Romans 14. On the one hand, the divine formula of ζῶ ἐγώ λέγει κύριος suggests the notion that worship

738 See Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 809; Moo, Romans, p. 847; Cranfield, Romans, II: pp. 710–11. 739 B. Schaller, “βῆμα,” EDNT, vol. I (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 215–216. 740 Romans 1:7; 5:11; 6:11; 10:9; 15:6 (cf. 1:4; 4:24; 5:21; 6:23; 7:25; 8:39; 13:14). 741 Romans 1:7; 5:11; 6:11; 10:9; 15:6.

222

should be offered to YHWH alone.742 On the other hand, in Romans 14, there are a number of instances where κύριος is a reference to Χριστὸς (Rom. 14:9; 15:6). Some even suggest that the statement εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἔζησεν, ἵνα καὶ νεκρῶν καὶ ζώντων κυριεύσῃ in Romans 14:9 supports the thesis that κύριος in Romans 15:11 can refer to Christ.743 However, there are also instances where κύριος and θεός are used interchangeably in Romans. In Romans 11:1–4, both κύριος and θεός are used in the context of God as the subject, so also are κύριος and θεός used interchangeably in Romans 14:6. Furthermore, the use of τό βῆμα τοῦ θεοῦ in Romans 14:10 suggests that God will carry out the divine judgment.744 Thus, it is not impossible that Paul in Romans 14:11 used κύριος and θεός interchangeably as referring to God, though on most occasions Paul differentiates them. The point is that in Romans 14–15, Paul emphasizes the glorification of God. In Romans 15:6, Paul exhorts the “weak” and the “strong” that they may glorify God with one voice. Then, he goes on to state that Christ’s acceptance of all is for God’s glory (Rom. 15:6–7). The notion of giving glory to God is also highlighted in the scriptural citations (Rom. 15:9–11). All this gives Paul’s exhortation a theocentric tone. The notion of eschatological worship of YHWH is also envisioned in the Jewish Scripture,745 and has a universal connotation. The vision of worship of YHWH is related to the covenantal identity as we see in the encounter between God and Moses in Sinai in Exodus 19:3–6, and it indicates Israel’s sincere desire to do the will of YHWH. Israel is the chosen people of YHWH even before their arrival at Sinai, who are called to worship and sing praise to YHWH in holiness. This worship in relation to YHWH as the deliverer is related to the awaited blessings on the nation of Israel.746 The demand for holiness in the eschatological 742 Cranfield, Romans 9–16, p. 710; Dunn, Romans 9–16, p. 810; Moo, Romans, p. 848. 
 743 Mark A. Seifrid, “Romans,” p. 685. 
 744 There is no doubt that Paul also uses τό βῆμα τοῦ θεοῦ (14:10) interchangeably with τό βῆμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Corinthians 5:10). Or even in Romans 2:16, Paul mentions that God will judge through Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ on judgment day. 745 The vision of eschatological worship is attested in Isaiah (2:2–4; 18:7; 19:19–25; 23:18; 24:14–16; 25:6–8; 45:23; 56:1–8; 60:6–8; 66:18–24); Jeremiah (3:17; 4:1–2; 12:6; 16:19–20); Ezekiel (20:40–41); Joel (2:32); Micah (4:1–4); Zechariah 2:14–15; 8:20–22; 14:16); Malachi 1:11; 3:4). Similar theme also appears in Second Temple writings: Tobit (13:11; 14:6); Psalm of Solomon (17:29–32); 1Enoch (10:21–22; 48:5; 61:8–9; 62:9; 90:29–33). 746 Brooks Schramm, “Exodus 19 and its Christian Appropriation,” Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scripture, ed. Alice Ogden Bellis and Joel S. Kaminsky (SBL Symposium Series 8; Atlanta: SBL, 2000), pp. 336–43.

223

worship is required of both Israel and the Gentile nations who will join Israel in the worship of YHWH in Zion.747 The two important aspects in the Zion traditions are that Jerusalem is regarded as the dwelling place of YHWH, and YHWH is king in Jerusalem.748 Nevertheless, the most significant function of Zion is its role in eschatology where the restoration of Israel can be seen (Isa. 40:11; Jer. 23:3; 31:10; Ezek. 34:10–16) and the nations that were a constant distress to Israel would come to Jerusalem and will join Israel in worshipping YHWH and whose rule would be exercised among all nations. In this sense, Zion is the center of the universal worship.749 Isaiah envisions a Gentile priesthood in their involvement in the eschatological Jerusalem temple (Isa. 56:6; 66:21).750 Thus, we see that the scope of universality in the Old Testament prophetical writings include Israel and all nations or the Gentiles. The universal worship has an eschatological tone with Zion as the center for the gathering, with Israel’s worship of YHWH also extended to all nations. However, in some Jewish writings the scope of universalism is broadened to include the dead who joins in the eschatological worship (Ps. 22:27–29; cf. 1Enoch 90:33 [resurrection of the dead and the language of worship]). The universal eschatological worship is an acknowledgment of YHWH’s reign and authority. Because of Israel’s disobedience, YHWH expelled Israel from the holy land (2Kings 24:13–17; 2Chron. 36:15–21; Jer. 39:1–10) and from the temple in Jerusalem, which stood as a “symbol of the people’s election” as well as a reminder of YHWH’s faithfulness to His people.751 But the response of YHWH does not stop with rejection; instead, hope is pronounced in relation 747 Some texts from the Jewish Scripture and the second temple writings are: with regard to Israel’s restoration to holiness (Eze. 20:33–38; Zech. 14:20–21; Ps. of Solomon 17:26–27), Isaiah and Jeremiah envisions the restoration of the city of Jerusalem into a holy City (Isaiah 1:25–27; Jeremiah 3:17). The gentile nations are also required to be holy by renouncing idolatries (Jer. 16:19–20) and to acknowledge YHWH (Isa. 45:21). 748 Tan, The Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus, pp. 26–27. 749 Tan, The Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus, pp. 28–30 (For a detailed reading refer to pp. 23–51). Jerusalem becomes the focal point for religious pilgrimages to worship YHWH during the Jewish festivals (Is. 66:23; Zech. 2:1–5), and an occasion for bringing their holy offerings (1Kg. 10, the story of queen Sheba). 750 Ezekiel 44:9 forbid alien involvement. There are also texts where the scope of universality is extended beyond the living human beings to include the dead (Ps. 22:27–29). 751 Theologically it is interpreted as rejection of Israel by YHWH (Isa. 1:11–15; Zeph. 1:4–6; Mal. 1:6–10) because she violated the covenant (Jer. 25:4–11; Eze. 12:1–28) [Ralph W. Klein, Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), pp. 1–8].

224

to the renewal of his covenant (Jer. 31:31–33; Ezek. 16:30–33; Hos. 2:23), where the eschatological reign of YHWH for Israel would mean restoration. Thus, the universal worship is an acknowledgment of the eschatological reign of YHWH over Israel and all the nations.752 In Romans 15:1–13, Paul makes no explicit reference to the judgment of God, but we find the reference to “hope.” As indicated, the notion of “hope” points to the eschaton. Paul in Romans 15:7 mentions the salvific work of God in Christ, which extends to all without distinctions as Jew and Gentile. The hope for the Jews and the Gentiles glorifying God together is brought out in the catena of citations in Romans 15:9b–12. It reflects a community in a universal worship of God, where the Gentiles join the Jews in glorifying God. In their coming together to worship and glorify God, the believers are able to strengthen one another, and in such gesture they abound in hope, a hope that anticipates the eschatological reality. Thus, from the above discussions on acceptance and relational eschatology, we can conclude that the notion of hope in the context of praise language dovetails with the notion of an eschatological universal worship.

III. Summary As a way of summary, we can first point out that acceptance calls for obligation. It is built on the basis of the deed of Christ who accepted both the Jews and the Gentiles. On this basis, believers also have the obligation towards one another. This obligation takes place in the believers’ coming together and accepting one another. Second, acceptance gives a new meaning to relationships. It redefines boundaries making possible an identity that is built through God’s faithfulness to His promises to the fathers and His mercy. The redefined relationship becomes visible in the actual worship of the Jews and the Gentiles in one accord. Third, acceptance happens and develops in the context of a relational eschatology. The initial experience of the redefined relationship is not an end in itself, but it develops in the believers coming together, which provides hope for the future glorification of God. It is a hope that is unseen, and as suggested, this “subjective confidence” requires social support. In the believers coming together, they strengthen one another and abound in hope only through the empowering of the Spirit.

752 Over Israel (Eze. 20:33–44; Joel 2:28–32); all nations (Isa. 2:1–4; 66:22–24; Jer. 12:14– 16; Zeph. 2:11; 3:9; Zech. 14:9).

225

Chapter Seven: Conclusion I.  Our Findings from the Study In chapter one, this study takes sides with those scholars who treat Romans as addressing a particular situation, where differences arose among the members of the Christ believing communities, after the return of the Jewish believers in Christ expelled by Claudius. This is discussed in detail in chapter two under the historical context. After the death of Claudius, the Jews and the Jewish believers in Christ who were expelled in AD 49 started returning to their communities in Rome, and upon their arrival the Jewish believers in Christ encountered a new situation. The followers of Christ no longer gathered in the synagogues, but in private homes, and these home-gatherings were largely Gentile dominated. By then, the Roman believers in Christ were treating Jewish practices with some liberty. As a result, the law-abiding Jewish believers in Christ who had returned found it difficult to fit into these communities. Adding to their plight was also the change in leadership, what once belonged to them was in the hands of the Gentile believers in Christ, who were the majority. Consequently, the changes within the structure and the practices or the ways of worship in the Christ believing communities led to tension among the members. It is to such communities that Paul addresses in his Epistle to the Romans. Paul’s exhortation to the “weak” and the “strong”/ Jew and Gentile (Rom. 14–15) to accept one another fits into such a background. With regard to the function of the pericope, chapter three of this study argues that apart from summing up the exhortation on the “weak” and the “strong” in Romans 14:1–15:6, Romans 15:7–13 also reiterates some of the important themes from the entire epistle. This does not mean that I regard Romans 15:7–13 as the interpretive key to Romans. Instead, the study seeks only to demonstrate the critical importance of the pericope, especially in its contextual placement. The thematic parallels between Romans 15:7–13 and the epistle as a whole shed light on the relation between the pericope and the entire epistle. Furthermore, the key themes from the entire epistle strengthen Paul’s call for acceptance in Romans 15:7–13. The deed of Christ forms the basis for Paul’s call for acceptance and this is discussed in chapter four of this study. As Christ has accepted everyone so also the believers in Rome comprising both the Jews and the Gentiles are to accept one another. Christ came from the Jewish race in order to confirm the truthfulness of God to his promises to the fathers and in order that the Gentiles might also 227

glorify God for His mercy (Rom. 15:8–9a). Thus, the theme of God’s faithfulness, mercy and promise reflected throughout the epistle appears in Romans 15:8–9a. On the one hand, this was probably Paul’s way of reminding the Gentile believers who were a majority at Rome that the Jews had a special place in relation to God because of His promises to the fathers. On the other hand, the Jewish believers were to accept the Gentiles for they are also the beneficiaries of God’s salvific act in Christ through mercy, and they are to glorify God with the Jews for His mercy. Paul further justifies this universally applicable gospel message with a catena of citations from Deuteronomy, Psalms and Isaiah, and this is examined in chapter five of this study. Paul incorporates four citations from the major sections of the Scripture-the Law, the Prophets and the Writings, in order to show that the universal gospel he proclaims is amply rooted in it. I argued that the citations from Psalms, Deuteronomy and Isaiah are not brought together randomly, but follow a logical progression. This logical progression reveals his arguments. In supporting his exhortation that Christ has accepted both the Jews and the Gentiles, Paul brings the citation from Psalm 17:49 (LXX) to highlight the praise of God among the Gentiles. The Gentiles respond to this praise and glorify God together with the Jews in the citation from Deuteronomy 32:43. This leads to the universal praise to the glory of God (citation from Ps. 116:1 LXX) as both the Jews and the Gentiles have a reason to praise God because of the messiah (citation from Isa. 11:10). In chapter six of this study, Paul’s call for acceptance is given in the context of worship and meal fellowship. In the early church, worship and meal fellowship were closely connected and on most occasions they occurred simultaneously. Hence, this study utilizes this context as the interpretive framework for the acceptance motif in Romans. The results may be summarized as follows: First, acceptance demands obligation. It is reciprocal by nature for the believers are called to live out what Christ himself practiced. While there is no usage of the term obligation in Romans 15:7–13, the concept is found throughout Romans, for example, in Romans 15:7. The basis of obligation-of acceptance-is not being Jew or Gentile, but the deed of Christ, i.e., his life, death and resurrection that justifies all through faith. Second, acceptance redefines and transforms relationships. What is envisaged is an inclusive community that makes demands of the believers to redefine their boundaries. This new relationship is not based exclusively on what constituted historic Israel, but Israel in relation to the divine call. This identity is possible only through God’s faithfulness to His promises to the fathers and His mercy. The redefined relationship is to be evident in actual worship in the context of 228

meal gathering. The coming together of the Jews and the Gentiles is actualized through Christ, and their coming together is for the glory of God. However, this redefined relationship does not entail the renunciation of their identities as Jew and Gentile. Such identities continue to be maintained, and their roles in the wider sphere of society are not negated, yet, they participate in it in relation to their service of God as believers in Christ. Third, acceptance assumes a relational eschatology. The redefined relationship does not stop with the initial experience, but it continues beyond the present. Built on God’s faithfulness and mercy, it provides hope for the future glorification of God. This depiction of the eschatological worship of God in Paul’s exhortation in Romans 15:7–13 is grounded in the Jewish Scripture that envisions the nations joining the Jews in praising God. In other words, Israel’s worship of YHWH is extended to all nations. Paul’s call for acceptance in a common worship ends with the notion of hope, what Watson calls “subjective confidence,” that while unseen, requires social support. Hence, the believers’ coming together helps them in strengthening one another and to overcome the trials and hardships in the present life. This relationship can progress and abound in hope only through the empowering of the Spirit. In accepting one another and worshipping God together, the believers look forward to the final judgment, which in Romans is depicted as taking place in the context of worship.

II.  Research Results for the Churches in India Paul articulated the gospel of Christ in ways that were relevant to the church in Rome. Now the question is what, if anything does the acceptance motif in Romans 15:7–13 have to say to the churches in India. There is no doubt that the question of application is a large and complex, but necessary task that deserves careful attention. The focus of my dissertation has been to develop the historical, ecclesial, syntactical and intertextual basis for the significance of Paul’s acceptance motif, and not the contextualization of the motif in contemporary society. Still, there are a number of general areas that can be identified for an interpretation of the acceptance motif in an Indian setting for future directions. Paul’s exhortation on acceptance in the context of the Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ becomes relevant in a context like India with her diverse cultures, faith traditions and ethnic groups. While such diversity provides an opportunity to appreciate, respect and learn from one another, it also has resulted in being over-protective of one’s group and identity at the expense of others. Today in India instead of celebrating our diversities, there is also a tendency to be suspicious of “the other.” Our mistrust, including ecclesial settings, at times stops 229

us from being open and accepting of those who do not belong to our respective faith community or ethic group. In fact, this mistrust is at the center of many of the conflicts, even atrocities that erupt every once in a while in society, and at times even within churches. The long history of ethnocentrism within the various ethnic groups in India, so also the different tribes, and castes has created stereotype images hindering open and true relationships among the different ethnic groups and communities. Such stereotype images of “the other” are also visible in the life of the church among diverse ethnic Christian groups, different castes and also among different Christian denominations. The division and mistrust hinders the growth of the Christians as a community of faith and undermines the role of the churches as a witnessing community. In this context, Paul’s call for acceptance provides Christians as individuals and the church as an institution in India with a model of appreciation and obligation toward “the other,” an opportunity to redefine and transform relationships, and hope for a better future “life together.” First, as seen from our study, both the Jewish and the Gentile believers in Christ are obligated to accept one another as Christ also accepted both groups in order that God might be glorified. This understanding of acceptance as obligation becomes relevant in the ecclesial context in India. In a context of diverse denominations, diverse caste groups that comprise a community, relational building and transformation become possible only when the Christians or members in a particular church are open to accept and acknowledge the other members. The different denominations in India can create a common platform for dialogues and discussions on issues, and in doing so, can build and develop their relationships on the basis that Christ has also accepted everyone. Paul’s call for acceptance as obligation in a context that composed of both the Jews and the Gentiles in Christ believing communities in Rome is a challenge for the Indian churches where the members belong to different ethnic groups and castes. As a starting point, it is a call for members belonging to the upper caste to accept the members from the lower caste or to accept and acknowledge the Dalits or to accept the indigenous ethnic groups outside the caste system as members of the family of God. Second, as mentioned, in accepting one another, relationships are redefined and transformed. Transformation might take place in inclusive communities, like in Rome with Jews and Gentiles coming together for common worship. According to Paul, such a community is actualized in Christ. Such exhortation on accepting one another and redefining boundaries has a decisive implication for a caste driven and multi-ethnic society. Many a times in our multi-ethnic/racial 230

context instead of seeing the beauty in the diversity of distinct groups with their particular traditions, cultures and values, we are building walls. The problem of being divided on the basis of race and ethnicity continue to exist in many parts of India. For example, atrocities against the people from Northeast India by mainland Indians are a common experience for many Northeast Indians residing or travelling outside their home state. These atrocities prevail at workplaces, educational institutions, in public places, as well as in the private sphere. But also people from mainland India experience atrocities in Northeast India. The churches in mainland India or the churches in Northeast India many a times remain silent to this issue. Paul’s exhortation regarding acceptance is a message to the churches to create platforms for inter-ethnic, inter-regional, inter-faith and intra-faith efforts and participation to reflect on the social evils, injustices and conflicts and to build a just community and restore life enhancing and transformative relationships. Third, as indicated, the redefined relationship according to Paul does not stop with the initial gesture of accepting one another, but it is an ongoing process where the believers build up one another and grow in their coming together as a worshipping community. The church might become a space where people divided by societal and traditional conventions grow together. Such an understanding of acceptance and growing together as a community of faith needs to be practiced intentionally and in a sustainable manner if the churches in India are to be a witnessing community in the context of religious plurality. Being in the community of believers, i.e., open and accepting of one another, strengthens the members to abound in hope and it gives them confidence to nurture and build relationships that might reflect and anticipate the final glorification. However, we cannot fully blame the churches in India for being silent on many issues as the churches for long is seen as an alien religion that entered the native land, with the colonial powers. Nevertheless, the church in India as an institution needs to go beyond its ethnic, denominational, ritual and doctrinal differences and address the atrocities against the minority groups. It needs to create awareness among its members on the importance of accepting and respecting people from all ethnic groups. One of the challenges for Christians in India is to acknowledge multiple identities and roles. Believers in Christ cannot be exclusively Christians in their personal relationship with God and ignore the community. As it can be learned from Paul, Christian faith does not draw away individual believers from the faith community of believers, the wider sphere of the society or from their own culture and traditions, but it demands its members to participate in a different way. Consisted with Paul’s call for acceptance, 231

our multiple identities and roles would continue to persist in life even after we become Christians, but it would be utilized for the service and the glory of God and for “the whole inhabited world.” An open and accepting church both as community of the faithful and as an institution can be a model of transformation and hope. The churches in India can draw insights from Paul’s exhortation of acceptance, for at the heart of it is the notion of relationality. Such a relationship recognizes “the other” and is expressed in openness, an openness to accept “the other,” and strengthen one another as a witnessing community. Christian faith demands of us to bring people together who are willing and able to affirm their multiple identities without excluding “the other.” If the church in India can transcend the boundaries of ethnic groups, castes and denominations, and establish a common platform to discuss common issues, this itself will be a witness for it is their action of coming together by broadening the narrow understanding of their walls, which would speak louder than any proclamation. Every time a border is crossed and a bridge is built, Christians in India get another opportunity to critique the past built walls and through the guidance of the Spirit, to move towards creating space for openness, and be a witnessing community to the transformative power of God in the world. Instead of seeing the diverse ethnic groups, denominations and doctrines as the dividing line between individuals and groups, these diversities and the church itself can be a meeting point from where we build bridges and grow together in respect and solidarity. In this way, Paul’s call for acceptance can be manifested in the life of the Indian churches, which itself will be a witness both to the wider world, and to the glory of God.

232

Bibliography I.  Ancient Texts and Translations Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1977. Dio Cassius. Roman History. Translated by Ernest Cary. 9 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1914–1927. Josephus. Translated by H. St. J. Thackery et al. 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–65. Novum Testamentum Graece, NA 27. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996. Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson et al. 10 vols. & 2 supps. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929–62. Septuaginta, Rahlfs-Hanhart. NA: Hendrickson publishers, 2007. Suetonius. Translated by J. C. Rolfe. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997–98. The Apostolic Fathers. Translated by Kirsopp Lake. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1912–1913.

II.  Secondary Sources Achtemeier, Paul J. Romans. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985. Allen, Leslie C. Psalms 101–150. WBC 21. Waco, Texas: Wordbooks, 1983. Anderson, A. A. The Book of Psalms. 2vols. New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1972. Archer, Gleason L. & Gregory D. Chirichigno. Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983. Aus, Roger D. “Paul’s Travel Plans to Spain and the ‘Full Number of the Gentiles’ of Rom. XI 25.” Novum Testamentum 21/3 (1979): pp. 232–262. Baldwin, Barry. Suetonius. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hokkert, 1983. Balz, Horst. “ψάλλω Psallo Sing; Sing Praise.” EDNT. Edited by Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, vol. 3. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1993, pp. 495–496. Banks, Robert J. Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in their Historical Setting. Grand Rapids, MI: WM B. Eerdmans, 1980. Barclay, John M. G. ‘“Do we undermine the Law?”: A Study of Romans 14:1–15:6.’ Paul and the Mosaic Law. Edited by James D. G. Dunn. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1996, pp. 287–308. 233

Barclay, John M. G. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE). Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996. Barclay, John, M. G. “‘Neither Jew nor Greek’: Multiculturalism and the New Perspective on Paul,” Ethnicity and Bible. Edited by Mark G. Brett. Biblical Interpretation Series. Vol. 19. Leiden/New York/ Köln: E. J. Brill, 1996, pp. 198–214. Barrett, C. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998. Barrett, C. K. The Epistle to the Romans. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1957. Baur, Ferdinand Christian. Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ. His Life and Work, his Epistles and his Doctrine. Translated by Allan Menzies and Edited by Eduard Zeller, vol. I. 1876. Reprint, Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003. Beker, J. C. “The Faithfulness of God and the Priority of Israel in Paul’s Letter to the Romans.” The Romans Debate. Revised and expanded edition, Edited by Karl Paul Donfried. 1977. Reprint, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1991, pp. 327–332. Bell Richard H, Provoked to Jealousy: The Origin and the Purpose of the Jealousy Motif in Romans 9–11. WUNT. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1994. Benko, Stephen. “The Edict of Claudius of AD49 and the Instigator Chrestus.” Theologische Zeitschrift 25 (1969): pp. 406–418. Beyer. “διακονέω, διακονία, διάκονος.” TDNT. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Edited by Gerhard Kittel, vol. II. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1964, pp. 81–93. Biddle, Mark E. Deuteronomy. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys, 2003. Black, Matthew. Romans. London: Oliphants, 1973. Blue, Brandley. “Acts and the House Church.” The Book of Acts in its Greco-Roman Setting. Edited by David W. J. Gill and Conrad Gempf, vol. 1–2 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 119–222. Boers, Hendrikus. Christ in the Letters of Paul. In place of a Christology. BZNW 140, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter: 2006. Boers, Hendrikus. The Justification of the Gentiles: Paul’s Letters to the Galatians and Romans. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994. Bornkamm, Günther. “The Letter to the Romans as Paul’s Last Will and Testament.” The Romans Debate. Revised and Expanded Edition. Edited by Karl Paul Donfried. 1977. Reprint, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1991, pp. 16–28. Bornkamm, Gunther. Paul. London: Hodder Stoughton, 1971.

234

Boyarin, Daniel. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Brandle, Rudolf & Ekkehard W. Stegemann. “The Formation of the First ‘Christian Congregations’ in Rome in the Context of the Jewish Congregations.” Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome. Edited by K. P. Donfried & P. Richardson. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1998, pp. 117–127. Bratcher, Robert G. & William D. Reyburn. A Handbook on Psalms. New York: UBS, 1991. Briggs, Charles Augustus & Emilie Grace Briggs. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms. ICC, 2vols. Edinburgh: T & T. Clark, 1987. Broadhead, Edwin K. Jewish ways of following Jesus: Redrawing the Religious Map of Antiquity. WUNT 266. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Brooke, George J. Exegesis at Qumran: 4Q Florilegium in the Jewish Context. SBL SuppSer.29. Atlanta: SBL, 2006. Brown, Raymond E. & John P. Meier. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity. New York: Paulist, 1983. Bruce, F. F. “Christianity under Claudius.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 44 (1962): pp. 309–326. Bruce, F. F. The Acts of the Apostles. Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. 3rd edition. Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans, 1990. Brueggemann, Walter. Deuteronomy. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001. Brueggemann, Walter. Isaiah 1–39. Louisville, KT: Westminster John Knox Press 1998. Büchsel, “ἀνίστημι, ἐξανίστημι, ἀνάστασις, ἐξανάστασις.” TDNT, vol. I, Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Grand Rapids: WM. B Eerdmans, 1964, pp. 368–373. Bultmann, Rudolf. “ἔλεος, ἐλεέω, ἐλεήμων, ἐλεημοσύνη, ἀνέλεος, ἀνεήμων.” TDNT, Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Edited by Gerhard Kittel, vol. II. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1964, pp. 477–487. Bultmann, Rudolf. “ἐλπίς, ἐλπίζω, ἀπ προελπίζω.” TDNT, Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Edited by Gerhard Kittel, vol. II. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1964, pp. 517–527. Burton, Ernest De Witt. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1909. Byrne, Brendan. Romans. SacPag, Vol. 6. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996. Calvin, John. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians. Translated by Ross Mackenzie. 1972. Reprint, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1961. 235

Campbell, Douglas A. “The Meaning of δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ in Romans: An Intertextual Suggestion.” As it is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter & Christopher D. Stanley. SBL SymposiumSer. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008, pp. 189–211. Campbell, William S. “Romans III as Key to the Structure and Thought of the Letter,” NovT 23 (1981): pp. 22–40. Campbell, William S. “The Addressees of Paul’s Letter to the Romans: Assemblies of Paul’s Letter and Synagogues?” Between Gospel and Election. Explorations in the Interpretation of Romans 9–11. Edited by Florian Wilk and Ross Wagner, WUNT 257. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010, pp. 171–195. Campbell, William S. “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.” Pauline Theology: Romans. Edited by David M. Hay and E. Elizabeth Johnson, vol. 3. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995, pp. 259–286. Campbell, William S. Paul’s Gospel in an Intercultural Context: Jew and Gentile in the Letter to the Romans. Berlin: Peter Lang, 1992. Campbell, William S. Unity and Diversity in Christ: Interpreting Paul in Context. Collected Essays. Eugene, Oregon: CASCADE Books, 2013. Chae, Daniel J-S. Paul as Apostle to the Gentiles: His Apostolic Self-Awareness and its Influence on the Soteriological Argument in Romans. Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 1997. Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. Chow, John K. Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth. JSNTSup. 75. Sheffield: JSOT, 1992. Christensen, Daune L. Deuteronomy 21:10–34:12, WBC. Nashville: Thomas Nelson publishers, 2002. Chrysostom, John. “Homily XXV” “Homily XXVI” “Homily XXVII” “Homily XXVIII,” and “Homily XXXII.” The Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans. Edited by Philip Schoff. Edinburgh: T & T Clark & Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1989. Cohen, Shaye J. D. “‘Those who say they are Jews and are not’: How do you know a Jew in Antiquity when you see one?” Diaspora in Antiquity. Edited by Shaye J. D. Cohen and Ernest S. Frerichs, BJS 288. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993, pp. 1–45. Collins, John J. The Scepter and the Star: Messianism in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2nd ed. 1995. Reprint, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2010. Corriveau, Raymond. The Liturgy of Life: A Study of the Ethical Thought of St. Paul in his Letters to the Early Christian Communities. Studia Travaux de Recherche 25. Brussels: Desclee de Brouwer, 1970. 236

Craigie, Peter C. Psalms 1–50, WBC. Waco: Wordbooks, 1983. Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC, 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975, 1979. Cross, Frank Moore and David Noel Freedman. “The Royal Song of Thanksgiving. II Samuel 22 = Psalm 18,” JBL 72/1 (March 1953): pp. 15–34. Cullmann, Oscar. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr: A Historical and Theological Study. London: SCM Press, 1962. Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms. The Anchor Bible, 3vols. New York: Doubleday, 1966– 1970. Das, A. Andrew. “‘Praise the Lord, All you Gentiles’: The Encoded Audience of Romans 15.7–13.” JSNT, 34/1 (Sept 2011): pp. 90–110. Das, A. Andrew Solving the Romans Debate. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Delling, Gerhard. “λαμβάνω, ἀναλαμβάνω, ἀνάλημψις, ἐπιλαμβάνω, ἀνεπίλημπτος, κατα, μεταλαμβάνω, μετάλημψις, παρα-, προ-, προσλαμβάνω, πρόσλημψις, ὑπολαμβάνω.” TDNT. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. vol. IV, Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1967, pp. 5–15. Dibelius, Martin. From Tradition to Gospel. New York: Scribner’s, n.d. Dodd, C. H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, MNTC 6. London: Collins, 1959. Donaldson, Terence L. Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997. Downs, David J. The Offering of the Gentiles: Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem in its Chronological, Cultural and Cultic Contexts. WUNT 2, Reihe 248. Tübingen: Mohr Sieback, 2008. Drijvers, Pius. The Psalms: Their Structure and Meaning. New York: Herder & Herder, 1965. Driver, S. R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986. Dunn, James D. G. “‘Righteousness from Law’ and ‘Righteousness from Faith’: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture in Romans 10:1–10.” Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis for His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Edward Earle Ellis. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Dunn, James D. G. Review of Mark D. Nanos, “The Mystery of Romans.” Journal of Theological Studies 48 (1997): pp. 599–602. Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1–8. WBC 38A. Dallas: Word Books, 1988. Dunn, James D. G. Romans 9–16. WBC 38B. Dallas: WordBooks, 1988. Dunn, James D. G. The Acts of the Apostles. Peterborough: Epworth press, 1996.

237

Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1998. Eaton, John H. Kingship and the Psalms. London: SCM Press, 1976. Elliott, Neil. ‘“Blasphemed among the Nations”: Pursuing an Anti-Imperial “Intertextuality” Romans.’ As it is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter & Christopher D. Stanley. SBL SymposiumSer. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008, pp. 213–236. Elliott, Neil. The Arrogance of Nations. Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010. Elliott, Neil. The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism. JSNTSup 45. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990; Fortress Press edition, 2006. Ellis, E. Earle. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1957. Engnell, I. Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967. Esler, Philip Francis. Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Esler, Philip Francis. Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003. Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence. The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Peabody: Hendrickson publishers, 1994. Feldman, Louis H. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexandria to Justinian. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Frankemӧlle, H. “λαός, οῦ, ὁ.” EDNT. Edited by Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, vol. 2. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1991, pp. 339–344. Furnish, Victor Paul. The Love Command in the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972. Furnish, Victor Paul. Theology and Ethics in Paul and his Interpreters: Essays in Honor of Victor Paul Furnish. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996. Gagnon, Robert A. J. ‘Why the “Weak” at Rome cannot be Non-Christian Jews.’ CBQ 62/1 (2000): pp. 664–82. Garroway, Joshua D. “The Circumcision of Christ: Romans 15:7–13,” JSNT 34/4 (June 2012): pp. 303–322. 238

Gowan, Donald E. Eschatology in the Old Testament. 2nd Edition. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000. Georgi, Dieter. The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians: A Study of Religious Propaganda in Late Antiquity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986. Glad, G. E. Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychology. NovT Sup. 81. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Godet, F. Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1881. Goldingay, John. Psalms. Barker Commentary on the Old Testament, 3vols. 2006. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Barker Academic, 2008. Goldstein, Jonathan A. 1Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible, 41. NY: Doubleday, 1976. Graves, Robert and Joshua Podro. Jesus in Rome: A Historical Conjecture. London: Cassel and Company, 1957. Grogan, Geoffrey W. Psalms. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 2008. Gruen, Erich. Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002. Gunkel, Hermann. An Introduction to the Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel. Translated by James D. Nogalski. Macon: Mercer University press, 1998. Hafemann, Scott. “Eschatology and Ethics. The Future of Israel and the Nations in Romans 15:1–13.” Tyndale Bulletin, 51/2 (2000): pp. 161–192. Hahn, Ferdinand. Mission in the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1965. Hainz, J. “κοινωνία.” EDNT. vol. II. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1991, pp. 303–305. Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. London: SPCK, 1965. Harnack, Adolf. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries. Translated and edited by James Moffalt, 2nd ed. 2vols. New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1906. Hauck, Friedrich. “Clean and Unclean in the New Testament.” TDNT. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Edited by Gerhard Friedrich, vol. III. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1965, pp. 413–417. Hays, Richard B. “Christ Prays the Psalms: Paul’s use of an Early Christian Exegetical Convention.” The Future of Christology: Essays in Honor of Leander E. Keck. Edited by Abraham J. Malherbe & Wayne A. Meeks. Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1993, pp. 122–136.

239

Hays, Richard B. Echoes of the Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Hays, Richard B. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2005. Hodge, Charles. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 1886. Reprint, Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1950. Hofius, O. “ἔπαινος, ου, ὁ.” EDNT. Edited by Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, vol.2. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1991, pp. 16–17. Holladay, William L. The Psalms Through the Thousand Years: Prayer Book of a Cloud of Witnesses. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Horgam, Maurya P. PESHARIM: Qumran Interpretation of Biblical Books. CBQ MonographSer. 8. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979. Hossfeld, Frank Lothar & Eric Zenger. A Commentary on Psalms 101–150. 3 vols. Hermeneia-A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011. Hübner, Hans. “λέγω.” EDNT. Edited by Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, vol. 2. . Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1991, pp. 346–347. Hultgren, Arland J. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. A Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2011. Jervell, Jacob. “The Letter to Jerusalem.” The Romans Debate. Revised and expanded edition. Edited by Karl Paul Donfried. 1977. Reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991, pp. 53–64. Jewett, Robert. “Are there Allusions to Love Feast in Romans 13:8–10?” Common Life in the Early Church, Essays Honouring Graydon F. Snyder. Edited by Julian V. Hills. Harrisburgh, PA: Trinity Press International, 1988, pp. 265–278. Jewett, Robert. “Paul’s Letter to Rome and Beyond.” From Rome to Beijing: Symposia on Robert Jewett’s Commentary on Romans. Edited by K. K. Yeo. Lincoln, NE: KAIROS STUDIES, 2013, pp. 19–33. Jewett, Robert. “Tenement Churches and Pauline Love Feasts.” Paul the Apostle to America: Cultural Trends and Pauline Scholarship. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994, pp. 73–86. Jewett, Robert. A Chronology of Paul’s Life. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Jewett, Robert. Christian Tolerance: Paul’s Message to the Modern Church. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982. Jewett, Robert. Dating Paul’s Life. London: SCM Press, 1979. Jewett, Robert. Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of their use in Conflict Settings. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971. 240

Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Johnson, Luke Timothy. Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon, Georgia: Smyth & Helwys, 2001. Johnson, Luke Timothy. Religious Experience in Earliest Christianity: A missing Dimension in the New Testament Studies. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998. Kahl, Werner. “Migrants as Instruments of Evangelization—in Early Christianity and in Contemporary Christianity.” Global Diasporas and Mission. Edited by Chandler H. Im and Amos Yong. Oxford: Regnum books international, 2014, pp.71–86 Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary. London: SCM Press, 1972. Karris, Robert J. “Romans 14:1–15:13 and the Occasion of Romans.” The Romans Debate, Revised and Expanded Edition. Edited by Karl Paul Donfried. 1977. Reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991, pp. 65–84. Käsemann, Ernst. An die Römer. HNT 8. Tübingen: Mohr, 1973. Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. 4th Edition. Translated and Edited by G.W. Bromiley. 1973. Reprint, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1980. Keck, Leander E. “Christology, Soteriology, and the Praise of God (Romans 15:7– 13).” The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John. In Honor of J. Louis Martyn. Edited by Robert T. Fortna & Beverly R. Gaventa. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990, pp. 85–97. Kim, Johann D. God, Israel, and the Gentiles. Rhetoric and Situation in Romans 9–11. SBL Study Series 176. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Kirk, J. R. Daniel. Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2008. Klein, Ralph W. Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Kochavi, Moshe. “Early Christian Eschatology.” ABD. Edited by David Noel Freedman. vol. 2. New York: Doubleday, 1992, pp. 594–609. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms. A Commentary, Translated by Hilton C. Oswald, 2vols. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1988, 1989. Kremer, J. “ἀνάστασις, εως, ἡ.” EDNT. Edited by Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, vol.1. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1990, pp. 88–92. Kreitzer, L. Joseph. Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology. JSNTSupSer. 19; Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1987. Kretzer, Armin. “λαμβάνω.” EDNT. Edited by Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider. vol. 2. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1991, pp. 336–338. 241

Kuhli, H. “Ἰσραήλ.” EDNT, Edited by Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider. vol. 2. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1991, pp. 202–204. Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. Translated and edited by H. C. Kee. London: SCM Press, 1966. Kümmel, Werner Georg. The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems. Translated S. McLean Gilmore & Howard C. Kee. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972. German original, 1970. Lambrecht, Jan. Collected Studies on Pauline Literature and on the Book of Revelation. Analecta Biblica 147. Roma: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 2001. Lampe, Peter. “The Eucharist: Identifying with Christ on the Cross.” Interpretation 48/1(1994): pp. 136–149. Lampe, Peter. “The Roman Christians of Romans 16.” The Romans Debate, Revised and Expanded Edition. Edited by Karl Paul Donfried. 1977. Reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991, pp. 216–230. Lampe, Peter. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. Translated by Michael Steinhauser, Edited by Marshall D. Johnson. 1989. Reprint, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Leanay, A. R. C. The Jewish and Christian World. 200 B.C. to A.D. 200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Leenhandt, Franz J. The Epistle to the Romans. A Commentary. 1957. Reprint, Cleveland & London: The world publishing company, 1961. Leon, Harry Joshua. The Jews of the Ancient Rome. Updated edition, 1960, 1967. Peabody: Hendrickson publishers, 1995. Leslie, Elmer A. The Psalms: Translated and Interpreted in the Life of Hebrew Life and Worship. New York: Abingdon – Cokesbury, nd. Lo, Lung-Kwong. Paul’s Purpose in Writing Romans. The Upbuilding of Jewish and Gentile Christian Community in Rome. JDDS 6. Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Seminary, 1998. Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1999. Longenecker, Richard N. Introducing Romans: Critical Issues in Paul’s most Famous Letter. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2011. Lüdemann, Gerd. Early Christianity According to the Tradition in Acts: A Commentary. Translated by John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989. Lüdemann, Gerd. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology. Translated by F. Stanley Jones. 1980. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Maleparampil, Joseph. The “Trinitarian” Formulae in St. Paul: an Exegetical Investigation into the Meaning and Function of those Pauline Sayings which 242

Compositely Make Mention of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1995. Malherbe, Abraham J. Social Aspects of Early Christianity. 2nd edition, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Marcus, Joel. “The Circumcision and the Uncircumcision in Rome,” NTS 35/1 (1989): pp. 67–81. Marlow, Hilary. “The spirit of Yahweh in Isaiah 11:1–9.” Presence, Power and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament. Edited by David G. Firth & Paul D. Wegner. Nottingham: Apollos, 2011, pp. 220–232. Marshall, Howard. “An Assessment of Recent Developments.” It is WrittenScripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Edited by D. A. Carson & H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 1–24. Marxsen, Willis. Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by G. Buswell. 1964, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968. Maurer. “ῥίζα.” TDNT vol.6. 1968, Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1983, pp. 985–991. McKnight, Scot. A Light Among the Gentile: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. Meeks, Wayne A. The Morale World of the First Christians. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986. Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. Mendels, Doron. “Was the Rejection of Gifts one of the Reasons for the Outbreak of the Maccabean Revolt? A Preliminary Note on the Role of Gifting in the Book of 1Maccabees,” JSP 20/4 (2011): pp. 243–256. Merk, Otto. “ἄρχω.” EDNT. Edited by Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, vol.1. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1990, pp. 165–167. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 3rd Edition. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1971. Meyer, H. A. W. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC. New York: Scribners, 1906. Meyer. “περιτέμνω περιτομή ἀπερίτμητος.” TDNT. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Edited by Gerhard Friedrich, vol. 6. Grand rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1968, pp. 72–84. Meyers, Eric M. “Synagogue: Introductory Survey.” ABD, 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992, pp. 251–260.

243

Miller, James C. The Obedience of Faith, the Eschatological People of God and the Purpose of Romans. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000. Minear, Paul Sevier. The Obedience of Faith: The Purpose of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. London: SCM Press, 1971. Moltmann, Jürgen. The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology. London: SCM Press, 1992. Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996. Morris, Leon. The Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians. Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1956. Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988. Moulton, J. H (ed). A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. vol. III: Syntax, by N. Turner. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963. Mowinckel, Sigmund. He that Cometh. The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament & Later Judaism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: W. B. Eerdmans, 2005. Murphy-O’Connor J, St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archaeology. Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier Book, 1983. Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT, vol. II. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965. Nanos, Mark D. The Mystery of the Romans. The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Philadelphia: Fortress press, 1949. Origen. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: Books 6–10. Translated by Thomas P. Shecks. Washington, DC: Catholic Univ. of America Press, 2002. Osiek, Carolyn & David L. Balch. Families in the New Testament World: Households and Household Churches. The Family, Religion and Culture. Edited by Don Browning & Ian S. Evison; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Oswalt, John. The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 1–39. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986. Pate, C. Marvin. The Reverse of the Curse. Paul, Wisdom and the Law. WUNT 2, Reihe 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Pederson, S. “εὐφραίνω.” EDNT. Edited by Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, vol.2. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1991, pp. 86–87. Peterman, G. W. Paul’s gift from Philippi: Conventions of Gift Exchange and Christian Giving. SNTSMS 92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Peterson, David G. The Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans, 2009. 244

Peterson, David L. “Eschatology.” ABD. Edited by David Noel Freedman, vol. 2. New York: Doubleday, 1992, pp. 575–579. Rad, Gerhard von, Deuteronomy. A Commentary. London: SCM Press, 1966. Reasoner, Mark. Strong and Weak. Romans 14:1–15:13 in Context. SNTS MonographSer. 103. Cambridge: University Press, 1999. Richardson, Peter. “Augustan – Era Synagogues in Rome.” Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome. Edited by Karl P. Donfried & Peter Richardson. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1998, pp. 17–29. Riesner, Rainer. Paul’s Early Period. Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology. Translated by Doug Stott. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998. Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of the Historical Research. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman press, 1934. Roloff, J. “ἐκκλησία.” EDNT, vol. I. Edited by Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1990, pp. 410–415. Rutgers, Leonard Victor. “Roman Policy toward the Jews: Expulsions from the City of Rome during the First Century C.E.” Judaism and Christianity in FirstCentury Rome. Edited by Karl P. Donfried & Peter Richardson. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998, pp. 93–116. Saller, Richard P. Personal Patronage under the Early Empire. 1982; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Sampley, Paul. “The Weak and the Strong: Paul’s Careful and Crafty Rhetorical Strategy in Romans 14:1–15:13.” The Social World of the First Christians: Studies in Honor of Wayne A Meeks. Edited by L. Michael White and O. Larry Yarbrough; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994, pp. 40–52. Sanday, William and Arthur Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons 1901. Sanders, E. P. Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People. London: SCM Press, 1983. Schaller, Bernd. βῆμα, EDNT. Edited by Horst Balz & Gerhard Schneider, vol.1. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1990, pp. 215–216. Schlatter, Adolf. Romans: The Righteousness of God. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. Schlier, Heinrich. “βέβαιος, βεβαιόω, βεβαίωσις.” TDNT, Edited by Gerhard Kittel, vol. I, Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans, 1964, pp. 600–603. Schmithals, Walter. Der Rӧmerbrief. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1988. Schramm, Brooks. “Exodus 19 and its Christian Appropriation.” Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scripture. Edited by Alice Ogden Bellis and Joel S. Kaminsky. SBL Symposium Series 8. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Barker Books, 1998. 245

Schultz, Richard L. “Nationalism and Universalism in Isaiah.” Interpreting Isaiah. Issues and Approaches. Edited by Firth & Williamson. Nottingham: Apollos, 2009, pp. 122–144. Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Revised and Edited by Giza Vermes & Fergus Millar. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T and T. Clark, 1973–1987. Seifrid, Mark A. “Romans.” Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic/ Nottingham: Apollos, 2007, pp. 607–694. Slingerland, H. Dixon. “Chrestus: Christus?” New Perspectives on Ancient Judaism. Edited by Jacob Neusner. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1989. Slingerland, H. Dixon. Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome. USF Studies in the History of Judaism 160. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Smallwood, E. Mary. The Jews Under the Roman Rule. From Pompey to Diocletian. A Study in the Political Relations. Boston/Leiden: BRILL, 2001. Smith, D. Moody. “The Pauline Literature.” It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Linders. Edited by D. A. Carson & H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 265–291. Smith, Dennis E. From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Snyman, Fanie. “Reading Psalm 117 against an Exilic Context.” VT 61 (2011): pp. 109–118. Stanley, Christopher D. “‘Neither Jew nor Greek’: Ethnic Conflict in Graeco-Roman Society.” JSNT 19/64 (1997): pp. 101–124. Stanley, Christopher D. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul. New York: T & T Clark, 2004. Stanley, Christopher D. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. SNTSMS 74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Stanley, Christopher D. “Paul and Scripture: Charting the Course.” in As it is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter & Christopher D. Stanley, SBL SymposiumSer. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008, pp. 3–14. Stern, Menahem. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3Vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974–84. Stowers, Stanley. A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews and Gentiles. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994. 246

Strathmann, “Λιβερτίνοι,” TDNT, vol. IV, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Trans. Geoffry W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1967), pp. 265–266. Stuhlmacher, Peter. “The Purpose of Romans.” The Romans Debate, Revised and Expanded Edition. Edited by Karl Paul Donfried. 1977. Reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991, pp. 231–242. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Translated by Scott J. Hafemann. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. Suggs, M. Jack. “‘The Word is Near you’: Romans 10:6–10 within the purpose of the Letter.” Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox. Edited by W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule & R. R. Niebuhr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967, pp. 289–232. Tan, Kim Huat. The Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus. SNTSMS 91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Taubes, Jacob. The Political Theology of Paul. Translated Dana Hollander. 1993. Reprint, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004. Terrien, Samuel. The Psalms: Strophic, Structure and Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans 2003. Theissen, Gerd. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. Edited and Translated by John H. Schütz. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982. Thompson, Michael. Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12:1–15:3. JSNTSup. 59. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Tobin, Thomas H. Paul’s Rhetoric in its Contexts. The Argument of Romans. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004. Toney, Carl N. Paul’s Inclusive Ethic: Resolving Community Conflicts and Promoting Mission in Romans 14–15. WUNT 2, Reihe- 252. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Via, Dan O. Jr. Kerygma and Comedy in the New Testament. A Structuralist Approach to Hermeneutic. Philadelphia: Fortress press, 1975. Vogelstein, Hermann. History of the Jews in Rome. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1940. Wagner, J. Ross “The Christ, Servant of the Jew and the Gentile: A Fresh Approach to Romans 15:8–9,” JBL 116/3 (1997): pp. 473–485. Wagner, J. Ross ‘“Not from the Jews Only, but also from the Gentiles”: Mercy to the Nations in Romans 9–11.’ Between Gospel and Election. Edited by Florian Wilk & J. Ross Wagner. WUNT 257. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010, pp. 417–432. Wagner, J. Ross. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul “in Concert” in the Letter to the Romans. NovTSup 101. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammer Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996. 247

Walters, James C. “Romans, Jews and Christians: The Impact of Romans on Jewish/Christian Relations in First-Century Rome.” Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome. Edited by K. P. Donfried & P. Richardson. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1998, pp. 175–195. Walters, James C. Ethnic Issues in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Changing Self-Definitions in the Earliest Roman Christianity. Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1993. Waltke, Bruce K. & James M. Houston, The Psalms as Christian Worship: A Historical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2010. Watson, Francis. “The Two Roman Congregations: Romans 14:1–15:13.” The Romans Debate. Revised and expanded edition. Edited by Karl P. Donfried. 1977. Reprint, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1991, pp. 203–215. Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London: T & T Clark, 2004. Watson, Francis. Paul Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Watson, Francis. Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles. Beyond the New Perspective. Revised and expanded edition. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2007. Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1–33. WBC 24. Waco, TX: Wordbooks, 1985. Wedderburn, A. J. M. The Reasons for Romans. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991. Weiser, Artur. The Psalms. A Commentary. London: SCM Press, 1962. Wenham, John. Redating, Matthew, Mark and Luke. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1991. Wevers, John William. LXX: Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy. SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 39; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. White, C. L. Michael. The Social Origins of Christian Architecture: vol. I, Building God’s Housing the Roman World: Architectural adoption among Pagans, Jews and Christians. Harvard Theological Studies 42. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1990. Wiefel, Wolfgang. “The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins of Roman Christianity.” The Romans Debate, Revised and Expanded Edition. Edited by Karl Paul Donfried. 1977. Reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991, pp. 85–101. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Rӧmer. 2nd Edition, EKKNT, VI/1–3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 1–12. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. Williams, Sam K. “Righteousness of God” in Romans,” JBL 99/2 (1980): pp. 241– 290. 248

Witherington III, Ben. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans, 2004. Wright, N. T. Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991. Zahn, Theodor. Der Brief Des Paulus an Die Rӧmer. Leipzeg: Deichert, 1925. Zetterholm, Magnus. The Formation of Christianity in Antioch: A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity. London: Routledge, 2003. Ziesler, J. A. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. London: SCM Press, 1989. Ziesler, J. A. The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul: A Linguistic and Theological Investigation. SNTSMS 20. Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1972.

III. Webliography http://faculty.history.umd.edu/HLapin/HIST370/ClaudiusPapyrus.pdf (Accessed on May18, 2014). http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/37*.html (Accessed on January 13, 2014. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Annals/15B*. html (Accessed on December 10, 2013). https://sites.google.com/site/demontortoise2000/orosius_book7 (Accessed on May 11, 2014). http://www.attalus.org/latin/orosius7A.html (Accessed on May 11, 2014). http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/collection?collection=Perseus%3Acollecti on%3AGreco-Roman (Accessed on December 10, 2013) http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.00 78%3Abook%3D2%3Achapter%3D85 (Accessed on December 10, 2013). http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-05.htm#P267_68508 (Accessed on March 10, 2015). http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tertullian/tertullian.nationes1.shtml (Accessed on January 10, 2015).

249

Preface to the Series The series New Testament Studies in Contextual Exegesis is dedicated to the publication of exegetical works which aim at enhancing a textually adequate understanding of the New Testament by taking into consideration the life-contexts, horizons of interpretation, and questions of the non-Western world. African, Latin-American, Oceanic, and Asian exegetes can, from their own perspect ives, make significant contributions in the field of New Testament studies with respect to content and methodology. They might motivate their Western colleagues to critically reflect on their own history of interpretation and methodology, by enabling them to acknowledge the fact that any exegetical approach is contextually coined. The contributions that appear in this series are works of critical exegesis. They are informed by methodological reflection. The authors consider the cultural embededness or contextuality of the New Testament writings as well as that of the exegetical perspective. Taking into account that non-Western voices are not represented adequately in the exegetical discourse, the editors of the series intend to facilitate cross-cultural networking of exegetical research in a world-wide perspective, especially with respect to the transfer of scientific knowledge from the South to the North. The editors Prof. Dr. Johannes Beutler, Rome and Frankfurt PD Dr. Werner Kahl, Hamburg Prof. Dr. Thomas Schmeller, Frankfurt

Vorwort zur Reihe Die Reihe Neutestamentliche Studien zur kontextuellen Exegese ist der Veröffentlichung solcher exegetischen Arbeiten gewidmet, die Lebenskontexte, Deutehorizonte und Fragestellungen der nichtwestlichen Welt für ein textangemessenes Verstehen des Neuen Testaments fruchtbar zu machen suchen. In ihrer je partikularen Perspektivität haben afrikanische, lateinamerikanische, ozeanische und asiatische Exegeten und Exegetinnen sowohl inhaltlich als auch methodisch einiges und zuweilen Entscheidendes im Bereich Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft beizutragen. Sie vermögen darüber hinaus, westliche Fachkollegen und -kolleginnen zur kritischen Reflexion ihrer Forschungsgeschichte und Methodik anzuregen, indem sie zur Anerkennung des Faktums der Kontextualität jeglichen exegetischen Zugangs nötigen. Bei den in dieser Reihe erscheinenden Untersuchungen handelt es sich um exegetisch-kritische Beiträge, die wissenschaftlich-methodisch verantwortet die kulturelle Einbettung bzw. Kontextualität sowohl der neutestamentlichen Schriften als auch der exegetischen Perspektive bedenken. Angesichts der Tatsache, dass nicht-westliche Forschungsbeiträge im exegetischen Diskurs unterrepräsentiert sind, liegt den Herausgebern der Reihe daran, die transkulturelle Vernetzung exegetischer Forschung in weltweiter Perspektive zu fördern, und zwar insbesondere in Hinblick auf den Süd-Nord-Transfer wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis. Die Herausgeber Prof. Dr. Johannes Beutler, Rom und Frankfurt PD Dr. Werner Kahl, Hamburg Prof. Dr. Thomas Schmeller, Frankfurt

New Testament Studies in Contextual Exegesis Neutestamentliche Studien zur kontextuellen Exegese Edited by / Herausgegeben von Johannes Beutler, Thomas Schmeller und Werner Kahl Band 1

Joseph Osei-Bonsu: The Inculturation of Christianity in Africa. Antecedents and Guidelines from the New Testament and the Early Church. 2005.

Band 2

Werner Kahl: Jesus als Lebensretter. Westafrikanische Bibelinterpretationen und ihre Relevanz für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. 2007.

Band 3

Fergus J. King: More Than A Passover. Inculturation in the Supper Narratives of the New Testament. 2007.

Band 4

Anthony Iffen Umoren: Paul and Power Christology. Exegesis and Theology of Romans 1:3–4 in Relation to Popular Power Christology in an African Context. 2008.

Band 5

Solomon Wong: The Temple Incident in Mark 11, 15-19. The Disclosure of Jesus and the Marcan Faction. 2009.

Band 6

Johannes Beutler: Do not be afraid. The First Farewell Discourse in John’s Gospel (Jn 14). 2011.

Band 7

Birgit Opielka: „Leidender Gerechter“ und „Diener aller“. Der Tod Jesu in Mk 8,27-10,52 im Gespräch mit Oscar Romero und Emmanuel Lévinas. 2012.

Band 8

Thomas Kattathara S.J.: The Snag of The Sword. An Exegetical Study of Luke 22:35-38. 2014.

Band 9

John Chijioke Madubuko: The "Pauline" Spirit World in Eph 3:10 in the Context of Igbo World View. A Psychological-Hermeneutical Appraisal. 2015.

Band 10 Zakali Shohe: Acceptance Motif in Paul: Revisiting Romans 15:7–13. 2017.

www.peterlang.com