Part II, Week 3 - Chapter 15 - Paul's Letter to the Romans

Some people more knowledgeable than I have said that Paul invented Christianity. If there is some truth to that statement, then Paul’s Letter to the Romans has to be his blueprint, because in it he lays out his theological concepts in the greatest detail.

De Silva provides a masterful analysis of the theological complexity of Romans. He encapsulates the significance of the letter in his introductory paragraph:
“. . . Christians have repeatedly broken off fellowship with other Christians over the interpretation of minute aspects of this letter, for example, the question of predestination versus free will, the degree of human depravity, the nature of “saving” faith and so forth. A tragic irony emerges when we consider that in Romans, Paul provides his fullest treatment of the way God has brought together people of diverse heritage and practice into the one body of the church, and he also gives several chapters of practical advice for preserving unity in the midst of this diversity.” (pg. 598)

The letter is presumed to have been written between 55 and 58 A.D. from Corinth or its port Cenchreae, toward the end of Paul’s third missionary journey in Asia Minor, Macedonia and Greece. The letter was written because, as Paul states, he would have wished to travel to Rome at that point but was unable to do so, because he had to deliver the collection (presumably the same one that we have read about in earlier letters) to Jerusalem.

I note a difference in style between Romans and the other Pauline letters we have covered in our readings. Coincidentally or not, I believe this is the first letter in which the salutation does not include the name of one or more co-authors, and I cannot help wondering if this letter reflects more of the pure “Pauline” style as well as his theological concerns. The text in my view provides a bit of heavy slogging and some tendentiousness, especially in 1:24, 26, and 28, where Paul repeats the refrain that God “gave them over” (in effect, as he expresses it, God has allowed men to degrade themselves with sexual profligacy, the worship of created idols, lust and other acts of depravity, disobedience of parents, slander, gossip etc. etc.). While technically Paul may be right, it would sound less harsh if it were expressed in the form of God allowing us, his sinful creatures, free will – to act for good or ill. Jesus memorably said, “Judge not lest you be judged.” And although in 2:1 Paul expresses the same thought as Jesus, his words, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things” sound, well, more judgmental.

I love reading de Silva’s analyses, and in the case of Romans, I have enjoyed reading the chapter in the text considerably more than the letter itself. For one thing, I think de Silva has spent more time trying to understand Paul’s words than I have, and for another, his explanations have a more charitable aspect than a first glance at the letter itself indicates – although I think reading and maybe re-reading de Silva may help me to understand better what Paul was doing. As an example, on a positive light, de Silva notes that Paul has worked out in more detail than ever before the concept – and the theological underpinnings – for both Jews and Christians being joined through Jesus Christ in the worship of the one God – with neither able to justifiably lord it over the other. As de Silva notes, he repeats several themes from his earlier epistles, including the issue of eating meats (which may have been slaughtered improperly or sacrificed to idols), the distinctions of the “strong” in faith versus the “weak,” which he interprets differently than I would think – as he seems to class those who are more observant of the law, dietary rules and holy days as “weak.” He reiterates that some of the traditional beliefs are not binding – however he proposes that the “strong,” who don’t feel bound to follow them, continue to refrain from eating meat and doing other things which their “weaker” brethren might find problematical, as an aid to the continuing belief of the “weak,” whose consciences will be stricken if they follow the behaviour of their “strong” brothers. I find these very interesting concepts. De Silva also notes that Paul tackles the difficult issue of why the Jews, who have the advantage of the long-standing covenant with the Lord, have in the majority rejected the message of Jesus’ salvation. His reasoning is that by their holding back, they have enabled the Gentiles to be converted, and that at some point when all the Gentiles are converted “all Israel” will be united in the acceptance of Jesus.

Paul, near the beginning of the letter, notes that he is writing in part to counter “slanderous” misrepresentations of his gospel – namely that he was lax in his views of sin. I believe that his intention in Romans is partly to present the theological underpinning for a new code of ethical behaviour for Christians – to replace the law which he holds as no longer binding. Part of the problem in the letter is that words are of necessity an imperfect vehicle for conveying the ineffable. De Silva again memorably notes: “But the mystery of God is always more difficult to domesticate than our traditions tend to admit.” (pg. 598)