The Purpose of Romans Part 2

The platform on which this paper will be built is the 

purpose statement of Romans given in class by Dr. Tomlinson, 

which is to show that "no distinction" exists in the

"impartial" judicial administration of God-all believing 

ones, whether Jew or Gentile, are justified by faith through 

the Gospel (Romans 1-11). This lack of distinction should

provoke in us an acceptance of one another, Jew and Gentile 

believers in the church (Romans 12-16).

In order to adequately support any purpose statement for 

Romans it is necessary to at least survey the vast and varying 

approaches by scholars over the years to this subject. 

Karl P. Donfried suggests that for centuries, “virtually all scholars 

would have agreed with Melanchthon’s evaluation of Romans 

as a christianae religionis compendium,”1 but in the realm of 

recent scholarship there can be as many purpose statements for 

Romans as there are serious readers of Romans, so the task is not 

an easy one. In his book, Solving the Romans Debate, A. Andrew Das 

appropriately quotes A.J.M. Wedderburn concerning the contention 

over the purpose of Romans, “that there should be so 

much disagreement over the purpose of Romans is disconcerting 

in a letter that has perhaps received more learned attention and 

research than almost any other piece of literature in human history.”

Das, in Solving the Romans Debate3, does a remarkable

job of providing a quick overview of the major theories about 

the purpose of Romans that depart from the standard 

“Romans as a theological treatise” position mentioned earlier, 

which many continue to firmly believe.4

Before moving too quickly from the “standard” understanding of 

Romans and into other theories for its purpose, two critical questions 

must be asked: Did Paul intend to summarize his theological positions 

and, if so, why did he leave out so many important theological 

points of interest? More importantly, does an understanding of Romans 

as a summary of Paul’s theology answer the question of 

whether or not there was a concrete situation that required Paul to 

provide such a summary? For any debate on Romans, how one answers 

the latter will determine greatly their conclusions as to the purpose of

Romans. 

See the remaining Posts:  Romans part 3 and Romans part 4

0 comments: