The Purpose of Romans Part 3

....continued from part 2

Changwon Song quotes Donfried in his book, Reading Romans as a Diatribe,

“Donfried states that there are basically two major opposing viewpoints 

in the scholarship on Romans: ‘(1) those scholars who believe that Paul 

directed this letter to deal with a specific, concrete situation in Rome; 

and (2) those interpreters who hold that it is primarily directed to a situation 

other than Rome.’”5 For Donfried, the latter group is the intended target for 

correction in his essay False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans, 

as he overcomes objections to two methodological principles in the study of

Romans: (1) That Paul wrote the letter addressing a concrete situation, and 

(2) that Romans 16 is an integral part of the original letter.6

The first step away from the traditional understanding of 

Romans is M. Jack Suggs’s theory, in line with Bornkamm and Jervell, 

that Paul must be writing Romans with the opposition of non-Christian Jews

at Jerusalem in mind, and in order to diminish the effect of their 

opposition upon his arrival at Jerusalem, Paul sought to provide a

“letter to the strategic and powerful Roman church…which outlines a ‘partially’

moderated position…in advance of the delivery.”7 To Suggs, there can’t be any

concrete situation in Rome demanding an address from Paul, since the letter is 

essentially nothing more than a practice round before he faces his detractors. 

Any evidence of a specific situation as the impetus for Paul’s writing the 

letter dismantles Suggs argument.  Das provides another solid counter

to this position in that, “Paul never asks that the Romans pray that the 

truth of the gospel be upheld against opponents at Jerusalem.”8

Following in the same pattern as the theory for a Jerusalem trip being the 

purpose of Romans is the theory that Romans is nothing more than Paul’s 

way of introducing himself to the Romans in preparation for the 

Spanish mission. Dieter Zeller and Robert Jewett agreed that, 

“the entire letter to the Romans was Paul’s means of enlisting their

support for the Spanish project.”9 It seems difficult to propose that Paul 

would be writing such a lengthy letter to a church in Rome, with 

whom he had little, or no, previous contact solely with the purpose of 

securing support for missionary work, and while doing so, waiting until 

the very end of the letter to even allude to the work in Spain. In order 

for this theory to be validated it would be fitting to see some mention, 

even briefly, prior to the conclusion of the letter. It would also be 

obvious that the incredible theology and depth of spiritual truth Paul 

develops in Romans would be, as  Gunter Klein critiqued, “reduced 

to merely a means to an end…no matter how pure his motives, Paul 

would have to be viewed as having only ulterior motives.”10

Klein’s own essay on the topic provided the theory that Paul believed 

the Roman church needed a proper apostolic foundation.11 By considering the 

absence of the word ecclesia in Romans 1-15 proof that the Romans lacked a 

proper apostolic foundation as a church, Klein essentially believed that Paul’s 

desire to visit the believers in Rome was motivated by the perceived need 

to provide for the church a true apostolic foundation.  For Klein, 

“the primary content of Romans-the justification of the godless-also

constitutes the center of Pauline theology, and that this doctrine must be 

the exclusive topic wherever it becomes a matter of establishing the correct 

foundations for the church.”12 Klein and L. Ann Jervis believed that by 

providing a strong theological discourse, Paul would have been successful in 

proving himself not only able to offer the church its “necessary” 

apostolic foundation, but also in showing that he indeed possessed

a general apostolic authority over them.  The last of the competing theories 

as to the purpose of Romans (and one that flows nicely into the purpose 

statement provided by Dr. Tomlinson) that will receive attention in this general 

overview will be the theory of Francis Watson that seeks to prove

that Paul wished to compel separate Jewish Christian and gentile 

Christian assemblies to worship together. For Watson, “Paul is writing 

primarily to unite divided communities.

The Roman Jewish Christians are meeting for worship separately 

from the gentile Christians, and Paul wants both groups to come together.”13 

The separation is due to gentile arrogance toward the minority of Jewish 

believers and the insistence of the Jews that the observation of the law as a 

necessary  element in the church. Das writes, “Paul is therefore writing to 

resolve the tensions  between the gentile non-Law-observant strong and the 

Jewish, Law-observant weak.”14

Keep reading...part 4