TAIWAN THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE AND SEMINARY FROM ATONEMENT TO JUSTIFICATION: THE SOTERIOLOGY OF ROMANS 3:21-26 A DISSERTATION SUBMITED TO

1 TAIWAN THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE AND SEMINARY FROM ATONEMENT TO JUSTIFICATION: THE SOTERIOLOGY OF ROMANS 3:21-26 A DISSERTATION SUBMITED TO THE POST-GRADUATE DEPARTMENT OF THEOLOGY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (THEOLOGY) BY MING-WEI TSAI TAIPEI, TAIWAN JUNE 2011

ii 論文授權書 本授權書所授權之論文為本人在台灣神學院 2010 學年度第 2 學期取得神學博士學位之論文 論文名稱 ( 英 / 中文 ):From Atonement to Justification: The Soteriology of Roman 3:21-26 ( 從贖罪到稱義 : 羅馬書 3:21-26 拯救論之研究 ) 同意 不同意 本人茲將本著作, 以非專屬 無償授權台灣神學院 : 基於推動讀者間 資源共享 互惠合作 之理念, 及回饋社會與學術研究之目的, 或為上述目的再授權他人 台灣神學院得不限地域 時間與次數, 以紙本 微縮 光碟或其他各種數位化方法收錄 重製與利用 ; 於著作權法合理使用範圍內, 讀者得進行線上檢索 閱讀 下載或列印 ----------------------------------------------------------- 上述授權內容均無須訂立讓與及授權契約書 依本授權之發行權為非專屬性發行權利 依本授權所為之收錄 重製 發行 學術研發利用與再授權均為無償 上述同意與不同意之欄位若未勾選, 本人同意視同授權 指導教授姓名 : 鄧開福教授 研究生簽名 : 學號 : ( 親筆正楷 ) ( 務必填寫 ) 日期 : 西元年月日

iii 台灣神學院神學博士論文提要 (Abstract in Chinese) 研究領域 : 新約神學 論文名稱 :From Atonement to Justification: The Soteriology of Roman 3:21-26 指導教授 : 鄧開福教授 研究生 : 蔡銘偉 論文提要內容 : ( 共一冊, 約 70000 字, 分七章 ) ( 並扼要說明內容, 約 500-1,000 字 ) 本論文認為耶穌的死 耶穌的信實以及上帝的義是羅 3:21-26 中保羅拯 救論的三個核心要素 論到耶穌的贖罪, 本論文主張耶穌的血象徵一個新的贖罪之處, 乃是取 羅 3:25 中 施恩座 (i`lasth,rion) 的隱喻 同時,i`lasth,rion 在此不僅可作 施恩座 理解, 更應進一步引伸為 一個類似獻祭之處 之意 換句話說, i`lasth,rion 意指耶穌是一個新的獻祭之處的意思 在基督裡, 外邦人和猶太人並不需要一個新的律法獻祭系統, 外邦人和猶太人平等地且同時地在基督

iv 裡和上帝和好 簡言之, 羅 3:25 的 i`lasth,rion 並不是指某種獻祭儀式, 而是 獻祭之處 其次, 本論文認為瑪迦比四書中殉道者的敘事模式對新約中耶穌的死提 供更佳的詮釋模式, 特別是解釋保羅在羅 3:21-26 中對耶穌的死的理解 關於羅 3:21-26 中希臘文片語 的理解, 本論文主張 ( 信 ) 是 : 上帝藉著能夠對全世界接受耶穌成為他們身份並參與上帝 歷史目的終局的人類彰顯他的義的方法 因此, 是指 耶穌的 信實, 也就是應採取 主格所有格 (subjective genitive) 的理解方式 當 保羅提到基督的信實時, 他對基督的堅毅 沈默 高貴並不感興趣 對保羅 來說, 基督的信實, 對所有的人類, 包括猶太人與外邦人, 開啟了在末日與 基督同活的可能性 基督的信實決定了每一個相信的人的實存 而且上帝的義 ( ) 是藉著耶穌基督的信實而彰顯 ( 羅 3:22), 換句話說, 本段中保羅所論及的 耶穌基督的信實 其實就是指 耶穌彰顯 上帝之義所承受的苦難 羅 3:21-26 中基督的死與基督的信實具有相同的意涵 : 耶穌忠實順服上 帝甚至到死 基督的死和信實成為全人類新的獻祭之處 藉此, 基督成就了 上帝完全的拯救 關鍵字 :( 為方便建檔與搜尋, 中文關鍵字請加英文譯詞 ) Atonement 贖罪 soteriology 拯救論 Jesus faithfulness 耶穌的信實 God s righteousness 上帝的義 martyrology 殉道主義 mercy seat 施恩座 sacrifice 獻祭

5 Copyright 2011 by Ming-Wei Tsai All rights reserved

To My Family 6

vii CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... IX ABSTRACT... XI CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION... 1 1.1. Introduction and Thesis... 1 1.2. Historical Consideration... 5 1.2.1. Paul s Own Context... 11 1.2.2. The Context of the Roman Christian Community... 14 1.2.3. The Context of Paul s Missionary Plans... 22 1.2.4 Reflection on the Romans Debate... 26 1.3. Chapter Division... 28 CHAPTER 2 THE LITERARY CONTEXT OF ROMANS 3:21-26... 31 2.1. Methodological Arguments of Constructing Romans... 32 2.2. Romans 3:21-26 in Its Immediate Context Romans 1:1-4:25... 37 2.2.1. The Style of Diatribe in Romans... 37 2.2.2. Romans 3:21-26 in Its Immediate Context... 39 2.3. A Syntactical Analysis of Romans 3:21-26... 50 2.3.1. A Syntactical Analysis of Romans 3:21-22... 50 2.3.2. A Syntactical Analysis of Romans 3:23-24... 51 2.3.3. A Syntactical Analysis of Romans 3:25-26... 53 2.4. Summary... 68 CHAPTER 3 THE JEWISH BACKGROUND OF ATONEMENT... 70 3.1. Usages of in Extra Biblical Evidence... 70 3.1.1. Ransom from Slavery... 70 3.1.2. Ransom from Captivity... 71 3.1.3. Release from Hidden Bonds that Cause Misfortune... 72 3.2. The Concept of Atonement in the LXX... 74 3.3. Sacrifice and Atonement in Leviticus... 76 3.3.1. Sacrificial System in Leviticus... 76 3.3.2. How Is Sin Forgiven in Sacrifice?... 82 3.3.3. The Day of Atonement... 86 3.3.4. Consideration of the Role of Blood in Sacrificial Atonement... 92 3.4. The Concept of He Bore Our Sins in Isaiah 52:13-53:12... 94 3.4.1. Suffering in the Fourth Servant Song... 95 3.4.2. How Does the Suffering Servant Bear Our Sins?... 96 3.4.3. The Nature of Sin in the Fourth Servant Song... 101 3.5. The Atonement of Fourth Maccabees 6:24-29; 17:22... 103 3.5.1. The Exegesis of 4 Macc. 6:28-29... 106 3.5.2. The Theology of Atonement of 4 Maccabees... 109 3.6. The Meaning of of Mark 10:45... 113

viii CHAPTER 4 THE MEANING OF JESUS ATONEMENT IN ROMANS 3:21-26... 121 4.1. The Concept of Atonement in the Pauline Epistles... 121 4.2. Social Context and Paul s Metaphors of Atonement... 125 4.3. The Meaning of in Romans 3:25... 127 4.3.1. evxila,sai in Dan 3:37-40 LXX... 128 4.3.2. katallagh,setai and i[lewj gene,sqai in 2 Macc 7:37-8:5... 130 4.3.3. i`lasth,rion in 4 Macc 17:22... 133 4.3.4. A Reflection of i`lasth,rion in Rom 3:25... 138 4.4. Summary: The Meaning of Jesus Atonement in Rom 3:21-26... 143 CHAPTER 5 IN ROMANS 3:21-26... 147 5.1. A Contour of the Debate... 147 5.2. Lexical and Grammatical Arguments of... 151 5.2.1. The Meaning of... 152 5.2.2. The Pattern of an Adjectival Prepositional Phrase (AAPP)... 154 5.2.3. The Difference between and ( ) 157 5.2.4. The Differences between and... 161 5.3. Faith/fulness in Habakkuk 2:4b... 163 5.3.1. The Text of Habakkuk 2:4b in Different Versions... 163 5.3.2. Whose hn"wma/ in Habakkuk 2:4b... 165 5.3.3. What Is hn"wma/ in Habakkuk 2:4b?... 168 5.3.4 The Interpretation of Hab 2:4 in Rom 3:17b... 170 5.4. A Theological Interpretation of in Rom 3:21-26... 173 5.5. Summary... 181 CHAPTER 6 GOD S RIGHTEOUSNESS IN ROMANS 3:21-26... 183 6.1. The Background of God s Righteousness... 185 6.1.1. Righteousness in Classic Greek Literature... 185 6.1.2. Righteousness in Early Jewish literature... 188 6.1.3. The Background of Righteousness in the Old Testament... 189 6.1.4. The Concept of Righteousness in Isaiah 26 and Romans 3... 191 6.2. God s Righteousness in the Context of the Roman Empire... 199 6.3. The Nature of God s Righteousness: Imputed or Imparted?... 204 6.4. God s Righteousness in the Pauline Epistles... 208 6.5. God s Righteousness in Romans 3:21-26... 209 6.6. Summary... 214 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION... 218 REFERENCE WORKS... 228

ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 耶穌受難的意義 是我長久以來在學術研究上關切的議題 作為台灣基督長老教會的信徒與傳道者, 我始終認為重新思考與反省耶穌基督在信仰中的地位與意義, 是重新建構台灣基督長老教會宣教神學的關鍵 故此, 我主張 : 教會如何認識耶穌基督 ( 基督論 Christology) 將塑造教會的身份 定位 ( 教會論 Ecclesiology), 而教會的身份 定位將影響教會如何見證耶穌基督福音的方式 ( 宣教 Missiology); 反過來說, 教會見證耶穌基督福音的方式 ( 宣教 Missiology) 反應了教會的身份 定位 ( 教會論 Ecclesiology), 而教會的身份 定位 ( 教會論 Ecclesiology) 則顯出教會認識的耶穌 ( 基督論 Christology) 本篇論文可視為我在參與建構台灣宣教神學的初步成果 本論文能夠完成, 首先要感謝指導教授鄧開福博士 在六年的博士研讀生涯中, 鄧老師不僅是我的老師更是至親的兄長與朋友 老師所教導我的不僅是學術知識, 他的信仰 人格 風範更在彼此的互動當中讓我得到塑造 薰陶 此外, 鄧師母長期為佳韻禱告 鼓勵 能受教於鄧老師門下, 是我以及我的家庭莫大的祝福 此外, 感謝本論文的口試委員杜敬一神父 鄭仰恩教授, 在論文口試中, 給予本人許多指教與建議, 本論文最後即是依照論文口試委員的建議而修 正

x 在博士班的生涯中, 得到上主莫大的恩典, 能到美國波士頓 Andover Newton Theological School 進修兩年 我要感謝 Dr. Sze-Kar Wan, Dr. Mark Heim, Dr. Judy Haily, Dr. Robert Pazmino, Dr. Simon Lee, Dr. Nick Carter 以及 Dr. William Herzog II 諸位老師的教導 本論文的核心思想即成形於 Andover Newton Theological School 進修期間 在波士頓進修的兩年, 要感謝 Boston Taiwanese Christian Church, BTCC 所有的牧長 弟兄姊妹的關心與照顧, 雖然這兩年中經歷過許多挫折 挑戰, 但 BTCC 的兄姊以實際的行動支持幫助我的家庭 我們要對 BTCC 獻上感謝 在博士班課程中能夠到波士頓進修完全在原來的計畫之外, 這是上帝所賜的大恩典 在此特別要感謝台北東門教會盧俊義牧師以及幾位不願具名的資助者奉獻, 讓我們得以成行 除此之外, 我們還得到來自各地教會許多弟兄姊妹 家族長輩的奉獻支持, 也要一併表達內心最大的感謝 同時也要感謝左營教會弟兄姊妹以及陳明志牧師 永和教會弟兄姊妹以及黃銅沛牧師對我們家庭的照顧 支持以及指導 最後我要感謝我的母親林志芬長老 岳父張剛榮牧師 岳母張楊安幸師母 在這漫長的學術生涯中, 他們是最重要的代禱者與支持者 缺少了他們的代禱與支持, 我不可能在時限之內完成論文寫作 最後, 我要將這本論文獻給我生命中最重要的兩個人 : 佳韻與恩得 他們的容忍 陪伴 鼓勵與愛, 是支撐我奮戰不懈的重要力量 作為改革宗傳統的神學人, 我深知若不是上主的恩典與憐憫, 斷不可能 成事 若這本論文能有些許成果與貢獻, 都榮耀將歸給上主

xi ABSTRACT In this project I argue that the death of Jesus, the faithfulness of Jesus and the righteousness of God are the three main elements of Pauline soteriology in Romans 3:21-26. On Jesus atonement, I argue that Jesus blood is a new institution of atonement, taking the metaphor of the mercy seat to render i`lasth,rion in 3:25. Meanwhile, not only can i`lasth,rion be taken as the mercy seat here, but it can also conceivably be taken as a similar place for offering sacrifice. In other words, i`lasth,rion means Jesus is a new place for sacrificing. In Christ, Gentile and Jew do not need a sacrificial system of law; they can be reconciled equally and simultaneously with God. To sum up, in Rom 3:25 does not mean a kind of sacrifice but a place for sacrifice. I think the martyrs in 4 Maccabees would be a more suitable model in interpreting Jesus death, especially when we interpret Paul s understanding of Jesus atonement in Rom 3:21-26. As for the meaning of the phrase in Rom 3:21-26, I argue that faith is the means through which God can and does manifest his righteousness to all persons who make Christ s stance their own and thus participate in the consummation of God s historical purpose. So I take his phrase as a subjective genitive, that is, the faithfulness of Christ. When he speaks of the faith of Christ, then, Paul is not interested in Christ s faith as a closed phenomenon, a self-contained event, noble, and notable for its

xii own sake. It is rather Christ s faith as it releases the possibility for all peoples and all persons, Jew and Greek, to live before God in the last days. It is Christ s own faith as prototype, Christ s faith as it now determines the personal existence of every believer. The notion of fidelity fits into the downward martyrological plot in the story of Jesus passion. Martyrs faithfully endure suffering, death or a horrible execution. We find Paul is speaking in Rom 3:22 of the definitive disclosure of the by means of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, in other words, Jesus faithfulness here denotes Jesus passion which reveals God s. The death of Christ and the faithfulness of Christ in 3:21-26 have the same connotation: Christ s faithful obedience to God unto death. Christ s death and faithfulness are the new place of sacrifice for all. Christ is characterized within 3:22-25 via a tight conjunction of two sets of metaphors, the one referring to a sacrificial deliverance, and the other to faithfulness, namely, obedience. Combining these two perspectives (Christ s atoning death and his perfect obedience), it can be seen that Christ functions in essence to save humanity from every possible dimension of oppression and disobedience. He atones for sin, and as Paul explains in Rom 5:14-21, he also overcomes the pattern of sin begun by Adam. In short, he functions as God s complete salvation.

1 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1. Introduction and Thesis The main purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the Pauline soteriology of Romans 3:21-26, especially focusing on the relationship between Jesus death and God s righteousness. Some scholars think of this pericope as the heart of the letter to the Romans. At the same time, this pericope may be the most controversial passage in Pauline theology up until today. The pericope is clearly of crucial significance in the development of Paul s argument and in the exposition of his gospel. This pericope is not only the key to interpret God s righteousness in the Pauline theology, but also to the understanding of justification by faith, as the core dogma of the Reformation. Paul repeatedly emphasizes the key word dikaiosu,nh ( righteousness ) and its cognates appear seven times in these six verses, 1 thus recalling his thematic statement earlier in the letter: For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, the one who is righteous will live by faith (Rom 1:17 NRSV). Jesus Christ has great meaning for us because of what he did for us: his atonement. Jesus atonement is the main topic in discussing the Christian doctrine of soteriology. Obviously, in the New Testament, Jesus death is linked to the idea of sacrifice to God in the Hebrew Bible. Each New Testament author tried to explain the functions and meanings of Jesus Christ s death from their own 1 While occurs four times in the form of verb and noun.

2 particular perspectives. For example, in Hebrews Jesus Christ is the High Priest who gave himself as a sacrifice; the author claims that Jesus Christ s death was once for all (Hebrews7:27). In the Gospel of Mark, the evangelist provided an adequate understanding of Jesus death as for the many (Mark 10:45). According to Martin Hengel, 2 the main difference between Mark and Paul in explaining Jesus death is that Mark describes the death of Jesus as the death of the crucified Messiah. Turning to Paul, his letters became the foundation for the church s theology of Christ s sacrificial and atoning death. 3 However, the question that most concerns me in this project is how does Paul develop or interpret the meaning of Jesus death? And what kind of main concern does he express when he proclaims He (God) did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed (Romans 3:25)? To respond to these questions, I am in fundamental agreement with the so-called New Perspective on Paul. Of course, there is no united proposition among those scholars who promote the New Perspective on Paul, 4 however I think at the least we should pay serious attention to some new insights for Judaism in the first century proposed by Krister Stendahl, 5 E. P. Sanders, 6 James Dunn 7 2 Martin Hengel, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament, 1st American ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), xliii. 3 S. Mark Heim, Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 140. 4 This is a general usage to describe these new arguments in Pauline theology. Although Krister Stendal, E. P. Sanders and James Dunn were often attributed to the New Perspective on Paul generally by many critics, in fact, the distinctions between those who promote New Perspective on Paul are quite substantial. 5 Krister Stendahl, "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," Harvard Theological Review, no. 56 (1963): 199-215. 6 E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978).

3 and N. T. Wright. 8 That is, we have to reevaluate Pauline theology in the view of our new understanding of Judaism in the first century and then discuss how Paul was affected in terms of his own cultural, religious, social, and political background and identity under the Roman Empire, rather than simply through the perspective of Martin Luther. The differences and distinctions between Christianity and other religions are often focused on Jesus Christ s work of atonement, that is, soteriology. 9 According to biblical tradition, the meaning of Jesus death is to bring atonement to the world, or Jesus salvation is fulfilled through his suffering and death. Atonement is the doctrine that seeks to show how through Christ s life, death, and resurrection, sinful creatures are reconciled to God. The passion of Jesus Christ his suffering and death is the crucial event in his earthly life, and even in the faith of Christianity. On the other hand, justification means being found just or righteous before God. Traditionally, Martin Luther s reading of justification by faith stood clearly at the center of theological debate. D. Stephen Long rightly points out that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is inextricably linked to our understanding of Christ s righteousness and its effects on our relationship with God. On the other hand, we cannot adequately explain the doctrine of justification by faith without also discussing Jesus 7 James G. Dunn, New Perspective on Paul, The Manson Memorial Lecture delivered in the University of Manchester on November 4 1982. Reprint in James D. G. Dunn, "The New Perspective on Paul," Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 65, no. 2 (1983): 95-122. 8 N. T. Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005). 9 Heim, Saved from Sacrifice, ix-xiv.

4 atonement. 10 Romans 3:21-26 is an important pericope where Paul explicitly connects Jesus death and God s righteousness in the same discourse. Most Pauline scholars focus on either the meaning of God s righteousness or the meaning of Jesus death when studying Romans 3:21-26. In this dissertation, the main contribution is to prove the relationship of both, because among all the Pauline pericopes that mentioned God s righteousness, Romans 3:21-26 is an important example connecting Jesus death to God s righteousness. In addition, I will argue that, for Paul, how Roman Christians (including gentile Christian and Jewish Christian) recognize and understand Jesus Christ will decide their attitude towards other Christians and non-christians. Christology, Ecclesiology and Missiology, I argue, are connected closely in Pauline theology. I propose that how the church recognizes Jesus Christ (Christology) will affect the identity of the church (Ecclesiology) and how the church lives out the good news of Jesus Christ (Missiology). Conversely, how the church lives out the good news of Jesus Christ (Missionology) reflects the identification of the church (Ecclesiology) and how the church recognizes Jesus Christ (Christology). Christology cannot exist outside the context of church life. In other words, the goal of researching Christology is to provide a basis for Ecclesiology and Missiology. This will be the other contribution of this dissertation. My research thesis in this dissertation is that the concept of sacrifice and God s righteousness that the Jewish people developed in their religious history, especially in the second Temple period, greatly affected the New Testament understanding of the meaning of Jesus suffering and death and God s 10 D. Stephen Long, "Justification and Atonement," in The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology, ed. Timothy Larsen and Daniel J. Treier, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 79, 81.

5 righteousness. On the other hand, Paul intentionally used a unique phrase pi,stij Cristou/ to explain the means of fulfilling God s righteousness (Romans 3:25). Therefore, in this dissertation I would like to argue that the Paul s Jewish understanding of atonement and righteousness and the meaning and function of Jesus death and Jesus faith (or, of course, faith in Jesus Christ) are the key to interpret the meaning of God s righteousness in Romans 3:21-26. 1.2. Historical Consideration The history of the Reformation is impenetrable without Martin Luther s discovery of righteousness as gift which he claimed to have found in Romans 1:17. Martin Luther and other Reformers understanding of Romans have been predominant especially in protestant circle after the Reformation. R. Ward Holder points out that in the Reformation, Romans served as the door to the Bible and the correct understanding of Christianity. 11 For example, most scholars have agreed with Philip Melanchthon, a famous Wittenberg theologian, that Romans was the christianae religionis compendium, i.e. the compendium of the Christian Religion. 12 Thomas Tobin rightly points out that there is still a tendency to treat what Paul wrote in Romans as topic rather than as issues. This means most scholars tend to be interested primarily in what Paul wrote and pay little attention to how and why he wrote as he did. 13 11 R. Ward Holder, "Romans in the Light of Reformation Receptions," in Reformation Readings of Romans, ed. Kathy Ehrensperger and R. Ward Holder, (New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 1. 12 Quoted in Karl P. Donfried, "Introduction 1977: The Nature and Scope of the Romans Debate," in The Romans Debate, Revised and expanded ed., ed. Karl P. Donfried, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), xli. However, in Fitzmyer s Romans, the quotation from Melanchthon is: caput et summa universae doctrinae christianae. Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 74. 13 Thomas H. Tobin, Paul's Rhetoric in Its Contexts: The Argument of Romans (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), 2. Italic by author.

6 According to Donfried, scholars began probably after 1970s to apply historical-critical methods in studying Romans to avoid the compendium of theology approach to the structure of the book that has been prominent since the Reformation. 14 For example, C. E. B. Cranfield considers that Paul wrote an explanatory letter in order (1) to inform the Romans of his visit in the near future (15:22-25); (2) to inform them of his Spanish plans and to prepare the way for securing their assistance (15:14-21); (3) to ask for their prayers for himself (15:30-32); and (4) to introduce himself to them as the apostle to the Gentiles via the most appropriate way he knew. 15 Actually Krister Stendahl might be the first one who contributed the most penetratingly insight to criticize the traditional Lutheran understanding of Romans in his article entitled The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West. 16 Stendahl notes the nature of the Reformers interpretation with their culture s perspective in this area: The problem we are trying to isolate could be expressed in hermeneutical terms like this. The Reformers interpretation of Paul rests on analogism when Pauline statements about Faith and Work, Law and Gospel, Jews and Gentiles are read in the framework of late medieval piety his statements 14 F. C. Baur was the first one who discussed the reason and purpose of Romans in modern scholarship. However, Baur s opinions were quickly overlooked. cf. Udo Schnelle, Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 307; Donfried, "Introduction 1977: The Nature and Scope of the Romans Debate," xli; Walter B. Russell, III, "An Alternative Suggestion for the Purpose of Romans," Bibliotheca sacra 145, no. 578 (1988): 177. 15 C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 6th ed., 2 vols., International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1975, 1979), 1:22-4; 2:814-23. 16 Stendahl, "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," 199-215.

7 are now read as answers to the quest for assurance about man s salvation out of a common human predicament. 17 Stendahl argues that the Westerners should step outside their own culture in order to gain a new insight of understanding Romans. Stendahl thought the westerners cultural-bound lens limited and distorted their understanding of Paul. Russell points out: all this is to say that a purpose statement for Romans that is built solely on justification by faith may be suspect because of Western cultural biases. 18 Reviewing Donfried s important edited work, The Romans Debate, 19 which reflected the contributions of the Romans scholarship from 1960s-1990s, we can find in its first part (i.e. the 1977 edition) that Pauline scholars were preoccupied with the meaning and purpose of Romans. At this stage, there was a consensus among the scholarship that in all probability Romans was not intended as timeless compendium of the Christian faith 20. On the other hand, Pauline scholars paid more attention to respond to the question: Why did Paul write Romans? Lung-Kwong Lo points out that the focus to the Romans debate for the past decades (1970s-1990s) was on whether the reason and purpose of Romans is for the concrete situation of Roman Christianity or not. 21 17 Stendahl, "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," 199-200. 18 Russell, "An Alternative Suggestion for the Purpose of Romans," 179. 19 The first edition was published on 1977 which contained ten essays in it. Fourteen years later, in 1991, Donfried revised and expanded this work to add thirteen new essays. Karl P. Donfried ed. The Romans Debate, Revised and expanded ed. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991). 20 Donfried, "Introduction 1977: The Nature and Scope of the Romans Debate," xliii. 21 盧龍光著, 保羅新觀 : 羅馬書的中心思想與目的, 路思義神學講座系列 ( 台北 : 永望, 2007),3 ; 盧龍光著, 論盡羅馬 ; 透析保羅寫羅馬書之目的, 聖經研究叢書 ( 香港 : 漢語聖經協會,2010),12-5

8 After Donfried s edited work, an African scholar James Miller reviewed the same topic as it developed in the next decade: The Romans Debate: 1991-2001. 22 Miller suggests that after the debate during 1971-1991, Pauline scholars widely agreed in two areas: (1) Paul wrote Romans from Corinth on the eve of his departure for Jerusalem with the collection (Rom 15:25-26); and (2) Paul planned to stay in Rome on his way to Spain following his visit to Jerusalem (15:24). However, Pauline scholars did not reach consensus in other areas mentioned by Miller. Here I try to make a summary of Miller s suggestions: 23 First, the first matter concerns the nature of the letter itself. Is this a mature, systematic summary of Paul s theology? In other words, this letter can be sent to any church in Paul s day. Or is this a genuine epistle addressed to and concerned with issues especially relevant to its audience in Rome? 24 Second, if we agree with the majority of scholars opinion that Romans is a genuine letter, then, does Paul write in order to address issues among Roman Christians? Or does he compose the letter concerning issues related to his own situation and mission? Or is Paul motivated to write owing to some combination of the two? 25 Third, if we agree that mission is Paul s intension for writing this letter, then, what are those concerns in the epistle? For example, is Romans Paul s self-recommendation letter to Roman Christians in order to assure his apostolic and gospel authority? Or does Paul intend to obtain Roman Christians support for 22 James C. Miller, "The Romans Debate: 1991-2001," Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 9(2001): 306-49. 23 Miller, "The Romans Debate: 1991-2001," 307-8. 24 Miller, "The Romans Debate: 1991-2001," 308. 25 Miller, "The Romans Debate: 1991-2001," 308.

9 his mission in Spain by this letter (Rom 15:23-24)? Or is this letter Paul s rehearsal for his coming trip to Jerusalem (Rom 15:31)? 26 Fourth, if the concerns of this letter are about the conflicts among the Roman congregations, then, the question is what was the composition of the congregations? How does one reconstruct the composition? What is the relationship of Paul s audience to the nature of the problems Paul addresses? Who are the majority and who are the minority? What are their backgrounds? Who are the strong and the weak in Rom 14-15? 27 Fifth, how does one relate Paul s statements about his circumstances and his intensions in writing expressed in the letter-frame (1:1-17; 15:14-16:27) to the argument of the lengthy letter-body? 28 Sixth and finally, does Paul have a single purpose in the letter, or multiple purposes in writing? What is that? Or what are they? 29 Furthermore, I also agree with Miller s proposal about answering the purpose of Romans: How does one unite the information found in the frame of the letter with the particular contents of the body in such a way that it provides a rationale for why Paul wrote about these specific issues to these particular Christians at this time in his ministry? Any attempt to answer this question will take seriously Paul s own signals of key themes and his purpose(s) in the frame 26 Miller, "The Romans Debate: 1991-2001," 308. 27 Miller, "The Romans Debate: 1991-2001," 308. 28 Miller, "The Romans Debate: 1991-2001," 308. 29 Miller, "The Romans Debate: 1991-2001," 308.

10 of the letter, while aligning that information with the argument of the entire body. 30 On the basis of suggestions mentioned above, we have to review three proposals of Paul s context on this issue. The three contexts are: Paul s own context, the context of the Roman Christian Community, and the context of Paul s missionary plan. 31 30 Miller, "The Romans Debate: 1991-2001," 326. 31 Fabrizio Tosolini, The Letter to the Romans and St. Paul's Grace and Apostleship: Towards a New Interpretation (Taipei: Fu-Jen Catholic University Press, 2005), 24-35; Tobin, Paul's Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 4-6. A. Andrew Das proposes different possibilities of the occasion and purpose of Romans: (1) summary of Paul s theology; (2) The Jerusalem trip as the purpose for Paul s writing; (3) Romans as Preparation for the Spanish Mission; (4) Providing an apostolic foundation for a church; (5) The lack of a concrete situation at Romans; (6) An apologetic purpose; (7) Separate Jewish Christian and gentiles Christian assemblies urged to worship together; (8) The tension between the strong and the weak over Mosaic customs in the wake of the edict of Claudius. I think these eight possibilities also can be categorized under the three contexts of Romans discussed later. A. Andrew Das, Solving the Romans Debate (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 26-52.

11 1.2.1. Paul s Own Context Donfried argued that for the twentieth century New Testament research, if one does not know the original intention of a document one can hardly interpret its contemporary meaning with accuracy and precision. 32 This is the assumption of T. W. Manson s suggestion on the purpose and reason of Romans. According to some early manuscript evidences collected in his time, T. W. Manson suggests that the text of Romans was generated at Corinth, and there were two copies sent to both Rome and to Ephesus at the same time. The copy sent to Rome contained Rom 1-15, the main body of the letter. Later, this copy was known to the author of the Muratorian Canon. However, when Marcion received this copy in the first half of the second century, the ending of this copy was at 14:23. The other copy which contained Rom 1-15 and Rom 16, as an appendix to the letter, was sent to Ephesus. These sixteen chapters were well-known to Clement of Alexandria and became one of the resources of the Sahidic translation. 33 The reason that Paul sent two copies was because the recipients of the letter had their own different situations. Manson argues that Romans serves primarily as the summing up of the positions reached by Paul and his friends at the end of a long controversy, including the relation between Judaism and Christianity, law and gospel, which was recorded in Galatians, 2 Corinthians 3-6, and in Philippians 3. 34 32 Donfried, "Introduction 1977: The Nature and Scope of the Romans Debate," xlii-xliii. 33 Thomas Walter Manson, "St. Paul's Letter to the Romans-and Others," in The Romans Debate, Revised and Expanded ed., ed. Karl P. Donfried, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 13-4. 34 Manson, "St. Paul's Letter to the Romans-and Others," 14-5; also cf.tobin, Paul's Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 5.

12 According to Manson s argument, Romans is a summing up, a manifesto of Paul s deepest convictions. 35 Further, since he was not able to visit his friends in Ephesus while traveling to Jerusalem, Paul sent them a modified copy of this letter to Rome instead, making it more general and adding a final section of greeting. 36 However, Donfried criticizes that Manson s argument is unacceptable because (1) Manson s text-critical hypotheses are not plausible, and (2) he cannot persuasively demonstrate the reason why Paul was interested in writing a summary of his positions to the Roman church. 37 G. Bornkamn supports part of Manson s proposal that Romans was written from the perspective of Paul s previous controversies. 38 He insists that Romans summarizes and develops the most important themes and thoughts of the Pauline message and theology. On the other hand, Romans also elevates Paul s theology above specific situations and conflicts into the sphere that is eternally and universally valid. J. Jervell is another scholar who proposes that Romans is written simply in light of Paul s own existential situation, that is, the past controversies with Judaists, instead of the context of the church in Rome. He argues that beside the 35 Cf. Malcolm D. Tolbert, "Life Situation and Purpose of Romans," Review & Expositor 73, no. 4 (1976): 398. 36 Manson, "St. Paul's Letter to the Romans-and Others," 15. 37 Donfried, "Introduction 1977: The Nature and Scope of the Romans Debate," xliii. 38 Günther Bornkamm, "The Letter to the Romans as Paul's Last Will and Testament," in The Romans Debate, Revised and expanded ed., ed. Karl P. Donfried, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 27-8; also cf. James D. G. Dunn, Romans, CD-ROM ed., 2 vols., Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word Books, 1988).

13 conflict between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians we can know nothing about the concrete need of Roman church. 39 By comparing Rom 12-15 with other parallel Pauline passages, especially Rom 14:1-15:13 and 1 Cor 8; 9; 10:23-11:1, R. J. Karris argument 40 is similar to that of Jervell in denying that Romans was addressed to an actual situation of the church in Rome. He also argues that Romans was to be viewed in light of Paul s own life situation. Malcolm Tolbert criticizes that we do not have clear enough evidence to argue that the conflicts between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians were the main purpose for Paul to write this letter. 41 Tolbert argues that Romans was written to the Gentile Christians, the majority when Paul sent the letter around A.D. 55. During his journey to Ephesus, Paul might have experienced the same tension the churches of Corinth and Galatia. This experience might help Paul contend his arguments in Romans. So this is why Romans 1-8 is closely related in content to Galatians while Romans 12:1-15:13 is closely related to First Corinthians. For Paul, Tolbert argues, the real struggles are coming from Jerusalem. Instead of going to Rome, he must go to Jerusalem. However, this piece of news will cause disappointment to a waiting congregation of Gentile believers. One thing he can do is, on the verge of his departure for Jerusalem, to write a letter of 39 Jacob Jervell, "The Letter to Jerusalem," in The Romans Debate, Revised and expanded ed., ed. Karl P. Donfried, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 53, 64. Similar idea proposed by Malcolm Tolbert as well. Cf. Tolbert, "Life Situation and Purpose of Romans," 396. 40 Robert J. Karris, "Romans 14:1-15:13 and the Occasion of Romans," in The Romans Debate, Revised and expanded ed., ed. Karl P. Donfried, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 83. 41 Tolbert, "Life Situation and Purpose of Romans," 396.

14 assurance to the Roman believers. 42 This letter indicates that he is going to Jerusalem, but that does not indicate a loss of confidence in the gospel. 43 They must know that he still has unwavering faith in it. The approaches mentioned above are easier for scholars to construct a fully logical coherence and development of the letter. However, F. Tosolini rightly points out that those who advocate that the main reason for writing Romans lies with Paul himself, at least in the way their positions have been presented or understood by other scholars, hardly escape the criticism resulting from the position they adopt: they still tend to look upon Romans as timeless theological treatise. 44 In other words, such an opinion emphasizes the common features between Romans and other Pauline epistles. However, the weakness of such an approach is that it neglects the uniqueness of the letter to the Romans, that is, the concrete environment of the addressees of this letter. 45 On the other hand, Lo Lung-Kuang also points out that separating the frame of the letter (Rom 1:1-17; 15:14-33; 16) from the main body of the letter (1:18-15:13) is another weakness of this opinion. 46 1.2.2. The Context of the Roman Christian Community Do we know nothing about the situation of the churches of Rome? German scholar Wolfgang Wiefel s essay The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and 42 Tolbert, "Life Situation and Purpose of Romans," 399. 43 Das, Solving the Romans Debate, 29-32. 44 Tosolini, The Letter to the Romans and St. Paul's Grace and Apostleship, 25. 45 盧龍光著, 保羅新觀 : 羅馬書的中心思想與目的,6-7 46 盧龍光著, 保羅新觀 : 羅馬書的中心思想與目的,7

15 the Origins of Roman Christianity 47 challenges all those who say that we know nothing about the actual historical and sociological situation of the early Christian community in Rome. According to Wiefel s suggestion, we indeed know a considerable amount about Roman Christianity in the first century. In the newly revised and expanded edition of The Romans Debate, F. F. Bruce also suggests that the key to investigate the purpose of the Romans debate is to research whether Romans is (1) addressed toward a concrete historical situation or (2) to be considered as a non-historical christianae religionis compendium. 48 We can find a trend in Pauline scholarship after 1990s that more and more scholars focus on the historical and sociological factors in Rome as the main reason for Paul to write this letter, if we analyze the essays in The Romans Debate. G. Klein argues that, as a whole, Pauline scholars resolve Paul s purpose of writing Romans by two different proposals: (1) the situation of Paul himself and (2) the situation of Roman Christianity at the time when Paul wrote the letter to Romans. The first proposal regards the author of the letter as being more occupied with his own concerns than with those of the Roman community, while the second proposal regards that Paul addresses the Romans for their own sake. 49 However, for Klein, these two approaches run into difficulties. Instead of Paul s own situation, or the concern for the situation of Roman Christians, Klein s argument is basically built on the importance of Rom 15:20. 47 Wolfgang Weifel, "The Jewish Community in Ancient Roman and the Origins of Roman Christianity," in The Romans Debate, Revised and expanded ed., ed. Karl P. Donfried, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 85-101. 48 Donfried, "Introduction 1991: The Romans Debate since 1977," il. 49 Günter Klein, "Paul's Purpose in Writing the Epistle to the Romans," in The Romans Debate, Revised and expanded ed., ed. Karl P. Donfried, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 29-30.

16 He concludes that Paul considered it an apostolic effort to write to Christian in Rome because he does not regard the local Christian community there as having an apostolic foundation. 50 Namely, building apostolic foundation among Roman Christians is the main reason for Paul to write this letter. When discussing the historical and sociological factors of Roman Christianity, the composition of Roman Christianity is one of the primary arguments. Paul presupposes two separate congregations in Rome according to Francis Watson s essay titled The Two Roman Congregations: Romans 14:1-15:13. 51 Watson argues that these two separate congregations are having mutual hostility and suspicion over the question of the law. 52 Paul attempts to build a single Paulinist congregation in Rome, and then this united congregation can worship together. Watson suggests that Andronicus and Junias/Junia are the founder of Roman Christianity. In Rom. 16:7 Paul greets them in order to gain the support of these two important representatives of earliest Jewish Christianity in Rome for his law-free gospel. 53 The reason that Paul sends greetings to individuals directly is a tactic which adds pressure on both groups to introduce themselves to each other and to respect each other: thus the gentile Christians are not to despise Andronicus and Junias/Junia, and the Jewish Christians are not to pass judgment on Prisca and 50 Klein, "Paul's Purpose in Writing the Epistle to the Romans," 39, 42-3. 51 Duane F. Watson, "The Two Roman Congregations: Romans 14:1-15:13," in The Romans Debate, Revised and expanded ed., ed. Karl P. Donfried, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 94-105; Philip Williams, "Paul's Purpose Writing Romans," Bibliotheca Sacra 128, no. 509 (1971): 63-5. 52 Watson, "The Two Roman Congregations," 206. Miller also suggested that: Paul s audience in Rome consists of Christians from both Jewish and Gentile backgrounds Paul has a fair knowledge of the Roman Christian communities there, including an awareness that differences exist among them regarding the Mosaic Law. Cite from Miller, "The Romans Debate: 1991-2001," 325. 53 Watson, "The Two Roman Congregations,"?; also cf.williams, "Paul's Purpose Writing Romans," 62-7.

17 Aquila. Therefore, we can find Paul s exhortation of 15:7 about welcoming one another actualized in Romans 16. Peter Lampe examines some evidences from archaeology, epigraphy, and ancient historical records to demonstrate that the composition of Roman Christian congregations was far from unified. Lampe observes that the term evkklhsi,a is never used by Paul in the entire body of Romans, because there are some divided groups 54 meeting in separate house churches in the regions west of the inner city, 55 and they do not meet together for common worship. According to Lampe, not only evkklhsi,a but also the term sunagwgh, is never used by Paul except in Rom. 16:3-16, where he addresses Andronicus, Junia, and Herodion. Lampe concludes that Paul has a special interest in emphasizing the Jewish origin of Christianity (Rom. 16:7, 11, 21). 56 Among the twenty-six persons named in Romans 16, there is a small minority, six (15%), of Jewish Christians. 57 Lampe suggests that Romans 16 indicates that the vast majority of Christians in the Roman church are Gentiles. 58 These Gentiles had lived as sympathisizers on the margins of the synagogues before they became Christian. 54 It is evident from 16:9 that Paul knew of this multiple house churches. Lampe proposes that there are eight different house churches in Rome which builds upon the work of Wiefel, The Jewish Community in Ancient Roman and the Origins of Roman Christianity. Cf. Peter Lampe, "The Roman Christians of Romans 16," in The Romans Debate, Revised and expanded ed., ed. Karl P. Donfried, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991),?; Jeffrey A. Crafton, "Paul's Rhetorical Vision and the Purpose of Romans: Toward a New Understanding," Novum Testamentum 32, no. 4 (1990): 321. 55 The Jews had so many scattered synagogues in these regions. These regions are over-populated area of a low socio-economic character. Cf. Crafton, "Paul's Rhetorical Vision and the Purpose of Romans," 320. 56 That is to say peace is the theme in Romans, culminating with Paul s exhortation to mutual reception (15:7), proposed by Haacker, cite from Miller, "The Romans Debate: 1991-2001," 312; also cf.lampe, "The Roman Christians of Romans 16," 224. 57 Tobin, Paul's Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 37. 58 Lampe, "The Roman Christians of Romans 16," 225. Walter Schmithals, a German scholar, also suggests that these gentile Christians were former God-fearers who have received Christ but keeping closer relation with synagogue. Cf. Donfried, "Introduction 1991: The Romans Debate since 1977," li.

18 Donfried rightly points out that the two separate groups proposed by Watson are in a most general sense of two different theological positions. Furthermore, Tobin suggests there are at least eight house churches in Rome: the church that meets at the house of Prisca and Aquila (16:5); those who belong to the household of Aristobulus (16:10); those who belong to the household of Narcissus (16:11); Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and those who are with him (16:14); and Philologus, Julia, Nereus, his sister, Olympas, and those who are with them (16:15). 59 The point of estimating the number of house churches in Rome is not to provide some information, but to show that the Roman Christians are not centrally organized, but independently organized house churches. At least, most scholars opinion about the situation of Roman Christianity agrees that this is a divided congregation which lacks acceptance and tolerance, especially in the strained Jewish-Gentile relations. 60 Jeffrey Crafton observes the different addressees in the letter to Romans: Paul sometimes directs his comments to Jews (e.g. 2.17ff), sometimes toward gentiles (e.g. 11:13ff), the explicit statement that we have been called from both the Jews and the Gentiles in 9:24, the constant emphasis on the place of Jews and Gentile under God, and the constant refrain Jews first and also Greek, circumcised and uncircumcised, or simply all, provide 59 On the other hand, since there are thirteen names mentioned in the list, how can we identify the other thirteen? So Tobin estimates Paul at least knows fifteen house churches in Rome.cf. Tobin, Paul's Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 39. Lampe proposes there are eight different house churches in Rome. Cf. Donfried, "Introduction 1991: The Romans Debate since 1977," liii. 60 Dunn, Romans, CD-ROM edition.

19 conclusive evidence that the Christian community in Rome was a mixture of Jews and gentiles. 61 To sum up, according to Crafton s analysis, Paul s argument is the solidarity of all humanity in sin, the offering of salvation to all, and the incorporation of Jews and Gentiles into one body, which is sustained through the entire epistle. 62 The next question of studying the situation of Roman Christian congregations is how did such a situation of non-acceptance occur? To answer this question, we have to briefly review the history of the Jews in Rome. In mid or late 40, Christianity had probably come into Rome with some Jewish Christian tradesmen or missionaries. 63 The earliest Roman Christians were closely associated with Judaism and built small cells in the synagogues. 64 This means that the Jewish Christians were operating under the umbrella of the Jewish synagogues. According to Philo s Legatio ad Gaium, there were many Jews living across the Tiber outside the Rome. Ben Witherington suggests that this means most of the Jews in Rome were at low socio-economic level. 65 However, the early Christian conflict with Jews in the synagogues, and strife arose between conservative and liberal divisions. Because of the conflicts within the Jewish groups, the edict of Claudius banished the trouble-making Jews from the city in 49 61 Crafton, "Paul's Rhetorical Vision and the Purpose of Romans," 321. 62 Crafton, "Paul's Rhetorical Vision and the Purpose of Romans," 321. 63 By the time of Claudius, 40,000 to 50,000 out of the population around 400,000 are Jews. Ben Witherington, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 12. However, Robert Jewtte estimated the population of Jews was 15,000 to 60,000; Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 55. 64 Crafton, "Paul's Rhetorical Vision and the Purpose of Romans," 322-3; Wiefel estimates there are thirteen synagogues in Rome by inscription evidence. Cf.Weifel, "The Jewish Community in Ancient Roman and the Origins of Roman Christianity," 110-9. 65 Witherington, Paul's Letter to the Romans, 12; Jewett, Romans, 53-4.

20 C.E. 66 Suetonius reported this event: The Jews who at the instigation of Chrestus persisted in causing disturbances he expelled from Rome. (Suetonius, Claudius, 25.4) 67 Claudius edict expelled all Jews in Rome including Jews and Jewish Christians, 68 both parties are affected by this action. 69 They probably lost their real estate (house and land). 70 In the ensuing years, Christian groups began to withdraw from the synagogues and to establish their own religious assemblies. It is possible for Christians to turn to the private domestic setting, coming together for communal cultic activities in the homes of the wealthier members. 71 After Nero s accession to the throne in 54 C.E. Claudius edict was rescinded. So many Jews and Jewish Christians began to return to Rome. For the Jewish Christians, however, the situation had changed. There were house churches led by persons they did not know, with an entirely different attitude towards the synagogues and things Jewish, and with different conceptions of community 66 Witherington, Paul's Letter to the Romans, 13; Simon J. Gathercole, "Romans 1-5 and the 'Weak' and the 'Strong': Pauline Theology, Pastoral Rhetoric, and the Purpose of Romans," Review & Expositor 100, no. 1 (2003): 38; Jewett, Romans, 18-9; Tobin, Paul's Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 4, 17, 34-5; Das, Solving the Romans Debate, 158-61; Schnelle, Apostle Paul, 302-4. 67 See also Acts 15:4, 18:2. Most of the scholars agree that Chrestus here is the misspelling of Christus, that is, Christ. Because by the time of Suetonius, Chrestus would have been pronounced the same as Christus through iotacism.tobin, Paul's Rhetoric in Its Contexts, 17. The quotation is translated by Crafton. Cf. Crafton, "Paul's Rhetorical Vision and the Purpose of Romans," 323. 68 Crafton suggested that there is no reason such a distinction would be expected before Jews and Christians began to meet separately. The first evidence that Christians were singles out as a separate entity was under Nero s persecution in 64 C.E. Cf. Crafton, "Paul's Rhetorical Vision and the Purpose of Romans," 323, note 21. 69 However, not all of the Jews were expelled, suggested by Ben Witherington. See Witherington, Paul's Letter to the Romans, 12. 70 Francis Watson also suggested that the Gentile Christians moved into the region that was occupied by Jewish Christians. Cf. Francis Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 95. 71 Crafton, "Paul's Rhetorical Vision and the Purpose of Romans," 324.

21 structure, leadership, and discipline. 72 Crafton suggests that the Christian presence in Rome had taken on a non-jewish character through (1) withdrawal from the synagogues, (2) increased evangelism to the Gentiles, and (3) the prevalent anti-semitism in Rome 73 which had probably began to infect the house churches. Before the Jewish Christians returned to Rome, the Gentile Christians had developed their new Christian style of community life. Crafton rightly argues that, on the one hand, the house churches were in the nascent stages of formation; on the other hand, the house churches would have been attempting to define their unique identification among the numerous foreign religions which were finding their way to Rome at this time. 74 It would be reasonable for the Gentile Christians to be afraid of keeping relations with Jews, the trouble makers. If the returning Jewish Christians insisted on keeping connections to the synagogues, on the other hand, the Gentile Christian would not only occupy the leadership of the house churches in Rome, but also keep increasing. Crafton proposed that, therefore, conflicts and resentment between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians were inevitable. 75 Although the returning Jewish Christians were the minority and their status was even in danger after their return, they held their own distinct expressions of faith with more power. According to the brief analysis of historical context above, the situation at the time for Paul to write the letter to the Roman Christians was distrust and 72 Crafton, "Paul's Rhetorical Vision and the Purpose of Romans," 324. 73 Crafton, "Paul's Rhetorical Vision and the Purpose of Romans," 324; Also cf. Witherington, Paul's Letter to the Romans, 14. 74 Crafton, "Paul's Rhetorical Vision and the Purpose of Romans," 324-5. 75 Crafton, "Paul's Rhetorical Vision and the Purpose of Romans," 325; See alsogathercole, "Romans 1-5 and the "Weak" and the "Strong"," 38.