I will now move to a nutshell mini-thread on the individual Pauline letters in the New Testament. I will be covering them in canonical sequence, including both the so-called undisputed Pauline letters, which I’m saying are “so-called” simply because scholars in every field dispute flippin’ everything (well, almost everything), and the disputed epistles, which, as it turns out are undisputably disputed!
The thirteen letters are arranged not in chronological (or alphabetical!) sequence, but by length: with Romans as the longest and Philemon the shortest. Note: in this arrangement, letters to the SAME audience (two each to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians) are combined in order to determine their length.
And so, the sequence (with U meaning undisputed and D disputed) is
- Romans (U)
- 1 Corinthians (U)
- 2 Corinthians (U)
- Galatians (U)
- Ephesians (D)
- Philippians (U)
- Colossians (D)
- 1 Thessalonians (U)
- 2 Thessalonians (D)
- 1 Timothy (D)
- 2 Timothy (D)
- Titus (D)
- Philemon (U)
In this four-post mini-thread, I deal with the letter to the Romans. I begin by giving a 50-word summary. If you know Romans well, have ever read it, have heard about it (!), try your own summary. Tomorrow mine may be different, for now, here’s my first-ever attempt.
Paul’s writes his letter to the Roman church to garner their support for his missionary endeavors to the far west by explaining that salvation comes only through Christ’s death and resurrection on the basis of faith, both for gentiles and Jews, who are and always will be God’s chosen people.
I will now try to expand this summary by providing a still brief but larger nutshell summary of this long and complicated letter.
*********************
The letter to the Romans is unique among Paul’s letters in that it is not written to a church he had himself founded to help them deal with their problems but to a church want to visit en route to his missionary endeavors in the western parts of the empire. His goal in writing is to announce his visit and to secure the church’s support (moral and possibly financial) for his westward mission. He is particularly concerned to clarify his actual gospel message, apparently because he knows (or thinks) it has been misrepresented and the Roman community is dubious about his teachings.
In particular, it appears Paul has been interpreted as saying that he is the apostle to the gentiles because God has rejected his chosen people the Jews. In addition, since Paul preaches that salvation comes apart from keeping the law of the Jews, some of his opponents are claiming he is endorsing or at least indifferent to “lawless behavior” among his converts.
The letter to the Romans tries to set the record straight on both accounts. Paul explains why he certainly does preach that “justification” – that is, becoming “right” with God comes to Jews and gentiles only through faith in the death and resurrection of Christ, not through keeping God’s commands.
But that does not mean he thinks God has abandoned the Jews as his people. On the contrary, Jews have a great advantage as God’s chosen ones, and he is using them to bring salvation to the entire world. Moreover, far from leading to a life of sin, this gospel provides is the only means for escaping from the “power” of sin to stand pure before God.
Because of this unique purpose for the letter – as an explanation of what he preaches and why, Romans is distinct among Paul’s letters. Here he tries to provide a more systematic exposition of his thought, rather than deal with various problems that have arisen in one of his communities. It is not that they letter is a kind of “systematic theology” that explores distinct doctrinal ideas in sequencek the way theologians have provided expositions of the true faith over the centuries, for example, by laying out the correct view of God, of Christ, of the Spirit, of salvation, of the afterlife, etc. in clearly demarcated categories. Paul is describing the message he preaches to gain support for his mission. That is to say, it too is an “occasional” letter, written for a purpose. Knowing that purpose can help explain much of what Paul chooses to discuss..
He introduces his exposition by strongly affirming his gospel message: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is God’s saving power for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.” In this context, “Greek” means “non-Jew,” that is, gentile, that is “pagan.” The “good news” Paul preaches is a manifestation of God’s power, it comes only by faith (to those who “believe”), whether Jew or gentile.
To explain this message, Paul provides a “bad-news/good-news” scenario (1:18-3:20), explaining that all people are alienated from God because they have knowingly sinned against him. Pagans, he claims, have always known full well from observing the world around them that there is only one God, the Creator of all; but they have willfully rejected this knowledge to worship multitudes of other gods. Moreover, because they have rejected God, he has rejected them, which is why they lead such immoral and licentious lives (ch. 1).
He then argues that Jews are as bad as pagans, even worse: God revealed himself specially to the Jews and gave them his law. But they regularly break it, sinning against God even as his own people. They too are without excuse (ch. 2).
In sum: all people have sinned and fallen short of what God demands; all are alienated from him, whether Jew or gentile. No one is righteous. Everyone, therefore, stands condemned before God (3:1-20).
After this very bad news, Paul gives the good news (end of ch. 3). God has provided a way to be “righteous” (that is, “to be right” with him). Christ’s death has brought an atonement for sin to all who believe in him, making it possible to be “redeemed” from sin by his blood and to obtain a “right standing” (“justification”) before God. Moreover, this path of salvation – the only one provided by God – is available to both Jew and gentile, not based on law but on faith.
Paul goes on to argue that this way of salvation is not an innovation God dreamt up after the other options had failed, but had been his plan all along. Scripture shows that as far back as Abraham, the father of the Jews, “righteousness” came by faith, not by doing being circumcised or doing the “works of the law” (ch. 4). Faith is the natural and long-planned way of salvation that God had established at the beginning.
Paul’s view of sin and salvation, however, is even more complicated than he reveals in these opening four chapters. Another way he explains the bad-news / good-news scenario is far less familiar to readers (often not even noticed). The reason all people sin according to Paul is that sin is not merely an act of disobedience against God; it is also a cosmic power aligned against God that was unleashed against the world starting with Adam. In this sense, sin is a kind of demonic force that has overpowered all humans and put them into subjection to itself, rather than to God.
Paul deals with this aspect of sin in chapter 5-8. Everyone descended from Adam is “enslaved” to sin, and it is a far greater power than anyone can overcome on their own. Having the law of God cannot help a person escape this power of sin, since the law indicates what God wants his people to do but does not provide the power to do it (ch. 5). Everyone necessarily does what they do not want to do (ch. 7). That’s the other set of bad news. All humans are enslaved to sin and there is no way to break free.
But God has provided liberation from sin through the death of Jesus. When Christ died he took the power of sin upon himself and therefore put it to death. Anyone who is united with Christ by being baptized into him has similarly died to sin. Baptized believers have been set free from the power that alienates them from God (Romans 6). They now have Christ and God as their masters. And they no longer need to be dominated by the power of sin (chs. 5-8).
Again, this does not mean that God has abandoned his chosen ones, the Jews. In chapters 9-11 Paul gets to the heart of the matter, one of the ultimate points of his book. The gospel of God’s salvation has indeed now gone to the gentiles and will ultimately lead to their salvation. But God has not rejected his own people. On the contrary, in the end “All Israel will be saved.”
Paul’s arguments in these three chapters are notoriously difficult, but it is clear he believes God allowed (ordained?) Jews to reject their salvation in Christ in order to open up the door for gentiles to be brought into the community of faith. Eventually, when Jews realize salvation has now come to those who are not physical descendants of Abraham, they would become of those now brought into the fold of God’s chosen people, and turn to Christ, and be saved. This is God’s plan of salvation for the world..
Paul explains that even though Jews have advantages over gentiles – they were the ones given the covenant, the law, and the messiah – they do not have a superior salvation in Christ. Jews and gentiles who believe are equal before God. That also means, though, that even though Jews originally rejected the messages of Christ, gentiles in Christ are superior. All believers are of equal standing.
Paul then devotes our four four chapters to explaining that this gospel message of salvation by faith in Christ apart from the law does not lead to lawless behavior. On the contrary, those who are in Christ, whether Jew or gentile, are now freed from the power of sin and can and should lead lives in total obedience to God. Paul provides some advice of important ethical implications of what this salvation entails, and above all insists that everyone should “love their neighbor as themselves” (quoting Leviticus 19:18), because, as he says (in an echo of what Jesus himself is reported to have said, “Love fulfills the law” (13:8-10).
In the final chapter Paul greets a number of Roman Christians he personally knows (over 25 of them), most of them by name.
Seems to me Paul wasn’t just educating, he was strategizing. His letter to the Romans wasn’t just about explaining faith—it was also about securing support for his mission to Spain. Do you think Paul saw these as separate goals, or were theology and fundraising intertwined in his mind?
Closely intertwined. But I’m not sure that his “support” was only (or even mainly) about funding.
Maybe Paul was ahead of his time—he should’ve had a blog with a membership model where people could contribute to support his mission. Kinda like what you’re doing, Dr. Ehrman!
Dr Ehrman,
This article speaks of Paul’s support of the gospel messages. Which gospels do you think the believers in Rome would have read?
We don’t know. But there’s a difference between the gospel and the Gospels. Paul’s “gospel” just refers to the “good news” he proclaimed. When we talk about Gospels as books, that is an indication of their genre. Paul had a gospel but no written Gospels (so far as we know/can tell).
Dr. Ehrman, do you think Paul’s concept of “sin” as a cosmic power that “enslaves” humans was influenced by the 1st Century Roman belief of “fate” as a power that controls humans?
It’s a great question, and I don’t know how we could decide.
I’d love to hear your take on Richard Bauckham’s argument that Junia (Romans 16:7) and Joanna (Luke 8:3, 24:10) are identical. Do you find his proposal convincing, or do you have reservations?
What are your thoughts on Aristobulus’ household and Herodian being associated with Jewish aristocracy? Do you think this sheds light on the social connections of the early Roman church?
Narcissus’ household is mentioned in Romans 16:11. Given Narcissus’ connection to Claudius, do you think this household represents a link to the Roman upper class?
Do you think Rufus (Romans 16:13) was indeed the son of Simon of Cyrene, who carried Jesus’ cross?
Lastly, is it plausible that Hermas (Romans 16:14) was the same person who authored The Shepherd of Hermas?
I’ve been pondering the overall tone and purpose of Romans. You note that Paul is addressing concerns and criticisms from the Roman church. Do you think it’s possible that Paul is, in a sense, defending himself and his ministry to the Roman church, which may have been perceived as a dominant force in the early Christian world? Are they already the sort of “headquarters” of the faith? Is Paul seeking to establish his credibility and apostolic authority with this influential church?
As with most of Bauckhams arguments about names, I don’t find it convinding. Junia and Joanna are differnt names. Narcissu: don’t know. Rufus: don’t know. Hermas: couldn’t be teh same; the dates don’t work.
And no, I don’t think Rome is the headquarters yet That would come much later.
Paul was extremely mentally stimulated as he revealed the mystery of death and life. Romans 16:25. The mystery had now been revealed but not yet understood yet by the reprobate mind, αδοκιμος νους, who are the worst of criminals such as serial killers: the beasts. (Locusta of Gaul). Romans 1:28.
This question is off-topic, but on your most recent podcast, you mentioned an otherwise unknown teaching of Jesus that Papias cites (the one about 10,000 grapes in every bunch and so on). You seemed to indicate that it’s obvious Jesus never would have said such a thing, but I can’t understand why. Isn’t this kind of exaggerated imagery pretty typical of ancient Jewish prophetic figures? I’m thinking of Amos 9:13 (“the mountains shall drip sweet wine”) as a particularly close example. If Jesus taught something like this, it strikes me that he’s using that same kind of imagery to make his point about how great the coming kingdom will be. All that being said, I don’t think there’s any special reason to think Jesus really did say this, just that there isn’t a reason to think he didn’t say it, if that makes sense. Curious to understand your thinking on this.
I say that because it is completely unlike the other sayings of Jesus about the kingdom that we can establish as probably authentic. But it’s perfectly like the kinds of exaggeratoins you find in Papias elsewhere.
Great post Bart, obviously he planned to visit Rome on his way to Spain but scholars aren’t sure he made it. According to Pope Clement Paul made it to extreme limit of the west where he was killed. Then letters from church historians claiming Paul was killed by Nero. My question – What is your theory on what happened to Paul at the end of his life?
My theory is we don’t know. 1 Clement does indicate he was martyred (and that Peter wsa as well), and the book was written from Rome, but it does not indicate he was martyred there. It suggests he was martyred in the far West as you point out. (BTW, 1 Clement doesn’t claim to be written by Clement, and there’s little to suggest it was; and our oldest references to a Clement at that time in Rome to not speak of him as the bishop of the church)disabledupes{f5a285e65606006c9aa9c844d4047418}disabledupes
What’s your thoughts on this paper?
https://www.academia.edu/127949202/The_Markan_Perspective_on_Petrine_Theology_A_Response_to_Richard_Bauckham
Do you know the author?
I’m afriad I’m not aware of it. But if you’d like to summarize it and say who wrote it, I’d be happy to give a quick perspective on it.
disabledupes{bf4abb5cd0fb5f2b44c2351b338d2c31}disabledupes
The author is named Omar he wrote a response to Bauckham inclusio and plural to singular device and peter in the gospel of mark. I think I sent you the link but if you can’t acses the paper is called “The Markan Perspective on Petrine Theology: A response to richard Bauckham” on academia.edu
Yes, you sent me the link but I’m afraid I don’t have time to read everything! Wish I did.
By moving West into Rome and Spain, Paul was leaving his support base. I don’t think he had an entourage to travel with him and meet his needs. But Paul also wanted to plant the seeds if his ideas ahead of his travels. He doesn’t write about (and may not have known) how his ideas fit or clashed with existing Roman Christian philosophy and practice. Perhaps Romans was his ‘elevator pitch’ way of introducing himself and championing his ideas.
In his earlier letters, Paul isn’t reluctant to say nasty things about those who disagree with him. Perhaps he doesn’t want to antagonize the assembly in Rome even before he gets there. He may not have had an established reputation there. Or if he did, perhaps not a good one. All this remains hypothetical, since AFAIK no peer Christian writing of the area survives today.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
I am a Christian of the liberal/modernist tradition. First, I want to say your sober-minded and fair academic analysis has been instrumental to my faith. So, thank you. Much appreciated. Can’t wait for your new book.
Question: Do you believe Paul’s writings, particularly Romans, back Augustine’s idea of “Original Sin,” mainly as it manifests in the church today?
Augustine certainly based his views on Paul, but his perspective is a view that Paul would probably not have recognized (with the transmisson of the sin nature through the man’s semen, etc.)
The law [Mosaic Covenant] indicated what God wanted from his people,
but [God] did not provide [his people] with the power to do it.
Then God provided liberation [from The Mosaic Covenant] by killing his son Jesus on a cross.
This sacrifice allows those who believe to return to God’s original Covenant with Abraham
.– Salvation by Faith –. Abraham proved his Faith by almost killing his son (an angel stopped him).
The resurrected Jesus gave the Final Commandment to prove one’s Faith and receive Salvation:
”As I have loved you, you are to love one another.”
(this is the best spin I can put on Paul’s theology)