Romans: A Structural, Thematic, and Exegetical Commentary

By Aaron Sherwood

Paul's majestic letter to the Romans has impacted generations of readers. Christians regularly turn to it as a foundation for doctrine, evangelism, and Christian living. However, individual verses are often pulled from their context or later doctrinal formulations are imported into the text. Are we truly following Paul's meaning? What if we reread Romans on its own terms, with sensitivity to its flow and structure?

Aaron Sherwood's Romans commentary keeps Paul's argument central. As we encounter the letter's message and theology, the forest is never lost for the trees. Reading Romans with rhetorical perception results in illuminating and sometimes surprising conclusions.

Encounter afresh this majestic letter with Sherwood's insightful commentary.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lexham Press
• Release date: Dec 2, 2020
• ISBN: 9781683594024

Aaron Sherwood

Aaron Sherwood (PhD, Durham University) is an Instructor for Regent College and the author of Paul and The Restoration of Humanity in Light of Ancient Jewish Traditions.

Book preview

Cover.png

AARON SHERWOOD

ROMANS

A STRUCTURAL, THEMATIC, & EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY

Copyright

Romans: A Structural, Thematic, and Exegetical Commentary

Copyright 2020 Aaron Sherwood

Lexham Press, 1313 Commercial St., Bellingham, WA 98225

LexhamPress.com

You may use brief quotations from this resource in presentations, articles, and books. For all other uses, please write Lexham Press for permission. Email us at [e-mail].

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

Print ISBN 9781683594017

Digital ISBN 9781683594024

Library of Congress Control Number 2020935616

Lexham Editorial: Derek Brown, Matthew Boffey, Ronald van der Bergh, Danielle Thevenaz

Cover Design: Kristen Cork

Dedicated to

all those who invested in me,

especially early in my life,

to help make me into

someone who could

attempt a volume

like this one.

CONTENTS

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

I.The Setting and Purpose of this Volume

II.The Orientation of the Commentary

III.The Occasion(s) of Romans

IV.Communicative Strategy, Structure, and the Purpose(s) of Romans

V.Theology in Romans

VI.Glossary

COMMENTARY

PART I: PAUL INTRODUCES HIS PASTORAL CARE ACCORDING TO THE GOSPEL (ROMANS 1:1–15)

Overview

Romans 1:1–7: Letter Greeting

Romans 1:8–15:

Prayer and Thanksgiving, and the Thesis of Romans

PART II: PAUL’S APOLOGY FOR HIS GOSPEL (ROMANS 1:16–11:36)

Overview

Romans 1:16–17:

The Theme of the Apology:

Paul’s Gospel Is Not Shameful (Despite Appearances)

Romans 1:18–3:20:

The Antithesis to the Apology:

The Need of Humanity apart from the Gospel for God’s Powerful Salvation

Romans 3:21–31:

The First Part to Paul’s Selective Elaboration on the Gospel

Romans 4:1–25:

God’s Covenantal Consistency in the Gospel

Romans 5:1–21:

The Second Part to Paul’s Selective Elaboration on the Gospel

Romans 6:1–7:6:

Response to the First Objection: The Gospel Does Not Allow Sinfulness

Romans 7:7–8:30:

Response to the Second Objection: The Gospel Does Not Implicate Torah in Sin and Death

Romans 8:31–39:

The Third Part to Paul’s Selective Elaboration on the Gospel

Romans 9:1–11:36:

Response to the Third Objection:

God Is Not Unfaithful to Israel in the Gospel

Summary of Romans 9–11

Summary of Romans 1:16–11:36

PART III: MAIN LETTER BODY: PASTORAL EXHORTATIONS FOR ROME AND PAUL’S SPANISH MISSION (ROMANS 12–15)

Overview

Romans 12:1–12:21:

Christian Community and Godly Living within the Community of Faith

Romans 13:1–14:

The Community of Faith Living in a Godly Manner within the World

Romans 14:1–15:6:

The Weak and the Strong

Romans 15:7–13:

The Full Purpose of the Gospel

Summary of Romans 12:1–15:13

Romans 15:14–33:

The Roman Church’s Aid for Paul’s Spanish Mission

Romans 16:1–23 (15:33–16:27):

Letter Closing

EXCURSES

EXCURSUS 1: NATURAL THEOLOGY AND THE IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED IN ROMANS 1:18–32

EXCURSUS 2: INTERPLAY BETWEEN ROMANS 3:27–8:17 AND GALATIANS 3:1–4:7

EXCURSUS 3: SALVATION, REDEMPTION, DELIVERANCE, AND ATONEMENT IN ROMANS

EXCURSUS 4: THE I IN ROMANS 7

EXCURSUS 5: DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE AND PREDESTINATION IN ROMANS 8:28–30

EXCURSUS 6: THE SALVATION OF ALL ISRAEL IN ROMANS 11:25–27

EXCURSUS 7: THE DISPUTED ORIGINALITY OF ROMANS 16

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SCRIPTURE AND ANCIENT SOURCES INDEX

SUBJECT INDEX

AUTHOR INDEX

PREFACE

Let me first say what the preface of every Romans commentary ought to start by saying, and often does: I love Romans. It has naturally been a transformative experience immersing myself in this astounding letter. As well, I recognize that scholars most commonly write a commentary on this august, influential letter at the height of their long and impressive careers. So I am terribly humbled to attempt a commentary on Romans at this point in my life. Especially when I compare the number of pages I used here to the mere eleven pages that Romans takes up in my English Bible. I join my single voice to the estimable discussion of many others, who have already put forward so much effort in interpreting Romans.

And yet.

It also needs confessing that Romans has, for some time, been a small burr under my saddle. This is undoubtedly an amazing letter, and I do love Romans. But love of Romans is not the main reason that I set out on this project.

My undergraduate degree in philosophy was heavily weighted toward metaphysics. My fellow students would joke how we all really wanted to major in quantum physics, but none of us were good enough at math. We used to say we were philosophy majors because we suffered from physics envy. This volume is something of a repeat of history.

I did not continue in philosophy; nowadays I mainly wear the hat of a Pauline specialist—which I love, but originally I wanted to be a Jesus scholar. It is just that early in my graduate program I learned how the Pauline documents antedate the final forms of the Gospels. So I reckoned that in order to study Jesus, I should start at the beginning and work my way through Paul. I never quite got out. And even then, what I am really taken by (would fashions in scholarship and publishing allow it) is Ephesians. In fact, if anything, my gravitation toward Romans was probably generated by the arguable confluence of Ephesians 2 and Romans 15:7–13.

Concerning the large, historical discussion over Romans particularly, my own reading placed in me a suspicion: I suspected that some aspects of interpretation have just needed a bit of another going over. Suspicion led to my own investigation. Investigation led to findings that (in my estimation) fit the data and withstand scrutiny. And said findings seem to bear out my suspicion: certain conventional ideas concerning what Romans is about are not quite correct. Or certain conventional ideas are correct, but not for the reasons that people presume. Or certain other things legitimately taken from Romans ought to be given less weight than they typically enjoy.

For a while, I have been bugged by the nagging suspicion that scholars and theologians understand the letter almost perfectly, but not quite. It’s like seeing a picture across the room that is hung just a little bit crooked. Which might be allowed to pass, except that in the view of so many, Romans is the key to Paul, if not all Christian theology. I do celebrate Romans—really, I do. But it could be argued that it is not always appreciated for what it actually is and says, compared to what is often thought or presumed. I hope not to lose readers in saying so, but I like to start teaching Romans with the joke that what Star Wars, The Beatles, and Romans have in common is that all three are a bit overrated.

Moreover, it is not easy to arrive at this assessment of things. As a student, I have found my favorite commentators’ good and correct insights to be invaluable and formative. But because of the peculiarities of the genre of commentary, even their insights are sometimes hard to ferret out.

All this explains what really moved me to write this volume. What, when you get right down to it, is Romans saying? Ultimately, this volume aims at assimilating all the best features and findings of other commentaries, while also filling in gaps in the big picture, in order to be the commentary that I had always wanted as a student. I hope to make this volume as user-friendly as I had wanted all my own favorite commentaries to be. So I do my best to take advantage of all the best formatting ideas from preceding commentaries. As well, at various important points in the letter, I feel that the data warrant a new reading, which inevitably has a domino effect. Ultimately, my reading of Romans overall is distinct enough to need its own presentation.

This volume hopes to helpfully revisit the crooked picture parts of other interpretations of Romans, its theology, and its relative importance. Because I do love this letter, I hope to set out what it genuinely is about, so that other students can stop missing it because they instead focus upon what it is less about. Ideally, this volume frees up Romans to speak to others in the same ways in which it has spoken to me.

Lastly, I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge some of the many others who deserve credit for the positive aspects of this volume. Great credit goes to especially Ms. Kristin Fance, reference librarian at Houston Baptist University, and also to the interlibrary loan staff at Pierce County Library, Washington, for their indispensable aid in securing countless research resources. My gratitude also to my editor Derek Brown, my copyeditor Matthew Boffey, and the publishing staff at Lexham Press/Faithlife for their efforts in revising this volume and bringing it to fruition. All mistakes, of course, remain my own.

INTRODUCTION

I. THE SETTING AND PURPOSE OF THIS VOLUME

This commentary focuses more upon the overall shape and message of Romans and less on smaller details beyond what they say of the larger message. The investigation especially looks at how Paul uses the letter structure to help convey his message. This approach allows Paul to set the theological priorities of Romans, ensuring that modern readers take Paul’s own meaning and theology from his discussion.

St. Paul’s Epistle to the church at Rome is one of the most analyzed documents of the last two millennia. So why yet another commentary on Romans?

This volume aspires to be a commentary that notes the trees but focuses mostly on the forest; the trees are recognized for where they stand in the wider landscape. That is, there are at least two key areas where this commentary tries to overcome the tendencies of its genre. First, it examines the text in a way that more strongly accents Paul’s overall message, relative to the blocks out of which he constructs it. Second, and related, it reflects the relative emphasis that Paul himself places on various motifs or portions of his discussion.

Some modern commentaries take a markedly atomistic approach, which frees up this volume to focus comparatively little on many of the details already proficiently covered. As well, that granular attention issues an invitation to reassemble what all those words, clauses, and sentences say about Paul’s overall message—and reciprocally, how that larger message influences the meaning of those smaller parts. This volume aims at supplementing the efforts of such other commentary interpretations. The examination here gets to emphasize how Paul’s message in relatively self-contained parts of Romans and his overall message in Romans inform one another. Thus, this commentary has the opportunity and luxury of directing much of its energy into articulating what is best referred to as Paul’s communicative strategy.

By communicative strategy we mean how Paul wrote and shaped Romans in order to tailor both its meaning and the reception of that meaning by his original audience.¹ We presume that Paul’s composition is purposeful, competently written (i.e., comprehensible to his original audience), and coherent. We know, then, that Paul crafted each thought unit (or pericope) in Romans and placed it where he did so that it would communicate a certain point, thereby fulfilling its function of contributing to and carrying forward Paul’s overall agenda. Accordingly, this commentary aims at reading Romans with a particular emphasis on how Paul makes his language and all the bits of his letter work together.

The goal here is a commentary where the text of Romans directs the exegetical decisions of the reading. Watching Paul design his message lets the message presented be the one he intends for his original audience to hear. As a consequence, it must be fully conceded that the reading offered here is non-exhaustive. But happily, the approach here should provide a baseline of what is Paul’s message in Romans. Then that baseline can serve as a fixed reference point, which can help to orient the innumerable valuable insights already produced by other (more exhaustive) interpretations and commentaries.²

II. THE ORIENTATION OF THE COMMENTARY

Many commentaries already do an outstanding job at analyzing even the minute details of the text of Romans. So this volume is free to look at the text just enough to piece back together—to analytically interpret—Romans. This leads to a more holistic understanding—an exegetical synthesis—of the meaning of Paul’s message in the letter as a whole, within its original setting. This leads to some surprising discoveries about what Paul does and does not emphasize, particularly given the extensive history of interpretation of Romans.

One priority for this volume is accessibility. This section describes how the chosen layout starts with displaying the big picture and then moves outward in concentric layers toward increasingly detailed evidence supporting that picture. Finally, this section also overviews the shape of Romans, providing context for the rest of the information presented in the introduction.

As mentioned above, modern commentaries have collectively done a perfectly adequate job of communicating Paul’s message in Romans. Various strengths and areas for improvement aside, all are generally successful at giving at least a passable description of the shape and flow of Paul’s message. Likewise, the variety of layouts used show that no single way of presenting analysis of the text is the only correct way of doing so. With sound analysis, nearly any format can work; and rarely if ever is an analysis ruined by format.

As just stated, this commentary emphasizes what the overall structure reveals about the message of Romans. In that sense, the orientation of this commentary pivots on the differing goals of analysis versus synthesis. Most modern commentaries serve students by breaking down what Paul says in Romans into small, comprehensively understood pieces. Generally, such commentaries successfully yield sound presentations of Paul’s meaning in the letter. When the pieces are understood, then in a way, so is the whole that comprises those pieces.

In many ways, interpreters like Dunn, Fitzmyer, Schreiner, Jewett, and many others have already said all that needs saying about many aspects of Paul’s letter. Consequently, the examination in this volume is intentionally selective and non-comprehensive. The focus here tends toward how a given thought unit holds together, on the whole. Some time is given over to the smaller pieces, like a point of syntax or the deep background of a word. But effort is made only to spend time on the minutiae when needed for understanding the structure and meaning of a pericope (and hence Romans as a whole). Select trees will be studied, but just as much as necessary to provide an accurate view of the forest.

As a result, the reading offered in this commentary is admittedly unconventional in certain respects. In many places, the findings coincide with those of more conventional commentaries. Not infrequently, though, those typical right answers are here intentionally reached by way of a distinct reasoning process. As well, readers will quickly notice that in this volume, some accounts of Paul’s agenda(s) (and even doctrines) differ from typical interpretive trends.

A. HOW TO USE THIS VOLUME

The organization of this commentary seeks to make the conclusion to each section highly accessible. The first place to look for the findings is this introduction. Then, for a given paragraph or set of paragraphs within the letter, the meat of Paul’s message is summarized first in the introduction to the pertinent literary unit, and then again to start the examination of each of the pertinent paragraphs.

The United States Armed Forces use a memorable phrase when it comes to communications: bottom line up front. The intention in this volume is to use this principle at every step of organization. Briefly put, the best way to access the substance of the reading advanced in this volume is to consult (in this order):

1.This introduction

2.Introductions to the major literary units

3.Introductions to literary sub-units

4.Within the examination of each pericope in the letter, first the Main idea sections at the start

5.The Summary and theological reflection sections at the end

6.The Structure sections (just after discussion of the main idea)

7.The actual commentary on the text, i.e., the investigation and evaluation of the data housed in the Analysis and interpretation section of the examination of each pericope in Romans

In general terms, the organization of this volume is typical of commentaries. It begins here with this introduction, and then examines Romans one thought unit at a time.³ In this particular case, though, both this introduction and all of the analysis sections are organized around an interest in most clearly presenting Paul’s overall meaning in the letter. This is only indirectly in view during the examination of individual pericopae. But even then, the analysis still makes the concerted effort in pointing out how that part of Paul’s discourse relates to his message as a whole.

It will do to give here a brief, annotated description of all the stages of examination listed in the above catalogue. First is this introduction. This is the most important section to consult if a reader only has time for a passing glance.

This section takes all the findings of the upcoming commentary and draws them all together into a summary. Effectively, this introduction is a synthesis of the reasoned evaluation of the data to come. It gives an overall explanation of how Paul communicates his message in the letter.⁴

The next layer consists of the introductions to the letter’s literary units and sub-units. Farther down, this introduction articulates a structural analysis of Romans as a whole (again, synthesized from data examined in the upcoming analysis sections; see "The Structure of Romans," page 28). Accordingly, the examination of Romans in this volume is parsed into the sections that Paul himself uses in structuring Romans. For instance, Romans 12:1–15:13 is considered its own major literary unit. In the upcoming examination, major units like 12:1–15:13 are first led off by their own introduction and summary (pp. 640–41). And on this example, the major unit comprises the literary sub-units of Romans 12; 13; 14:1–15:6; and 15:7–13. In the below commentary, each of these also has its own summarizing introduction (pp. 641–42, 668–69, 694–95, and 729). So, after this introduction, the next place for a reader to look is the introduction and overview to all the literary units and sub-units in the letter. These summarizing introductions each recount the general flow and meaning of their respective chunks of Romans and also account for the position of that (sub-)unit within the letter structure.

Then the upcoming commentary examines the text by analyzing each pericope in each literary sub-unit, one at a time. For instance, the sub-unit of ch. 12 is tackled by looking in turn at the pericopae of 12:1–2, 12:3–8, and 12:9–21. If a reader wants either to delve deeper into a given pericope, or just to skip ahead and acquaint herself with Paul’s meaning in that pericope, then naturally she should look to the commentary on that pericope. But in particular, she is recommended to read (in order) the Main idea, the Summary and theological reflection, and the Structure portions of analysis.

Finally, the Analysis and interpretation portion provides chronological examination of the text itself. As the last step, this is the portion of the examination which a reader can consult for the justification of those other, higher-order portions. Specifically, the analysis of every individual pericope in Romans follows a format that demonstrates what that pericope means (both in itself and in relation to the rest of Romans), and also how that pericope contributes to the overall meaning of Romans.

This is also a fitting place to outline the template used in the upcoming commentary for examining each pericope in Romans. First comes a concise statement of the main idea for the pericope. This states Paul’s primary point (having taken into account all supporting details) in a way that especially helps to link the pericope to those before and after it. After this comes the Structure section, which is a structural analysis of the internal logic and external position of the pericope. This section shows how Paul’s rhetorical composition channels his discussion so that the pericope expresses the main idea he wants it to. Then comes the exposition of the text itself, in the Analysis and interpretation. Here is where the data are gathered, and an evaluation of the data is reasoned out. Thus the Analysis and interpretation section supports the foregoing findings on the structure and the proposed main idea. Finally, the analysis of each pericope concludes with the Summary and theological reflection. This section provides a summary of Paul’s message and meaning in the pericope, and reflections on how it both impacts and is impacted by the overall shape of Romans.

B. OVERVIEW OF PAUL’S MESSAGE IN ROMANS

How Paul structures Romans reveals his sense of priorities in the letter. There is a reason that Paul needs to include each part of his discussion, and thus a purpose he wants that part to accomplish:

•Paul wants to establish a warm relationship with his audience that will lead to their support for his mission to Spain. He includes Romans 1:1–15 and 15:14–33 to provide both that introduction and his proposal.

•Paul also needs to pastorally care for his audience, since he loves them dearly and they are experiencing certain challenges. He includes Romans 1:11–15 and 12:1–15:13 to serve as his pastoral care until he arrives in person.

•Finally, Paul needs to defend against a negative reputation that has preceded him to Rome. He includes the apology of Romans 1:16–11:36 to ensure that nothing prevents the audience from accepting his pastoral care or his proposed missions partnership.

In the interest of making the reading offered by this commentary as accessible as possible, it is best to supply up front an overview of Paul’s communicative strategy for the letter. The bottom line is this: Paul means to share a twofold message with his audience. Half of the message is that he yearns to initiate and be in a relationship with them—in particular, Paul is eager both for mutual fellowship, and for their partnering with him in missions. The other half of Paul’s message is that he also wants to minister to his audience amid the challenges they are currently experiencing as believers. However, owing to various factors (explained below), in order to be heard on those two points Paul also has to wedge in an explanation of why his audience should receive his message, by way of a selective survey of his gospel. These pieces together constitute what is in its final form Paul’s letter to the saints at Rome.

Before coming back to a more detailed walkthrough of Paul’s message, this overview first needs to contextualize that message. For that, we start with the circumstances of Paul’s writing. Those circumstances consist in the audience’s identity, in how Paul and his audience are connected (before the letter is written), and what Paul thinks he and his audience need from one another.

As to their identity, Paul’s original Roman audience comprises both Jewish and non-Jewish believers. But even so, all the audience are unanimously and nonnegotiably committed to Israel’s scriptural heritage. They consider Israel’s gospel to be legitimated by and understood through Scripture. And so, to the audience, the Christ event is in continuity with the Scriptures, as their full (albeit cosmically disjunctive) realization. Therefore, even before Paul reaches out to them, they believe that the offer of saving discipleship radiates out from Jesus to his own Jewish people, and then also to the (non-Jewish) nations.⁵

As to connection, Paul neither founded nor has ever visited the church at Rome, and at the time of writing had never personally met them. Moreover, what Paul’s audience have heard of him is mostly that his preaching of the gospel is accepted by non-Jews, but generally rejected by Jews (see 1:16–17). They are asking themselves whether Paul is not driving deeper the wedge between Jesus and unbelieving Jews.

Finally, to Paul’s way of thinking, there are things that both he and his Roman audience need from one another. Paul is indeed excited to visit the Romans and meet them for the first time. But he also means to continue on past them on a mission trip to Spain. Additionally, the Roman believers could use help with certain difficulties that they are experiencing. And some of those are particularly difficulties among themselves—ironically enough, having to do with the Jewish roots of the gospel.

All of this together is a serviceable overview of the circumstances of writing.⁶ And this overview now facilitates a walkthrough of the letter. There is Paul’s list of wants, and also his pastoral resources necessary to the audience. Together, those two things make up the list of everyone’s needs within the occasional setting.

First, there is a twofold reason for Paul’s inclusion of Romans 1:1–15 and 15:14–33, and also for his fashioning those segments in the way that he does. For one, Paul is simply that earnest and enthusiastic that he and his audience should meet each other. And two, Paul has pragmatic need of assistance with his planned mission to Spain. Likewise, then, Paul also has a twofold purpose that he wants 1:1–15 and 15:14–33 to meet. One goal is that he successfully shares with his Roman audience his passion for them. The other goal is that he prepares them for his impending request regarding help with his hoped-for mission.

Next, there are also two reasons why Paul includes Romans 1:11–15 and 12:1–15:13. Primarily, the situations and tensions confronting the audience require aid from someone like Paul. But secondarily, Paul likewise has a burden to see his audience equipped to live righteously, since he (already) cares for them so deeply. Accordingly, Paul’s purpose for this layer of Romans is to provide his audience with the pastoral care and instructions that will equip them to respond to the challenges facing them. Paul means to help his audience to act with wisdom, righteousness, and christlikeness. In a sense, the pastoral care that Paul offers in 1:11–15 and 12:1–15:13 is a first installment of the ways he wants to bless them once he arrives in person.

Finally, Romans 1:16–11:36—in the middle of the body formed by 1:8–15 and chs. 12–15—is an apology. As stated just above, Paul’s audience know him for how his gospel about the Jewish Messiah, according to the Jewish Scriptures, seems to bypass Jews and rather captivate non-Jews. Further, the audience themselves have not yet met Paul, and as such owe him neither loyalty nor benefit of the doubt; they are themselves committed to the Jews’ scriptural heritage. Consequently, Paul needs to defend his preaching so that his audience are receptive to him on the other matters listed above. With all this in play, the reason for 1:16–11:36 is that Paul finds himself on the defensive regarding both the questions of unbelieving Jews’ rejection of his gospel and of how unbelieving Jews’ relationship with Israel’s God is going to resolve. Therefore, Paul’s purpose for the layer of 1:16–11:36 has two complementary aspects. First, Paul is bringing his audience to see how he and they fundamentally share a correct understanding of the gospel, particularly as it relates to unbelieving national Israel. Second, in this Paul is likewise bringing his audience to agree that once his gospel is properly understood, no shame attaches to himself (or to God by association) because of the result(s) of his evangelization. If Paul can ease his audience’s minds on these scores, then they will indeed accept his pastoral care and also be prepared both to welcome him and aid his missional plans.

This walkthrough of Paul’s communicative strategy could end here but for how extensive his apology in 1:16–11:36 is. So a quick summary of Paul’s communicative strategy there is in order.

Within 1:16–11:3–36, Paul first states his thesis for this portion of the discussion. He declares that he is not ashamed of his gospel, despite the apparent basis for his audience’s concerns regarding unbelieving Jews’ unexpected rejection of the Christ event (1:16–17). Before proceeding farther, Paul pauses his apology to evaluate every category of humanity’s sinfulness (1:18–3:20), which motivates the need for the kind of salvation that is on offer only by way of the Christ event. Next Paul selectively expounds the gospel as it relates to trusting God in Jesus—including relating to God, being reconciled to God, and having assurance before God (3:21–31; 5:1–11[21]; 8:31–37). For Paul, everything is based exclusively in Jesus through the Christ event. And at times, as necessary, Paul pauses this selective elaboration to address questions, such as on the continuity between trusting God before and after the Christ event (4:1–25), or other potential objections that might arise (6:1–8:30). Notably, the last of these potential objections relates to what trusting God in Jesus entails about unbelieving Jews who have rejected Paul’s faithful preaching of the gospel (9:1–11:36).

Given the above walkthrough of the letter content, some concluding comments can now be made to close this overview of Paul’s communicative strategy in Romans.

First, there is a harmony between what Paul says in the letter and where (and how) he says it. It is reasonable to speculate, for instance, that Paul so diplomatically broaches the topic of the Roman audience’s assistance with a Spanish mission because of how urgently he desires their support. Or again, Paul speaks as extensively as he does in 14:1–15:6 and with such an eye toward correction because of how his audience are particularly experiencing internal strife due to ethno-religious and socio-religious tensions among them. Similarly, 1:16–11:36 is written how it is due in no small part to Paul’s need to assuage his audience’s concerns regarding the divisive result of his preaching of the gospel.⁷

Second, this volume advances an analytical interpretation that demonstrates some unconventional ideas about what Paul and his audience (at least) think is the message of Romans. For Paul, the letter is first a warm greeting—as if to old friends—to an audience whom he is overdue in meeting, seeking also their help in the types of evangelistic efforts in which Paul presumes they should already want to be partnered. And second for Paul, Romans is also a chance to give spiritual guidance, by way of a very gently insinuated authority, regarding issues facing the audience. Lastly, for Paul’s audience, circumstances necessitate that the letter is also Paul’s efforts to win them over, particularly regarding his evangelization record among his own countrymen.⁸

Finally, the overview here suggests an also unconventional ordering of Paul’s priorities in writing Romans. Inasmuch as Paul’s discussion of his mission and evangelistic efforts is just the business part of the letter, Paul’s real passion in Romans is the pastoral care he offers in especially Romans 12:1–15:13.⁹ In particular, everything in that portion of Paul’s discussion thematically and structurally comes down to Romans 15:7–13. And in 15:7–13, Paul’s main idea is that the Roman community of faith would live out their identity as God’s Christocentric, eschatological new humanity. Arguably, then, this notion (as opposed to salvation, justification by faith, etc.) most clearly expresses Paul’s message and represents the center of his theology in Romans. After all, once Paul’s ethnically-mixed audience come to recognize how they instantiate God’s new humanity, they truly will have cause to join with Paul in his mission to Spain, bringing the reaches of the earth also to participate in the audience’s shared Christocentric identity.

III. THE OCCASION(S) OF ROMANS

Most critical issues of Romans (authorship, date, provenance, etc.) are generally well settled. There is the matter of its extreme length, but that points to occasion more than anything else. The remaining critical issues to consider are who Paul’s Roman audience are, who Paul is, and how they are connected prior to the letter being written.

In terms of critical issues, Romans is rather straightforward. The profiles for both Paul and his audience need filling out, as does the occasion(s) of Romans. But most other issues are generally uncontested. It is widely agreed that Romans was likely penned in the winter of AD 56–57.¹⁰ Paul likely wintered in Corinth, in Achaia (cf. Rom 15:25–26; 16:5), planning shortly to follow his letter to Rome (cf. 1:10–15; 15:23–24, 28–29, 32). He dictated Romans to one Tertius, who served as his secretary (or, amanuensis; see 16:22). Paul and Tertius were additionally accompanied by several colleagues who numbered among Paul’s ministry organization (see 16:21, 23), and the language and shape of the letter likely benefitted (to some degree) from composition-by-committee, although Paul goes out of his way to put his personal stamp on 16:17–20.¹¹ As a letter, Romans is of course an epistle (as opposed to being a treatise, history, bios, Gospel, etc.). As such, it both has a particular historical context and speaks into a particular occasional setting (see pages 22–23). And just as plainly, Paul intends his letter for the believers in the imperial capital of Rome (see 1:7). Paul’s audience likely received Romans from Phoebe, with whom Paul entrusted his communiqué (see 16:1–2).

However, regarding what Paul is saying overall in Romans (i.e., his communicative strategy), matters are complicated by three factors in particular. First and most obvious is the sheer length of the letter. The size of Romans may seem fitting enough as regards the august theology visited within. But the letter is rather bloated insofar as Romans is an ancient epistle, not usually meant as a delivery vehicle for theological dicta. And in contrast to a letter like 1 Corinthians, which is long because of the variety of topics that Paul discusses, Romans is long just because Paul wants to detail why he is not ashamed of his gospel (see 1:16–17). Or put another way, the length of Romans evinces a historical setting where the needs of the letter have been complicated by the personalities involved, and by their circumstances.¹²

Second, Paul may devote considerable space to discussing various aspects of theology, but he then also reserves a significant amount of the letter to offering pastoral care on several issues. Presumably, such input is germane because Paul’s audience are experiencing difficulties in the areas that he addresses.

Lastly, as said earlier, Paul’s relationship with his audience needs detailing. Besides not having yet met them personally (see 1:10; 15:25–26, 28–29), the relational distance and strain between them directly contributes to the shape of Romans.

A. PAUL’S ROMAN AUDIENCE

Paul’s original Roman audience are believers, devoted followers of Jesus who view him as the climax of God’s story with Israel. They comprise both Jews and non-Jews, although all equally know and are committed to Israel’s scriptural heritage. Finally, as the saints in Rome, Paul’s audience are numerous house churches who come together in a generally healthy community, but who are also facing a few challenges to their faith and love for one another.

Certain characteristics of Paul’s Roman audience remain matters of debate. However, a profile of Paul’s audience that is only somewhat refined is adequate for latching onto Paul’s communicative strategy in Romans.¹³ Thankfully, then, a fully exhaustive portrait is unnecessary. What is needed here is just a sketch of who the audience are in connection especially with Paul’s choice of topics in 12:1–15:13 and with their situation in relation to Paul. In particular, the three relevant items to consider about Paul’s audience are their being believers, their demographic composition (particularly as regards ethnic heritage), and the nature of their organization as a community situated across Rome.

1. The audience’s identity

First and foremost, Paul’s Roman audience are—in the language used most in Romans—believers. They are most basically disciples and followers of Jesus of Nazareth, God’s people and community of faith in Rome.

In the mid-first century, Christianity (so-called) was one branch of Judaism competing among many. All such first-century, Hellenistic Judaisms were recognizable as Judaisms (especially by non-Jews) because they shared in common certain defining nonnegotiables that were socio-culturally conspicuous. These features included exclusive devotion to Israel’s God YHWH, acceptance of the authoritative traditions of Israel’s Scriptures, and a worldview of Yahwistic creational, ethical, eschatological monotheism.

Within that shared framework, each contemporary branch of Judaism had characteristics that distinguished it. Features that distinguished Jesus-believing Judaism (Christianity) especially were a profession of Jesus as God’s resurrected Messiah and devotion to Jesus as Lord, with all that entailed regarding praxis, eschatology, etc. So to start, Paul’s original audience is richly versed in and committed to Israel’s scriptural and religious heritage (see "Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans" below). Equally, they were convinced that the shared religious heritage of Second Temple Judaisms culminated in Jesus of Nazareth. In Romans, then, Paul’s audience are collectively the community of believers in Rome.¹⁴

2. The audience’s ethnicity

Various factors (and scholarly debates) have to be acknowledged on this point. But the short of it is, Paul’s Roman audience somehow consists of a mix of Jewish and non-Jewish believers.

Trying to pinpoint the audience’s demographic composition is less easy (and more contentious) than specifying their general identity as believers. The more than twenty audience members who Paul names toward the end of the letter include men and women, slaves and freedmen and free, rich and poor, and Jews and non-Jews.¹⁵ It is tricky, though, to say how well that list represents the audience, since Paul targets those named as part of establishing good relations with his whole audience (see the discussion on 16:3–15 below). However, certainty on the matter is unnecessary. For determining the connection between the audience’s role in the letter’s occasion(s) and Paul’s communicative strategy, just recognizing that Paul’s audience is ethnically mixed is enough (is indispensably crucial, really). Therefore, it is sufficient to say that it is clear from the letter (cf., e.g., 14:1–15:6) that Paul’s audience is ethnically mixed. That is, it comprises both Jewish and non-Jewish believers (or Gentile believers; see 1:5 and 1:16b n. 13 below).

On the question of what proportion of Paul’s audience are Jewish versus non-Jewish, many interpreters adopt the Weifel hypothesis, which references the Claudian edict of AD 49 to surmise that the majority of Paul’s audience were non-Jews. Apparently, circa AD 48–49, unbelieving and believing Jews in Rome had been publically contending for the truth of Jesus-following Judaism. According to ancient sources, their rioting at the instigation of Chrestus (Suetonius, Claudius 25; cf. Acts 18:2) led Claudius formally to proclaim that Jews were to be expelled from Rome. Hypothetically, the majority of Roman believers prior to the Claudian edict would have been Jewish; then, while the edict was in effect, the believing community in Rome grew only with the addition of non-Jewish believers (in the absence of their Jewish fellow-believers). Finally, the Claudian edict was repealed following his death in AD 54. Since Paul writes Romans just a year or two later, he would presumably be addressing an audience with a minority of Jewish believers, as Jews (both believing and unbelieving) had only recently begun to reestablish themselves in Rome.

But this model should not be accepted too readily. A key reason this is the current majority view is that, not infrequently, this model is uncritically adopted in commentaries.¹⁶ Barclay rightly argues, There is no evidence, either internal or external, that the expulsion of some Jews from Rome in 49 CE, or their subsequent return, had any effect on the development of the Christian churches in the city: Paul gives no hint of changes in leadership, in the ethnic composition of the communities, or in relations with synagogues.¹⁷ This point taken, then, the most that should—and needs be—asserted here is that the Claudian edict plausibly contributed to the ethnic composition of Paul’s original audience. The degree of impact by the Claudian edict can be left indeterminate, as can the question of just what proportion of Paul’s audience were Jewish or non-Jewish believers. It suffices to say that Paul’s audience were indeed ethnically mixed. And this limited observation both coheres with and helps to explain Paul’s discussion in 14:1–15:6 as well as the audience’s apparently overriding concern with the Jewish heritage of the gospel.

3. The audience’s situation

Generally speaking, Paul’s audience is in a stable situation in Rome. And they are mature enough that if Paul had not also wanted to connect with them on the matter of missions, it is unclear whether he would have written to address the challenges they are experiencing. Nevertheless, they are facing difficulties in how they relate to one another, and that creates a need for Paul’s pastoral care.

It is unknown who founded the church at Rome. It certainly was not Paul, who looks forward in the letter to making their acquaintance for the first time. Still, it most likely was a Jewish believer, plausibly like those present in Jerusalem at the first Pentecost following Jesus’ resurrection (according to Lukan testimony; cf. Acts 2:5–12). The Jews mentioned there came from among every nation, including those visiting from Rome (Acts 2:10).

Paul’s audience are God’s people and community of faith at Rome; Paul addresses them as God’s saints at Rome (i.e., sanctified ones; see 1:7 below). But in contrast to some Pauline documents (cf. 1 Thess 1:1; Gal 1:2; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1), in Romans Paul does not greet or otherwise refer to his audience as the church (εκκλησία) in Rome (cf. Phil 1:1; see also Eph 1:1; Col 1:2).¹⁸ A minority of interpreters have even wondered if the Roman believers never regularly gathered as a whole community (perhaps for lack of venue, or perhaps out of residual caution at Claudius’ antagonism, etc.), or otherwise had not yet joined up as a single community.¹⁹ Nevertheless, Paul’s greeting in 16:3–15 (along with his kiss directive in v. 16) indicates that the believers throughout the city had some manner of close contact, and were well known to each other. Likewise, Paul’s interest in partnering for mission with his audience in 15:14–29 presumes that they were organized and in contact enough to work together on such an undertaking.²⁰ Probably the most reasonable model is that at the writing of Romans, the church in Rome comprised numerous house churches that were semi-organized, and that had some not insignificant amount of contact with each other (including gathering at times as a single congregation).²¹

According to Paul, his audience are for the most part already mature and faithful followers of Jesus (cf. 1:8, 12; 15:14). And clearly they are already believers who have received the gospel—even if Paul wants to further evangelize them (cf. 1:15; 15:15).²² However, what Paul spends time on in Romans reveals that his audience are currently experiencing certain challenges and problems.

Romans 12:1–15:13 in particular imparts that there are a handful of areas in which the Roman believers need some combination of assistance, correction, additional teaching, or just edifying repetition of what they already know. Romans 12 is sometimes considered under headings like General Christian Ethics. But the common denominator is that all Paul’s instructions in chapter 12 relate to the question of how the Roman believers are to act as believers toward one another. Similarly, chapter 13 sometimes gets treated under headings like The Christian Attitude toward Government, or Paul’s View of Government (along with further general ethics). But again, a common denominator is the question of how believers at Rome represent Christ to the wider unbelieving culture, how they are perceived by culture, and how to act within culture.²³ Then 14:1–15:6 makes reference to ethno-religious and socio-religious tensions among believers in Rome. Apparently, there are among them two opposing camps known as the weak and the strong, who are contending against each other on the matter of whether the Jewish roots of the gospel entail some continued Jewish religious practices by believers. Romans 14:1–15:6 indicates that those tensions threatened to pull apart the community of faith.

What all this entails, is that the situation of Paul’s audience is generally good, but also lacking—or even dangerous—in certain areas. They are in a place where they will benefit (whether urgently or not is unknown) from pastoral guidance on how to act both within the community (ch. 12) and as the community within the unbelieving world around them (ch. 13). And they acutely need admonishment and practical wisdom regarding the socio-religious tensions that they are experiencing. So apart from Paul’s own interests in writing, he also finds himself in a position to address the challenges and difficulties that his audience face.

B. PAUL AS THE AUTHOR OF ROMANS

Paul authors Romans as an apostle—a royal ambassador—of God’s gospel of the Christ event. Having planted churches across the east, he is prepared to pass through Rome, from Corinth, to Spain and beyond, hopefully to likewise plant churches in the west. But Paul is also eager to meet the Roman church, and to pastorally care for them in their needs.

1. Paul’s profile

As has been written on at length in innumerable other places, Paul is a fascinating first-century figure. He is a diaspora Hellenistic Jew of the late-Second Temple period, which places him in the Roman Empire in the Mediterranean world of late antiquity. He moves freely as a Roman citizen (cf. Acts 22:28; 25:11–12) and hails from Tarsus (on the east coast of modern Turkey), one of the largest cities in the Empire (cf. Acts 21:39). Paul is fluent in Greek (and likely Israel’s Scriptures in both Greek and Hebrew) and proficient with Hellenistic customs, literature, philosophy, and religions (cf. 1 Cor 15:33; see also Titus 1:12 and Acts 17:28).

As well, Paul possesses an impeccable Jewish pedigree. As a diaspora Jew, he was undoubtedly more fervent and observant in his patriotism (so to speak) than Jews fortunate enough to be Jerusalem natives. Paul’s own testimony about himself is that prior to his calling and conversion, he was a Pharisaic model of Jewish piety, and had a lineage (as a Benjamite) that was certified to pre-exilic times (see Phil 3:5; cf. Gal 1:14). Paul’s discipleship under Gamaliel was highly auspicious (cf. Acts 22:3), and he had risen to a position (rabbinic office?) where he could vote in the Sanhedrin (cf. Acts 26:10).²⁴

Most notably, Paul has been—and is at the writing of Romans—an apostle. He is God’s ambassador, akin to the ambassadorial prophets in biblical times (see 1:1 below). Paul bears the royal pronouncement of the Christ event from God’s kingdom to the foreign domain of the unsaved world. Paul does work in concert with his support network, or ministry organization (cf. 16:21–23). But as an apostle, Paul is also a missionary, an evangelist, a church planter, and (itinerantly) a pastor. Particularly in Romans, Paul describes himself as both an apostle to the nations (see 11:13 below; see also 1:5 regarding Gentiles, i.e., non-Jews) and God’s slave who has been set apart (as apostle and slave) for God’s gospel of the Christ event (1:1–6).

2. Paul’s situation

As regards Romans, Paul’s situation is that he is staged in Corinth, ready both to come to Rome and care for his audience, and to prepare with them his intended mission to Spain.

Insofar as Paul is an apostle to the nations (11:13), he mentions in Romans alone how his evangelistic and church planting efforts have covered the eastern portion of the Empire. Paul describes how he has canvassed from Jerusalem to Illycrium, immediately east of Rome (15:18–19, additionally naming Cenchreae[/Corinth], and also Northern and Southern Greece with Macedonia and Achaia, respectively; cf. 15:26; 16:1). The Pauline documents further attest to Paul’s work in at least Philippi, Thessalonica, and Galatia. Lukan testimony places Paul in Antioch, Seleucia, Cyprus, Iconium, Lystra, Cicilia, Neapolis, Berea, Ephesus, Caeserea, and Phrygia prior to the writing of Romans (Acts 13:4–12, 13:51–14:8; 15:40–41; 16:11; 17:14; 18:18–23; cf. Rom 15:18–19, 22–23 below).

Paul’s pattern throughout Asia has been to preach first to Jews in the local synagogue, and then—particularly when receiving from them a negative reception—to non-Jews. Lukan testimony and Paul’s own approach in his letters show that he most commonly addresses audiences who are (predominantly) non-Jewish. For the most part, Jews do not accept the Christ event as proclaimed by Paul. They generally respond to Paul’s evangelical preaching by deciding not to subscribe to Jesus-following Judaism. And this response from unbelieving Jews factors into the incipient relationship between Paul and his Roman audience (see "The (Lack of) Relationship between Paul and his Audience," below).

Paul is stationed in Corinth until the season turns (see page 12). He wants to launch westward from Rome, looking for God to use him in attaining the same kind of success to which Paul has been witness in Asia (15:20–21, 23, 28). Specifically, Paul wants to start with Spain. And significantly, since there is little to no Jewish presence in those parts of the Empire (per historical data now available), Paul needs assistance both in setting out, and in simultaneously proselytizing and evangelizing non-Jews in the West.

Finally, Paul has been made aware of the challenges and difficulties facing the Roman believers. Even though they have not yet met, Paul has long wanted to spend time with them because he deeply cares for them (1:9–10, 13; 15:23, 28, 32). And because Paul cares for them, he also wants to pastorally guide them, as well as mutually receive the blessing of their fellowship (1:11–12; 15:15, 29, 32). So the last point to note about Paul’s situation is that he desires to come alongside the community of faith in Rome, independently of any intentions he has for his own part.

C. THE (LACK OF) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PAUL AND HIS AUDIENCE

In Romans, Paul writes of his hope to meet personally the audience for the first time. A potential obstacle to both his welcome and proposed partnership is what the audience already know of Paul: His proclamation of the gospel in the east seems to drive away Jews in favor of receiving non-Jews, which runs counter to the Roman church’s commitment to the Jewish roots of the gospel.

Besides the respective situations of Paul and his audience, their current lack of any established relationship is also a factor in why and how Paul writes Romans. He and the audience do know a few things about each other. Further, there are things that they need from each other. However, their coming together is made difficult by the two facts that they have no prior relationship, and that the Roman believers are unsure about Paul because of his reputation.

Paul did not found the church at Rome, and has not yet been with them in person. So if he is to help them, then he needs to find a way of providing them pastoral care without unduly imposing upon them his pastoral or apostolic authority. Likewise, it is not easy for Paul to campaign for the audience’s assistance with a Spanish mission before first meeting them. But his situation is one where he cannot wait to meet them before broaching the issue of their possible support; he aims for a timeline wherein he will shortly arrive in Rome and (it is hoped) immediately collaborate with the audience to get underway.

But Paul faces a further obstacle, this in the form of the Roman believers’ hesitancy at Paul’s track record of evangelizing Jews. In connection with the audience’s commitment to the Jewish heritage of the gospel, they are also committed to the gospel (and Christ event) being the Jews’ heritage. Yet for the most part, Paul’s evangelistic preaching is accepted by non-Jews and rejected by Jews. Hence Paul’s disclaimer in 1:16–17 that he is not ashamed of this gospel: this declaration is a response to the occasional concern, that the Roman audience worry that Paul should indeed be ashamed of the divisive effects of his preaching.²⁵ This worry is one that begs a response from Paul (see page 22).

Therefore, the last factor influencing the occasion(s) of Romans is Paul’s lack of prior relationship with his audience. Their unfamiliarity with Paul directly contributes to their concern over him. Likewise, their unfamiliarity also prevents that concern from being cleared away without a direct effort. And until that happens, Paul’s other interests cannot be addressed.

So in the end, the multi-part letter occasion means that Paul has a multi-part reason for Romans. Paul bothers to write Romans at all, and specifically shapes it in the way that he does, so that the letter answers all of his and his audience’s occasional concerns at the time of writing. Paul means to introduce himself to his audience, asking them to prepare a welcome for him and to consider his coming proposal of partnership in a Spanish mission. But then so long as he is writing, he also ventures to speak into their situation. Finally, Paul acknowledges and addresses the source of their hesitancy toward him.

IV. COMMUNICATIVE STRATEGY, STRUCTURE, AND THE PURPOSE(S) OF ROMANS

A. STRUCTURE AND MESSAGE

Perhaps the most fruitful way of examining Romans is by attending to how Paul phrases and organizes his discussion to ensure that his audience fully understand him—that is, Paul’s communicative strategy. The two main tools for doing so are to observe the logic of Paul’s thought in each paragraph (or pericope) in Romans, and the way in which Paul intentionally connects all of those paragraphs. This leads to seeing a structure that reveals Paul’s own priorities and emphases within Romans:

•Given that Paul and his audience generally share an understanding of the gospel (i.e., the good news of the Christ event; 1:1–7), Paul’s main objectives for the body of Romans are to initiate fellowship with his audience and invest the gospel in the lives of others—including the audience (1:8–15).

•Before going further with those objectives, Paul lays to rest his audience’s worries concerning his preaching of the gospel so far, particularly as it relates to unbelieving Jews (1:16–11:36).

•Then Paul is unimpeded in offering the audience his pastoral care, and in initiating a conversation about their partnering with him in newly taking the gospel to Spain (chs. 12–15).

1. Paul’s communicative strategy

Allow me to explain what I have said in pieces this far, as Paul’s communicative strategy is a driving concern of this commentary.

Romans is a work of literary craftsmanship, whose artistry Paul needs for presenting his meaning clearly. And if it may be put this way, Paul’s letter is wholly practical and in line with enlightened self-interest. He so constructs Romans to ensure that his audience properly understand him and that he gets what he needs. Following Paul’s compositional technique is how readers now can best hear what Paul’s original audience were meant to hear.

The importance of Paul’s communicative strategy is sometimes undervalued. But this volume focuses upon both how Paul devises his language, and how he arranges all the pericopae of the letter relative to each other. Such a focus is central to a sound understanding of the letter. The assumption here is that Paul wrote Romans in such a way—and indeed, wrote it at all—in order to communicate a certain message. Paul consequently crafted the individual pericopae in the letter and placed them in their relative position so that they, too, would serve that message. Granted, much of the formal polish so evident in the letter is likely due in part to Paul using some amount of previously prepared material (as many interpreters suspect).²⁶ Still, Romans is an occasional document that Paul intended to be relevant to his original audience in particular. He wrote the letter in just the way he did because he thought it would ensure that his meaning was understood by his audience.²⁷

Regarding the interpretation of Romans (or any other document or act of human communication), there is admittedly a recursive relationship between decisions about what the meaning and core topic of a given portion are and decisions about overall structure and meaning. But significantly, the way in which Paul writes Romans channels the meaning of his message. So the process is one of reading the letter and forming a preliminary picture, then reading the pericopae in light of that landscape, allowing them to refine the larger picture, and then re-reading those thought-units in light of that refined picture, and so on.

In the preparation of this commentary, such a recursive process led to a working model of the whole letter. Then that model was filled out and substantiated by detailed analysis of Paul’s discourse. Consequently, the reading here always aims at keeping an eye toward how Paul crafts a given pericope or literary unit so that it contributes to his overall agenda, and also toward taking into account the meaning and function of all those parts of Romans together, to see what is it that Paul is saying in the letter as a whole.

Reading with these factors in mind is what it means to read Romans in terms of Paul’s communicative strategy. As noted above, this approach results in what might be called an analytical interpretation of Romans. The expectation is that this chosen approach is the surest way to arrive at a sound interpretation of Romans.

2. Engaging the structure of Romans

Perhaps with Romans in particular, structure needs to be embraced as a control in analyzing content. The care with which Paul courts his audience’s approval in this letter means that he especially guides a reader’s way through much of it (notably 1:16–11:36) using a saturation of logical connectors (for, so then, therefore, etc.).

Arguably, Paul’s rhetoric (e.g., use of such logical connectors) intuitively takes his audience where he wants them to go, without their having to be aware of or attend to the analytical details that a modern close study will turn up. But equally, Paul’s communicative strategy is apparent in a modern setting through a synthetic (re)construction of the structure of each pericope, and then also of relationships between those pericopae, which reveals the macro-structure of Paul’s discourse.

Keeping these things at the forefront when examining Paul’s discussion in Romans highlights his main idea in each given pericope. That is, it highlights the primary point that Paul wants to make sure his audience take away from a pericope, even were they to miss everything else. And in turn, those main ideas of all the pericopae combine to divulge the structure and primary interest(s) for the letter as a whole.

The process is most easily seen in action. Take, for instance, just the short pericope of Romans 6:12–14. Internally, Paul orients this thought unit around instruction regarding how his audience are to live in response to God’s grace. Its structure can be illustrated using the following (whose busyness and spatial inefficiency explains why laying out all of Romans in this way is not feasible):

P26

The approach here deals with kernels on the level of entire clauses.²⁸ This analysis identifies the logical relationship (argumentation, addition, or clarification) between each adjoining set of clauses as well as both which clause is subordinate/modifying versus dominant, and the nature of the relationship between them (grounds-conclusion; contrast-head, condition-consequence, etc.).²⁹

As this sample demonstrates, Paul’s structuring of Romans 6:12–14 discloses his main idea in the pericope. In this case, Paul’s focus is found at the center, where the main idea constitutes a parallel pair (yourselves … and your members, v. 13b). Paul accentuates the (paired) main idea by contrasting it (but rather, using antithetical parallelism) against a pair of not elements (vv. 12a, 13a). Then Paul further grounds the main idea (present yourselves … your members, v. 13b) in an explanatory elaboration that recaptures the motif(s) of 6:1–11, the pericope that 6:12–14 modifies. Thus, structure reveals logic, which in turn reveals the primary point (and theology) of the pericope. All told, what 6:12–14 is about is Paul’s instruction to his audience that they are to live righteously before (and for) God (v. 13b), because God’s grace has freed them from sin (v. 14a).

With respect to the larger literary context, the immediately preceding material (6:8–10) rhetorically segues into 6:12–14. However, 6:12–14 is logically tied to 6:3–4 (i.e., the main idea within 6:1–11). So 6:12–14 as a pericope functions as an application of the principle expressed in 6:3–4, in turn ensuring that the audience’s lives prove Paul’s claim, that his gospel does not imply that sin should be used to further the spread of grace (6:1–2). The corollary is that believers are not to live sinfully,