Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 17.djvu/278

ROMANS. 254 ROMANS. region in whieli the Apostle's work was done, only a snjall proportion of them arc so traceable — when these facts are taken into consideration much is disclosed in favor of the view held by a considerable number of modern scholars that the chapter is an integral part of the Epistle to Rome. In the case of either theory, however, the dithculty in the repetition of the benediction and the apparently final passages would be re- ferred to the Apostle's occasional habit of inter- rujjted closing thought, as manifested in admit- tedly Pauline Epistles like Philippians (cf. iv. 7, 9, 20, 23; see also II. Thess. ii. 16, iii. 5, 10, 18), although the Ephesian theory has mani- festly less of this repetition to account for. As to the second question, while there is essen- tial agreement as to the mixed character of the church's membership, there is considerable dis- cussion as to whether the dominant element in the church was Jewish or Gentile. On the one side passages such as vii. 1-G, viii. 1.5, ix. 1-5, X. 1-3 are appealed to as showing a recognition by the Apostle of the Hebrew character of the church to which he was writing. On the other side passages such as i. 13-17, xi. 13-32, xv. 14-17 are cited as showing the consciousness on the Apostle's part that he was writing to a church to which his Gentile apostleship specifically com- mended him. As to the third question, it is clearly the one of greatest significance, since an understanding of the situation of the church to which the Apos- tle is writing must contribute definitely toward determining our understanding of the purpose behind the letter's writing, and an understanding of this must largeh' determine our understanding . of the letter itself. In general, of course, this purpose was what we have stated : a desire on the Apostle's part to prepare the way for his coming visit to this stranger church; but, while this desire may account for the sending of a let- ter in advance of his expected departure for the west, the specific character of the letter so sent must be accounted for by something beyond this general desire. This something is primarily the condition of the church to which he is writing: for Paul's letters were all determined by the necessities they were intended to meet. The -views as to what the situation was are legion, though perhaps they may be roughly gathered into three groups: (1) The group which holds that either through the importance of the church as a church, or through its unacquaintancc with the Apostle as a teacher, it invited him to a sys- tematic presentation of Christian truth. This is the oldest view and the one which has most gen- erally prevailed. It has in its favor the peculiar- ly systematic character of the Epistle, unique among Paul's writings; but against it is the fact that the system presented is manifestly incom- .plete. Within the range of Christian truth there are practically but two topics presented: the doctrine of man and the doctrine of salvation. This constriction is recognized by some of those who hold this view, and to account for it they suggest that it was the Apostle's idea to em- phasize that portion of the general truth of Christianity which was characteristic of his Gos- pel. This, however, would be fatal to the view itself, while it would raise at once the query how it came that a church, such a proportion of whose active workers were either converts from the Apostle's mission field or personally acquainted with his work, should need an exposi- tion of the Gospel he characteristically prcaclied. (2) The group which holds that tlirough cither the actual presence or the threatened coming of Judaizing teachers the church was in need of a vigorous combating of their peculiar errors. This was the view proposed by the Tubingen School and participated in the wide success which the school's critical position secured for itself. In its favor is (a) the polemic tone of certain parts of tlie Epistle, notably in chaps, ii.-iv.. vi., ix.-xi., which seem to betray a conllict between the Jewish and Gentile elements in the church, together with (b) such references to partisan conditions in the church as are given by chaps, xii., xiv.-xvi^ though these do not necessarily involve Judaizing dissensions. Opposed to it, however, is the fact that tlie Epistle reall_v gives no sign of the presence or the expectati(jn of Judaizers in the church. Neither the [jolemical nor the partisan passages above referred to imply a Judaistic situation. The Epistle is not a con- troversial writing as Galatians and II. Corinth- ians are, in spite of its polemic tone. Indeed, the peculiar Gentile character of the church makes the likelihood of such a propaganda ex- ceedingly remote. Rome was the last place to which such a party would drift. (3) The group which holds that the acknowledged partisan con- dition of the church was of a character that called for an irenic treatment on the Apostle's part. This was suggested as early as Augustine, reappearing subsequently at times. It has come into favor lately largely through the growing conviction of the untenableness of the other views. There is much in its favor, especially the characteristic combination of Jew and Gentile in the earlier part of the Epistle, and 3'et the question forces itself upon us: If this view be correct, how are we to understand the pronounced Gentile rebuke contained in chaps, ix.-xi, ? From all this it is apparent that no one of these groups will fully account for the phenom- ena W'hich the Epistle presents. The problem, therefore, may be said to be still under discus- sion. BiBLiOGEAPHT. Commentaries by Godet (Eng. trans.. New York, 1881) ; Oltramare (Geneva, 1881-82) ; Beet (London, 18S5) ; Giti'ord, in f^jjcal-cr's Commentary (ib., lS8(i) ; Lipsius. in Uandkommenlur sum Xeiien Testament (Frei- burg. 1892) ; Sanday-Headlam, in International Critical Commentary (New York, 1895) ; Weiss, in Jleyer's Commentar iiber rlas Xeiie Tcsta- nient (Giittingen. 1899) ; Liddon. Explanatory Analysis of f>aint Paul's Epistle to the Ixomans (London. 1894). Introductions: Holtzmann (Freiburg. 1892): Godet (Eng. trans., Edin- burgh, 1S94) : Salmon (London, 1894) : Weiss (Eng. trans.. Edinburgh. 1888) : Zahn (Leiiizig, 1900) ; Bacon (New York, 1900) : Jiili'cher (Leipzig. 1901): Moffat, The Historical New Testament (New York, 1901). Discussions: Lueht, Ueber die beiden letzten Kapitel des Romerbriefs (Berlin. 1891) ; Baur. Paulus (Eng. trans., Edinburgh. 1873-7.5) : Pfleidorer, Pniili- nismus (Leipzig. 1S90) ; Clemen. Die Einheitlirh- l-eit der Pavlinischen Brief e (Gottingen. 1894) ; Lightfoot. in Bihlieal Essays (London. 1893); Hort. Lectures on Romans and Ephesians (ib, 189.5) : id.. Judaistic Christianity (ib.. 1894) ; Sehiirer. Oemeindeverfassuny der Juden in Rom (Leipzig, 1879) ; Berliner, Geschichte der Juden