Romans. Craig S. Keener

Paul’s opponents possibly meant merely the former; if so, Paul prefers a rigorous consistency that identifies membership in the covenant with salvation.

14. See discussion in Keener 1992: 19–69; additional background in idem 2000a.

15. For the point-by-point, sequential comparison, see Dunn 1988: 1:197.

16. See Leon 1960; Lampe 2003a; essays in Donfried and Richardson 1998.

17. See Suetonius Tib. 36; Josephus Ant. 18.84; idem J.W. 2.80.

18. See Clarke 1994: 464–66; Garnsey and Saller 1987: 83; for estimates approaching a million, see Stambaugh 1988: 89; Packer 1967: 87; below a quarter million, Rohrbaugh 1991: 133. For earlier periods, with over one hundred thousand adult citizens (thus not counting children, slaves, and non-citizen residents), see e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 5.20.1; 5.75.3; 6.96.4; 9.15.2; 9.36.3; cf. Plutarch Caesar 55.3; Suetonius Jul. 41. Some estimates are much higher (e.g., Carcopino 1940: 20–21). Ancients could speak either of the area inside the city walls (e.g., Pliny the Elder Nat. 3.5.66) or of larger Rome (idem 3.5.67).

19. Jeffers 1998: 131. In Rome as a whole, rich and poor often lived side by side, the latter especially in crowded tenements, with the poorest tending to live higher up in the sometimes flimsy and flammable structures.

20. Mostly regular Gentile names, including many that recall names of deities (but without polytheistic intent; they likewise used some Roman decorations, but preferred distinctive Jewish symbols like the menorah to major Roman ones). Only about 15 percent have traditional Semitic names.

21. Leon 1960: 76.

22. See e.g., Juvenal Sat. 14.100–104; see especially Gager 1983; Sevenster 1975.

23. So also Ambrosiaster in the fourth century, who believed that the founders expected law observance (Lane 1998: 203). Paul assumes a high degree of biblical literacy and familiarity with Jewish tradition (though cf. also Galatians), and the many travelers to the capital carried new ideas there quickly.

24. Rome’s synagogues had many Godfearers to begin with; proselytism and attraction to Judaism constituted major causes of resentment among traditional Romans against Roman Judaism (see Parkes 1979: 25–26; Gager 1983: 55–56). For proselytes in Rome, see e.g., Leon 1960: 250–56. Nanos (1996) argues that the believers in Rome, who are Gentiles, remain in the synagogues, so that Paul encourages them to honor Jewish concerns.

25. Although views of Romans’ purpose diverge widely (see Donfried 1991), the apparent majority of contemporary scholars (e.g., Wiefel, Sanders, Stendahl, Dunn, Lung-Kwong) rightly recognize that Jewish-Gentile tensions are a factor in Romans. Even if the Roman church was completely Gentile by this period, its relationship to Judaism (as an intrinsic part of its heritage) remains key (cf. discussion in Das 2007). Some think that Jewish antipathy toward Gentile governments in Judea may also affect the situation (cf. Rom 13:1–7); most northern Mediterranean Jews, however, stayed clear of hints of resistance.

26. Because the Jewish-Gentile barrier was one established in Scripture itself, Paul’s emphasis on ethnic unity would have even greater implications for any other ethnic divisions (e.g., Keener 2003c: esp. 208–10); it has also been applied against nationalism (e.g., Schlatter 1995: 31, in the context of rising German nationalism) and ethnocentric imperialism (Jewett cites South African Bishop John William Colenso in 1863).

27. Origen Comm. Rom. on 16:3 (Bray 1998: 370).

28. See Reasoner 2005: xxv, and sources cited there. Other early readers recognized that Paul sought to reconcile discord in the church (Theodoret of Cyr Interp. Rom. on 15:33; Pelagius Comm. Rom. on 15:33; Bray 1998: 368) and that tensions over the law inform the differences between the groups in Rom 14 (Ambrosiaster Commentary on Paul’s Epistles on Rom 14:1; Theodoret of Cyr Interp. Rom. on 14:1; though contrast Pseudo-Constantius Holy Letter of St. Paul to the Romans on 14:1; Bray 1998: 337–38).

29. Tacitus Ann. 15.44; cf. also the lack of concern over local division in 2 Tim, 1 Pet, or Heb 13:23–24; and the interest of 1 Clem. (e.g., 46.5–9) in Corinthian believers’ unity. Persecution, of course, could have unified the church in any case.

      Romans 1

      Introduction (1:1–17)

The letter’s title matches the titles of other Pauline letters, naming the recipients (specified here in 1:7). The need for a title stems from the time that Christians later collected Paul’s letters; otherwise the title might have been borrowed directly from Paul’s probable statement of purpose in 1:16–17.1

      Paul’s Greeting (1:1–7)

Just as today’s letters often open with “Dear” (and e-mails with “Hi”), ancient letters followed particular conventions. The writer could begin by identifying him- or her-self, then the addressee, and finally giving the conventional greeting. Although such introductions were typically simple,2 writers could expand any of these elements as needed.3 Because Paul here is writing to a congregation he has not visited, he may expand the first element (his identity) at greater length than usual. But introductions (whether of speeches, laws, books, or other works) typically introduced a work’s primary themes,4 and Paul hints at some of these even in this letter’s opening. (He becomes more specific, however, in 1:8–17, esp. 1:16–17.)

Paul5 begins by identifying himself as a slave of Christ, a called apostle, and one set apart for God’s good news. Although apostleship may be his distinctive gift (1:5; 11:13), he will return to many of these descriptions with regard to believers more generally: their slavery to God versus slavery to sin (6:6, 16–22; 7:6, 25; 8:15; 12:11; 14:18; 16:18), their God-initiated “calling” (1:6–7; 8:28, 30; 9:7, 12, 24–26), and their being “set apart” for God (1:7; 6:19, 22; 8:27; 11:16; 12:1, 13; 15:16, 25–26, 31; 16:2, 15). The “good news” (“gospel”) is one of his major themes in the letter and lies at the heart of his own mission (1:9, 15–16; 2:16; 10:15–16; 11:28; 15:16, 19–20; 16:25; see comment on 1:16).

Although free persons normally did not consider “slavery” an honorable status, slaves were not all of one kind. Some slaves of Caesar wielded more power than free aristocrats, and some aristocratic women even married into slavery (in Caesar’s household) to improve their status. Slavery to the supreme Lord Jesus was no dishonor; it resembled the ot situation of the prophets and some other godly leaders of Israel as “servants of God.”6