ROMANS
158
ROMANS
(\ni, 1-6), and, although holy and good in itself, it
possesses onh' educative and not sanctifying po\yer,
and is thus impotent in man's dire combat against
sinful nature (vii, 7-25). In contrast to this im-
potence, communion with Christ imparts freedom
from sin and from death (viii, l-U), establishes
the Divine kinship, and raises mankind above all
earthly trouble to the certain hope of an indescribable
happiness (viii, 12-39).
(b) Defence of the first part from the history of the people of Israel (ix, 1-xi, 36). The consoling certainty of salvation may appear threatened by the rejection or obduracy of Israel. How could God for- get His promises and reject the people so favoured? The Apostle must thus explain the providence of God. He begins with a touching survey of God's deeds of love and power towards the Chosen People (ix, 1-5), proceeding then to prove that God's promise has not failed. For (i) God acts within His right when He grants grace according to His free pleasure, since God's promises did not apply to Israel accord- ing to the flesh, as early history shows (Isaac and Is- mael, Jacob and Esau) (ix, 1-13); God's word to Moses and His conduct towards Pharao call into req- uisition this right (ix, 14-17); God's position (as Creator and Lord) is the basis of this right (ix, 19- 24) ; God's express prophecy announced through the Prophets the exercise of this right towards Jews and pagans (ix, 24-29) ; (ii) God's attitude was in a certain sense demanded by the foolish reliance of Israel on its origin and justification in the Law (ix, 30-x, 4) and by its refusal of and disobedience to the message of faith announced everj-where among the Jews (x, 5-21); (iii) In this is revealed the wisdom and good- ness of God, for: Israel's rejection is not complete; a chosen number have attained to the faith (xi, 1-10); (iv) Israel's unbelief is the salvation of the pagan world, and likewise a solemn exhortation to fidelity in the faith (xi, 11-22); (v) Israel's re- jection is not irrevocable. The people will find mercy and salvation (xi, 23-32). Thence the praise of the wisdom and the inscrutable providence of God (xi, 33-36).
(2) The Practical Part (xii, 1-xv, 13).— (a) The gen- eral exhortation to the faithful service of God and the avoidance of the spirit of the world (xii, 1-2). (b) Admonition to unity and charity (modest, active char- ity, peacefulness, and love of enemies (xii, 3-21). (c) Obligations towards superiors; fundamental establish- ment and pra<:tical proof (xiii, 1-7). Conclusion: A second inculcation of the commandment of love (xiii, 8-10) and an incitement to zeal in view of the proximity of salvation (xiii, ll-14j. (dj Toleration and forbear- ance betwwn the strong and the weak (treated with special application to the Roman community on ac- ajunt of the importance and practical significance of the question; it falls under (b): (i) fundamental criti- cism of the standpoint of both classes (xiv, 1-12); (ii) practical inferences for both (xiv, 13-xv, 6); (iii) estabiiishment through the example of Christ and the inUentions of Gfxi (xv, 7-13). Conclusion: Defence of the Epiwtle: (1) in view of Paul's calling; (2) in view of his inUmdwl relations with the community (xv, 22-23); (3) recommendations, greetings (warning), doxology (xvi, 1-27).
III. Authenticity.— Is the Epistle to the Romans a work of the gn!at Apostle of the Gentiles, St. Paul? UnrioubU^liy it ha« the same authorship as the Epistlf^ Uj the Corinthians and the Epistle to the Gaiatians; consequently, if the authenticity of these be provwi, that of Rfjmans is likewise established. We shall however treat the question quite indepen- dently. The «-xUTnal evidenc«r of tlu^ authenticity of Rfjmans is uncommonly strong. Even though no dirwt UMtimony as to the authorship is forthcoming b<;fore Marcion and Irenarus, still the oldest writings betray an acquaintance with the Epistle. One might
with some degree of probability include the First
Epistle of St. Peter in the series of testimonies: con-
cerning the relation between Romans and the Epistle
of St. James we shall speak below. Precise informa-
tion is furnished by Clement of Rome, Ignatius of
Antioch. Polycarp, and Justin: Marcion admitted
Romans into his canon, and the earliest Gnostics
were acquainted with it.
The internal evidence is equally convincing. Mod- em critics (van Manen and others) have indeed asserted that no attempt was ever made to prove its authentic- ity; they have even gone further, and declared the Epistle an invention of the second century. Evanson (1792) first attempted to maintain this view; he was followed by Br. Bauer (1852, 1877), and later by Loman, Steck, van Manen (1891, 1903), and others. A less negative standpoint was adopted by Picrson- Naber, Michelsen, Volter, etc., who regarded Romans as the result of repeated revisions of genuine Pauline fragments, e. g., that one Kcnviine Epistle, interpolated five times and coml)ine(l fintdly with an Epistle to the Ephesians, gave rise to Romans (Volter) . These critics find their ground for denying the authenticity of the Epistle in the following considerations: Romans is a theological treatise rather than an epistle; the begin- ning and conclusion do not correspond ; the addresses cannot be determined with certainty ; despite a certain unity of thought and style, there are perceptible traces of compilation and di.scordance, difficult transitions, periods, connexions of ideas, which reveal the work of the reviser; the second part (ix-xii) abandons the sub- ject of the first (justification by faith), and introduces an entirely foreign idea; there is much that cannot be the composition of St. Paul (the texts dealing with the rejection of Israel lead one to the period after the destruction of Jerusalem; the Christians of Rome ap- pear as Pauline Christians; the conception of freedom from the law, of sin and justification, of life in Christ, etc., are signs of a later development); finally there are, according to Van Manen, traces of second-century Gnosticism in the Epistle.
We have here a classical example of the arbitrariness of this type of critics. They first declare all the writ- ings of the first and of the early second century forgeries, and, having thus destroyed all the sources, con- struct a purely subjective picture of the period, and revise the sources accordingly.
That the Epistle to the Romans was written at least before the last decades of the first century is established; even by external evidence taken alone; consequently all theories advocating a later origin are thereby exploded. The treatment of a. scientific; (theological) problem in an epistle can constitute a difficulty only for such as are unacquainted with the lit(!rature of the age. Doubts as to the unity of the Epistle vanish of themselves on a closer examination. The introduction is most closely connected with the theme (i, 4, 5, 8, 12, etc.) ; the same is true of the conclusion. An analysis of the Epistle reveals incontestably the coherence of the finst and second parts; from chapter ix an answer is given to a question which h:i.s obtruded itself in the earlier por- tion. In this fact Chr. Baur sees the important point of the whole Epistle. B(«i(l(!s, the interrelation be- tween the parts finds express mention (ix, 30-32; x, 3-6; xi, 6; xi, 20-23; etc.). The author's attitude towards Israel will be treatcfl below (VI). The rejec- tion of the Chosen Peoi)le could have become abundantly clear to the author after the uniform exp(>riences of a wide missionary activity extxiiiding over more than ten years. The unevennjwses and difficulty of the language show at most that the; t(!Xt has not been perfectly pre- served. Much becomes clear when we remember the personality of St. Paul and his custom of dictating his Epistles.
Were the Epistle a forgery, the expressions concern- ing th(^ y)erson and views of the author would be in- explicable and completely enigmatic. Who in the second
