Waynesboro Church Of Christ

Welcomes You!

Here are some articles and sermon outlines you may find interesting. Click on any title for the full text.

8

The Purpose of Romans and the Edict of Claudius

The purpose of Romans can be detailed and complex with various theories concerning the intent of the book. Over the years people have given numerous explanations concerning the overall theme of the book. But in recent scholarship, F.C. Baur changed the classical interpretation of Romans from an isolated letter to the Roman Christians to a letter tied to an historical event (321-384). The thesis of this paper will set out to prove that Romans was written by the Apostle Paul in AD 55-57 to the Christian community in Rome to address social tension between the Jews and the Gentiles. These ethnic problems were caused by the deportation of the Jews in AD 49 by the edict of Claudius. But after the death of Claudius, the Jews began to return to Rome and to the local congregations that have now developed a strong Gentile culture. Since the Jews were predominantly the powerful figures in the establishment of the church in Rome, they sought to restore their level of influence within the local bodies of Christ. The problem was that the Gentiles were unwilling to acquiescence to the returning Jews. Therefore, Paul writes his letter to the Romans to address these issues within the Roman church. In order to prove this thesis of Paul writing the Romans to address ethnic conditions in the Roman church, the author, date, place, origin of the establishment of the Roman church, and the audience must be considered. Also, the major various views concerning the purpose of Romans will be examined. Then the impact of the edict of Claudius will be explored with a discussion on the historical validity of the edict. Also, the intended purpose for Romans will be elaborated. To put all of this historical background into perspective, the development of this cultural condition will be explored through the text.

Historical Background

Authorship The authorship of Romans produces little or no debate (Witherington 4). Almost everyone in scholarship considers the Apostle Paul to be the author of the text. Though Paul used an amanuensis whose name was Tertius (Rom. 16.22), and it could be likely that he had some freedom in choosing the specific wording of the text, nevertheless Paul is the identified author of the book of Romans (Rom.1.1).

Date Acts 18.12 states that Paul’s stay in Corinth overlapped the proconsulate of Gallio. From the archaeological evidence, Gallio’s proconsulate was in AD 52. More than likely, his term lasted one year. This information is important because Paul was brought before Gallio during the beginning of Paul’s eighteen-month stay in Corinth. After his time in Corinth, Paul traveled to Syrian Antioch and then to Ephesus. These trips probably consumed a few months, which lead one to believe that Paul arrived in Ephesus in the later portion of AD 52. Luke tells us in Acts 19.8, 10 that Paul remained in Ephesus for at least two years and three months. Therefore, one is led to believe that Paul’s three months in Greece, where he wrote the book of Romans, occurred in AD 55(Tolbert 392). The exact local in Greece was thought to be the city of Corinth (Moo 5). AD 55 seems to be the earliest date placed on the book of Romans (Tolbert 392). The common consensus for dating Romans is approximately AD 55-57. (Achtemeier 19). This dating allows time to elapse after the death of Claudius so that the Jewish segment in the Roman church could return in order to cause the necessary conflict that Paul is addressing in his letter. This dating also does not allow too much time to pass before Paul addresses the contentious situation in Rome.

Place As mentioned above, Corinth is the most likely place of origin of this letter because Phoebe of Cenchrea was entrusted to carry this letter to Rome. Also, Gaius who was one of the most prominent converts during Paul’s ministry at Corinth is mentioned in Romans 16.23 (Harrison 4). There seem to be too many ties to Corinth for this letter to be composed in any other location.

Origin of the church in Rome The precise beginning of Christianity in Rome is unknown. At this time in the first century there would have been commerce between Jerusalem and Rome. Likely, while Christians were doing business in Rome, they were evangelizing the local Synagogues (Byrne 10). According to Inscriptional evidence, there appears to have been from ten to thirteen synagogues in Rome (Talbert 6). This meeting place of the Jews would have been the most likely place for Christians to go to debate the reality of Jesus. A third century commentator named Ambrosiaster stated that the Romans had embraced the faith, but this faith was practiced in a Jewish form (qtd. In Talbert 7). This comment on the faith in Romans sheds light on the rising conflict that Paul is going to address in Romans.

Addressees The addressees of Romans are broken down into three possibilities: Jews, Gentile, or mixture of Jews and Gentiles. On one hand, the internal evidence seems to indicate a Jewish-Christian audience. Paul greets Jewish believers in Romans 16.3, 7, and 11; he associates his readers with the Mosaic Law, and he even states in Romans 7.1 “I am speaking to those who know the law.” Paul also explains numerous doctrines that have special interest to a Jewish audience. He mentions Abraham (Rom. 4), the place of Israel in God’s history of salvation (Rom. 9-11), and the role of sin in Jewish religion (Rom. 2.1-3:8).

But on the other hand, Paul also mentions details concerning a Gentile audience. He considers his readers to be among the Gentiles to whom he had been called to minister (Rom. 1.5-6), and he even directly addresses Gentiles in Romans 11.3 (Carson, Moo, Morris 243-244).

The internal evidence of the Letter to the Romans indicates a mixed audience. The edict of Claudius affects the understanding of the addressees of Paul. Since in AD 49 Claudius banished the Jews from Rome, the Jewish representation in the church would have diminished. But Paul is writing in AD 55-57 and the edict probably ended at the death of Claudius in AD 54 (Talbert 6). Cranfield suggests that after the edict of Claudius ended, the Jews “probably have lost no time in returning, once return became possible” (18). During these intervening years, the majority of the conversions in the congregation would have been Gentiles. Therefore, Paul’s likely addressees were a mixture of Jewish and Gentile Christians.

Proposed Theories on the Purpose of Romans

The views concerning his purpose have changed as scholarship has continued to progress and gain more knowledge into the ancient civilization of Rome.

The theories concerning the purpose of Paul’s letter to the Romans are numerous. One view of interpreting the book of Romans is to look at Paul’s intended purposes for writing. Paul sets forth a threefold purpose. (1) Paul could be simply writing an explanatory letter to inform his audience of his coming visit and to impart spiritual gifts to them (Rom. 1.11-12; 15.22-25), (2) to tell of his plans to visit Spain and to secure support for this endeavor (15.14-21), (3) and to ask for prayers on his behalf in his work and travels (15.30-32). The problem with these stated goals is that Paul seems to follow a different direction in his letter (Russell 175). These stated aims of Paul could be simple peripheral matters but not the major concern for Paul in this letter.

In regard to the internal evidence found in the letter to the Romans, it has been suggested that Paul is writing because of his apostolic call to preach the Gospel to the gentiles. Paul sees himself as uniquely qualified to strengthen the faith of the Christians in Rome. Romans 1.11 and 1.14 are cited for evidence for this view (Weima 17-33). This view has been called the Pastoral purpose of Romans. This view is inadequate because it describes the role of Paul in Romans but does not explain the purpose of Romans.

Another classical interpretation of the purpose of Romans is viewing this letter as a doctrinal treatise for Christianity. Some in the past that held this idea separated Paul’s writing from any historical event or occasion. Those that advocated this saw this as Paul’s system of theology for all Christians of all times. There are two major problems with this view. One concern is that Paul does not address every major doctrine of Christianity in this letter. He leaves out the teaching concerning cosmic reconciliation and developed eschatology. These doctrines may not be the only unmentioned doctrines in the letter but they highlight the fact that Paul is not attending to set forth a doctrinal treatise. Another problem with this view is that chapters’ nine to eleven cannot be understood without some reference to a historical situation (Guthrie 398).

A third view of Paul’s purpose in Romans is that Paul wrote based on his past experiences with other churches. Since Paul had to deal with Jewish-Gentile conflicts before, especially in his letter to the Galatians, it is contended that Paul was addressing events in Romans that he knew would arise in the future. Therefore, it is expressed that Paul is writing to a predominantly Gentile church about the destructive nature of the legalistic Jewish teachers (Gager 101-108). This view contains a partial truth but not the entire truth. In a sense Paul is writing based on his previous knowledge and experiences because it would be almost impossible not to deal with a situation from a past point of reference, but it would seem unlikely that Paul did not have any knowledge concerning the conditions in Rome since he knew Aquila and Priscilla who were banished from Rome during the Edict of Claudius. And it seems likely that Aquila and Priscilla would have informed Paul of the situation of the Roman church (Rom 16.3). Also, Paul’s theology in Galatians has been refined in his letter to the Romans. Paul has been able to distill his doctrines concerning Jew-Gentile conflict. Paul’s letter to the Romans is an extension of his earlier thoughts from the Galatians’ problems (Boice 420). If Paul was merely addressing Romans from his past experiences he would have included basically the same points as in his letter to the Galatians. Westerholm notes that Galatians’ topic is addressed because the Gentile converts had been instructed that they needed to be circumcised and to submit to the particular Jewish elements of the Mosaic Law if they wanted to belong to the people of God. But Paul’s message in Romans argues that the law itself cannot serve as a path to righteousness for the person who has broken the law of God (260). Paul in Romans argues for acceptance of both Jews and Gentiles in the Body of Christ while Galatians argued the removal of legalistic Jewish teachers.

Another argument against Paul writing from his past experiences is the direction of his letter. In Romans Paul informs his readers that he has completed his work in the East (Rom. 15.19-23), and now he is planning on continuing his missionary journey to Spain (15.24, 28). But before he can complete this task, he has to deliver the financial offering to Jerusalem. In Romans Paul is looking ahead to two future apostolic endeavors. Notice that there is not one specific reference to his past career (Crafton 326). If Paul were writing from past experiences, one would tend to believe that he would mention at least one account from a previous church that he worked with.

The fourth view for the purpose of Romans states that Paul wrote to introduce himself before his planned visit to Rome (Miller, 224). This view seems too incomplete for the theological message of the book. Plainly, Paul plans on visiting with the Roman church, but he also plans on leaving soon after his arrival to evangelize Spain. If this letter were a personal introduction, one would believe that there would be more biographical information concerning his life and ministry in this work. Moreover, Paul deals with rich theological issues in the Letter to the Romans that supersede a merely personal introduction. We know that Paul is able to write a simple letter because the canon contains his letter to Philemon, which is a better example of a personal letter written by Paul. Also, it seems unlikely that Romans is merely intended to be a personal introduction because the probability of Paul’s reaching Rome is complicated because he must first travel to Jerusalem with an offering for the saints there (Rom. 15.24-25). There is a possibility that Paul will never make it to Rome after he travels to Jerusalem (Wedderburn 140).

With Paul’s mission to Jerusalem in mind, it has been suggested that Paul’s letter to the Romans is the speech that he plans to deliver in Jerusalem when he arrives with the collection of funds. This view has little support because there is no evidence that it was Paul’s overriding intention in writing (Moo 18). Also, in Romans Paul stresses his desire to visit Rome and does not overly highlight his mission to Jerusalem.

Now that the rival views concerning the Book to the Romans have been considered, the time has come to discuss how the edict of Claudius specifically affects the interpretation of Romans.

The Edict of Claudius

Claudius plays an important role in the interpretation of Romans. He was an assiduous practitioner of the old Roman religion (Wilson 95). He reigned until AD 54 when Nero replaced him (Schreiner 13). In AD 49 Claudius banished the Jews from Rome. A Roman historian named Suetonius recorded that Claudius “expelled Jews from Rome because of their constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus” (qtd. In Dunn xlviii). This edict coincides with the eviction of Prisca and Aquila from Rome (Acts 18.2). Since there would not have been any differentiation from Jewish Christians and Jews, everyone with a Jewish background would have been expelled from Rome.

There is also some debate if the edict is mentioning Jesus Christ or some other figure from antiquity. This “chrestus” is commonly taken as a misspelling of Christus, which is the Latin term for Christ (Wedderburn 54). This seems plausible because of the evidence for a vowel shift (Howard 176). Bruce notes that “Christus” and “Chrestus” were homophones in the Greek (381). This evidence makes it easy to suppose that “Chrestus” is a simple spelling error or mix-up.

But Suetonius is not the only ancient writing to mention Claudius in relation to the Jews. Also, a historian named Dio Cassius in AD 41 remarks in connection with the initial period of Claudius’ reign that “The Jews had once again increased so greatly that because of their great number it would have been difficult to bar them from the city without creating a tumult. So he did not drive them out and even allowed them to continue their traditional manner of life, but forbade them to hold meetings” (qtd. In Riesner 157).

Paulus Orosius before he cited Suetonius’ comments on Claudius’ remarks that, “in the ninth year of the same reign, Josephus reports that the Jews were expelled from the city by Claudius” (gtd. In Riesner 157). Generally, scholars attribute Dio Cassius’ comments to the beginning of Claudius’ reign when he was more tolerant of the Jews, and Suetonius’ comments refer to a later period when harsher measures were needed.

Another piece of ancient writing that bears witness to the edict of Claudius is from the Syriac “Doctrine of Addai.” This document gives an account concerning Queen Protonice, who was the wife of Claudius. She became a Christian and made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to restore to James the rightful possession of Golgotha, the cross, and the tomb of Christ. It is recorded that the Jews wrongfully held these items. As the story continues, she returned to Rome and told Claudius about her trip to the Holy Lands. Then the text reads: “And when Caesar heard it, he commanded all the Jews to leave the country of Italy” (qtd. In Howard 177). This historical note does not definitely prove that the edict of Claudius was regarding Christ but does add another piece of evidence to verify the continued dispute between Claudius and the Jews.

Another piece of evidence that links Claudius to the religious environment of the first century comes from Kreitzer, who connects Paul to Claudius through Roman coinage. Claudius issued commemorative coins to be minted in Ephesus. Kreitzer proposes that the Ephesians had an affinity for Claudius because of the honor of minting the silver cistophori. This could have resulted in an aggressive pride among the Ephesians concerning the temple of Artemis, or Diana. Therefore, this background helps explain the rioting caused by Paul’s preaching in Acts 19.23-41. Also, the silversmith named Demetruis fueled this riot, which leads to the conclusion that the pride in minting Claudius’ coins sparked the riot (59-70). This information seems to indicate that Claudius has influenced other aspects of Biblical interpretation, so it would not be a large step to see Claudius’ rule influencing the interpretation of Romans.

The last piece of evidence that indicates that Claudius banished the Jews from Rome is found in precedence. Dio Cassius records that during the reign of Tiberius in AD 19, “he sent many Jews to Sardinia and had some of the leaders executed there” (Witherington 12). It was not uncommon for the Roman Caesars to be involved in religious affairs.

The chronological connect between the dating of the Edict and the returning date of the Jews coincides with the dating of the book of Romans. Since the Jews would be returning after the death of Claudius in AD 54 (Acts 18.2, Romans 16.3) and now Paul is writing in approximately 55 to 57 AD. It seems probable that Paul’s letter to the Romans could be tied to Claudius’ edict.

The Edict of Claudius seems to be a historical event that banished the Jews from Rome because of disputes over Jesus Christ. This specific occasion led Paul to address this letter to the Romans. In Romans, Paul must address the renewed tensions between Jewish and Gentile Christians.

The Major Purpose of Romans

The edict of Claudius caused a special dilemma in the Roman church. The Jews were banished from Roman, whether one was a Christian-Jew or an ethnic Jew, in AD 49. Now Paul is writing approximately in AD 55-57, and the edict of Claudius would have ended after the death of Claudius in AD 54. The Christian Jews would have been making their way back to Rome as Aquila and Priscilla did. The unity within the congregation became a problem because the roots of Christianity in Rome were found in the Jewish synagogues (Ambrosiater Ad Romanos). Since the converts from AD 49 would have been predominantly Gentile, the Roman church would have developed an increasingly Gentile identity (Drane 218). The patterns of socialization would have changed profoundly. Since the early Roman church was attached to the synagogues, and since by the time the Jews came back, the church was established in house churches, this would have been a major sociological change (Rom. 16.5). The letter identifies this transition to the existence of house-churches being independent of Jewish synagogues by AD 55-75. “Note the absence of a singular salutation (to the church at Rome) in this letter. Furthermore, the admonition to greet the church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla assumes the existence of other house-churches” (Walters 130).

The Jewish Christians in the pre-edict years would have more than likely held the governing influential status in the churches. The major decision makers would have been Jewish converts and would have been able to dictate the orientation and culture of the various congregations. Now the Jews must go through a radical change. The returning Jews were in a difficult situation because they do not feel completely comfortable within the culturally Gentile church nor do they feel contented within the Jewish synagogues (Walters 63-64). They have become a people without any religious home.

There could have been serious levels of discord caused by the changes within the home-churches. The Gentile leaders would have changed some of the customary practices of a Jewish Christian church. Being freed from the strict conscience of the Jewish Christians, the new Gentile leadership would have abandoned some of the classic Jewish laws. Dietary laws, the observance of the Sabbath, and Jewish customs could have been rejected under the new régime. The pre-edict Gentiles maybe would have felt pressured to observe these practices because of the majority of Jews in the church. These Gentiles would have been “forced to live like Jews” (Gal. 2.14). Now that the Gentiles have gained control and rejected the cultural Jewish laws, it seems unlikely for the Gentiles to be willing to once again accept the legalistic rules of the minority returning Jews (Walters 64). Also, Wiefel argues that the Roman culture had a general negative perspective on Jewish customs and lifestyles, and the recent converts during the edict would have been influenced by these cultural trends (96-101). Probably, the Christians in Roman were ready to reject everything Jewish and especially the returning Jews. And they would have had little tolerance for the returning Jews to be attempting to bind their religious traditions on the newly liberated and culturally gentile-controlled church.

Therefore, Paul must write to the Roman Christians (both Jews and Gentiles) to resolve the increased tensions between the two warring parties. Typically, this view is expressed as the “weak” and the “Strong” (Morris 12). Paul’s purpose in Romans is to reconcile the returning Jews and the Gentile converts.

Klein objects to the “weak” and “strong” view concerning the purpose of Romans. His first contention is regarding the audience for the letter. He states that Paul is speaking to “Gentile Christians” only and states that those who see the audience of Paul as a mixed group to be assuming too much (36). But this seems to be just as much an assumption because Paul does address events that would lend themselves to a Jewish audience (Rom. 4). Klein also asserts that the contrast between the strong and the weak does not have to arise from tensions between Jewish and Gentile Christians (36). But this seems to deny the other canonical evidence in regard to eating idol meat. 1 Corinthians 8-10 deals with the same problems of eating idol meat that Romans 14.1-15.13 does. Also, in Romans 14.1-15.13 there are numerous references to refraining from judging one another (Rom. 14.1, 4, 10, and 13), and this seems to indicate tension between two warring factions in Romans. The likely participants from history and the biblical text are the Jews and Gentiles.

Another assertion that Klein makes to disprove the weak-strong purpose of Romans is denying that “Paul did not intend to function as an intermediary between two feuding groups during his forthcoming visit to Rome, but to preach the Gospel” (37). The problem with this quibble is that preaching the Gospel is preaching the reconciliation of all men in Christ. An inherent value in the Gospel is reconciliation. From Paul’s other letters it seems that Paul equates reconciliation with preaching the Gospel. 2 Corinthians 5.18-20 seems to prove this idea. Also, Ephesians 2.11-19 seems to indicate that to Paul preaching the Gospel is preaching reconciliation.

The evidence dispelling the “weak-strong” view is not conclusive. On the other hand, the evidence from the situation in Rome as well as the biblical narrative seems to indicate the “weak-strong” view.

Textual Evidence for the “Weak-Strong” view

The “weak-strong” view can be seen through the biblical evidence in the letter itself. In the first four chapters, Paul deals with the issue of God’s impartiality. Paul seeks to establish as much common ground between the Jews and Gentiles as possible. Paul wants to identify that both Jews and Gentile are lost and of need of God’s saving grace. Therefore, there is neither Jew nor Gentile in God’s plan of redemption. In fact, Paul argues that all men are justified by faith (Walters 68-76).

The next section that provides evidence of Paul’s overarching purpose in Romans is chapters 9-11. In this section Paul argues the priority of Israel in salvation. This section is also outlined in Romans 1.16 “…to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” Paul states in this section that God is not unjust for working His plan through the Jews since God can have “mercy on whom He desires” (Rom. 9.18). Also, this is a needed section because of the tendency for the Gentiles to reject the returning Jews from having a voice within the various house churches. Paul has to convince the Gentiles to embrace the Jewish role in salvation (Walters 77-84).

The final section that offers proof for the “weak-strong” view is Romans 14.1-15.13. These sections deal with a specific problem of the strong man eating anything but the weak man only eating vegetables (Rom. 14.2), and the problem of seeing one day better than the others or not seeing any difference in the days (Rom. 14.5). These issues could be concerning eating idol meat and dealing with Jewish customary festival days. Paul in response to these issues urges unity and refraining from judging one another (Walters 84-92).

Romans 1.16-17 also highlight the probable intent of the letter. In verse 16 Paul states that the good news is for all people, so both the Jew and Gentile have a common salvation in Christ (Gal. 3.28). All of humanity can be justified through faith by the power of the gospel. In what has been typically seen as the thesis statement in the letter to the Romans, Paul argues for unity among the Jews and Gentiles in Rome.

There seems to be evidence from the text to explain and to prove that Paul is addressing ethnic tensions between the Jews and Gentiles in Rome.

Conclusion

Plainly there are many peripheral purposes stated by Paul within the text of Romans, but the overriding purpose of Paul is to offer a word of reconciliation to the Jews and Gentiles. This tension was caused by the edict of Claudius because the Jews had to leave Rome for at least a period of 6-9 years. During the intervening years, the church in Rome developed a distinctively Gentile image. Now that the Jews have returned, there are warring factions within the house churches in Roman. So, Paul writes to resolve these differences and to restore peace so that this church will be a valuable contributor to his mission works.

Matthew Morine
Professor Robertson
Advanced Critical Introduction to the New Testament 527 01
2 May 2005