A New People in Christ: Adam, Israel, and Union with Christ in Romans

A New People in Christ

Adam, Israel, and Union with Christ in Romans

Wendel Sun

A NEW PEOPLE IN CHRIST

Adam, Israel, and Union with Christ in Romans

Copyright © 2018 Wendel Sun. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Pickwick Publications

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn: 978-1-5326-3535-9

hardcover isbn: 978-1-5326-3537-3

ebook isbn: 978-1-5326-3536-6

Cataloging-in-Publication data:

Names: Sun, Wendel

Title: A new people in Christ : Adam, Israel, and union with Christ in Romans / by Wendel Sun.

Description: Eugene, OR : Pickwick Publications, 2018 | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: ISBN 978-1-5326-3535-9 (paperback) | ISBN 978-1-5326-3537-3 (hardcover) | ISBN 978-1-5326-3536-6 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Romans—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Jesus Christ—Person and offices. | Bible. Romans—Theology.

Classification: LCC BS2665.52 S88 2018 (print) | LCC BS2665.52 (ebook)

Manufactured in the U.S.A. 08/23/18

Some material from Wendel Sun, Biblical Theology and Cross-Cultural Theological Education: The Epistle to the Romans as a Model. Global Missiology 4.12 (July 2015) 1–14, is included in chapter 2. Used with permission.

Some material from Wendel Sun, Seeking (Exchanged) Glory: The Gentiles of Romans 2. Journal of Asian Evangelical Theology 20.2 (Sept 2016) 45–54, is used in chapter 4. Used with permission.

Some material from Wendel Sun, Difficult Texts: Romans 6.14. Theology 120.3 (May-June 2017) 208–210, is used in chapter 5. Used with permission.

Table of Contents

Title Page

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: The Story of Adam (and Israel) in Romans 1–4

Chapter 3: The Story of Adam (and Israel) in Romans 5–8

Chapter 4: Adam, Israel, and Union with Christ in Romans 1–4

Chapter 5: Adam, Israel, and Union with Christ in Romans 5–8

Chapter 6: Union with Christ in Romans 9–16

Chapter 7: Conclusion

Bibliography

To my wife and children

εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν

Acknowledgments

Many have contributed to the publication of this book. Above all, I thank God for the opportunity to study the topic of union with Christ. It has been a rich and rewarding experience and I pray the final product will prove beneficial to the kingdom.

It would not be possible to adequately express my thanks to my wife. Her unceasing love, support, and encouragement sustained me through the writing process. I could not have completed this book without her. Thanks also to our four children who have loved their daddy well. It is to my wife and children that I gratefully dedicate this book.

The material in this book is a lightly revised version of my PhD thesis submitted to the University of Chester and Spurgeon’s College, London. Many thanks go to my doctoral supervisor, Dr. Stephen I. Wright. He skillfully brings both academic rigor and pastoral care to the supervisory role. It was an honor and blessing to work with Stephen during my time as a student. In addition, I thank the faculty and staff of Spurgeon’s College who welcomed me to campus, encouraged me along the way, and engaged the ideas of this book in research seminars. I also thank my examiners, Rev. Dr. Robert Evans (University of Chester) and Prof. Grant Macaskill (University of Aberdeen). It is a privilege to have such scholars critically engage my work. This book is much improved as a result.

Many others listened to ideas and offered suggestions along the way. The initial idea for this book grew out of a conversation with Da Wei, who also read and critiqued the manuscript. Dr. Jackson Wu and Dr. Terry Griffth read an initial draft of this book and offered valuable feedback. My fellow PhD students at Spurgeon’s interacted with the ideas during our campus gatherings. My students at ICTS heard many of these ideas in class and responded with good questions.

Finally, I’m grateful to Pickwick Publications for publishing this work.

Abbreviations

AB Anchor Bible

ACCSNT Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture New Testament

ANTC Abingdon New Testament Commentaries

BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research

BDAG Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edn. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000)

BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

BI Biblical Interpretation

BR Biblical Research

BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin

BibSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Und Die Kunde Der Älteren Kirche

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

COQG Christian Origins and the Question of God

CTJ Calvin Theological Journal

CTR Criswell Theological Review

DSD Dead Sea Discoveries

EC Early Christianity

EKKNT Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar Zum Neuen Testament

ESV English Standard Version

ExpT The Expository Times

HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology

HTR Harvard Theological Review

ICC International Critical Commentary

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JPS The JPS Torah Commentary

JQR Jewish Quarterly Review

JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement

JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement

JSPL Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters

JTI Journal of Theological Interpretation

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

LNTS Library of New Testament Studies

LXX Septuagint

MT Modern Theology

NAC New American Commentary

NCC New Covenant Commentary

NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament

NIVAC The NIV Application Commentary

NovT Novum Testamentum

NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum

NSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology

NT New Testament

NTS New Testament Studies

OT Old Testament

PNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary

PRS Perspectives in Religious Studies

ResQ Restoration Quarterly

RevExp Review & Expositor

SBJT The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology

SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLSS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series

SJT Scottish Journal of Theology

TynB Tyndale Bulletin

TJ Trinity Journal

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

1

Introduction

Introduction and Thesis

What is the Old Testament background of union with Christ in Romans? This is the primary question asked and answered in this book. Perhaps some would argue that the more fundamental question is whether or not there is an OT background for union with Christ that can be reasonably discerned from the text of Romans. Yet two important preliminary observations would seem to give weight to the assumption that there is an OT background for this important concept. First, Romans, more than any other Pauline epistle, is filled with OT quotations and other references.¹ It is clear from the opening of the letter that Paul is seeking to set his entire argument as the outworking of the gospel, which was promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy writings (Rom 1:2).² Further, the repetition of as it is written (καθὼς γέγραπται) indicates that the OT forms the most important source and authority for Paul’s theology.³ Second, while scholars debate the exact role of union with Christ, it is undeniable that this doctrine is important not only in Romans, but in Pauline theology more generally. Though other theological themes have typically dominated scholarly discussion (particularly justification), proper study of Romans demands that one give careful attention to the prominence of union with Christ. This, then, leads back to the original question. Given the importance of both the use of the OT in Romans and the concept of union with Christ, how are these two marks of the great epistle related?

Having undertaken this study with the above question in mind, the following thesis will be argued: a study of Romans with careful attention given to Paul’s use of the OT shows that the Adam and Israel stories together form the background of union with Christ within the epistle. When reading Romans with adequate consideration of Paul’s use of the OT stories, it becomes clear that he saw them as organically related as one continuous story, which provides the OT background for union with Christ. In short, Paul argues that unbelievers (those outside of Christ) are united to Adam. This union is basic to all humanity, Jew and Gentile alike. Conversely, believers (those in Christ) are united to Christ and to one another and this provides the basis for church unity. Indeed, union with Christ is Paul’s primary theological tool for encouraging church unity and his use of the OT is an essential aspect of this tool. Within the broader argument of the letter, union with Christ as understood with this OT background in mind demonstrates that God has been faithful to his covenant promises to Abraham in giving him a worldwide family: a new people in Christ. Such an argument will draw on the narrative approach to Paul’s theology, particularly in the work of N. T. Wright, and seek to bring clarity to the function and meaning of union with Christ.⁴ Though other approaches are possible, I will argue that the narrative approach is a fruitful means of understanding union with Christ in Romans.

Literature Review

While this book is an attempt at a fresh reading of Romans to discover OT backgrounds for union with Christ, the investigation does not take place in a vacuum. Union with Christ in Paul’s letters has been an area of intense interest in contemporary scholarship. Before embarking on a study of this topic, it will be helpful to survey the scholarly discussion in order to set the present work within contemporary scholarship. It will not be possible to attempt an exhaustive analysis of all contributions to the study of union with Christ in Paul.⁵ Rather, a few key works drawn primarily from recent scholarship will be mentioned to set the stage for the present work. The purpose will be to briefly summarize the main argument of the key works and the way in which these writers have discussed (or not discussed) Paul’s use of the OT in relation to union with Christ.

Recent Literature

While a few earlier works gave attention to the topic,⁶ Schweitzer’s The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, first published in 1931, has been a very influential work on the importance of union with Christ in Pauline theology. Schweitzer argued that Paul’s basic understanding of salvation was mystical in nature. Contra traditional Protestant thinking since the Reformation, Schweitzer believed that union with Christ was far more important in Paul’s theological program than forensic justification. He writes, The doctrine of righteousness by faith is therefore a subsidiary crater, which has formed within the rim of the main crater—the mystical doctrine of redemption through being-in-Christ.⁷ Thus, for Schweitzer, union with Christ is the prime enigma of Pauline teaching, which is the key to understanding the whole of Paul’s theology.⁸ While various features of Christ-mysticism have clear OT connections, Schweitzer gives little attention to this, especially in relation to potential OT backgrounds for the doctrine.

Sanders’s Paul and Palestinian Judaism is often credited with being a primary catalyst for the New Perspective on Paul through his reassessment of early Judaism.⁹ However, much of the second half of the book is focused on a participatory understanding of Paul’s soteriology. He writes, the main theme of Paul’s gospel was the saving action of God in Jesus Christ and how his hearers could participate in that action.¹⁰ Sanders holds that participation in Christ was so central for Paul that it served as the foundation for other teaching, particularly issues of unity and morality.¹¹ Thus, participatory categories of thought subsume forensic themes since participation in Christ is the real bite of Paul’s theology.¹² Interestingly, though Sanders’s investigation is a comparative analysis of the pattern of religion in Palestinian Judaism and the Pauline literature, he devotes little attention to possible backgrounds for Paul’s participatory soteriology.

In his monumental work on Pauline theology, Dunn echoes Sanders in arguing that participation in Christ, as opposed to justification by faith, is the more natural extension of Paul’s Christology.¹³ That is, Paul’s soteriology is built upon his Christology. Since one of the most important aspects of Pauline Christology is Adam Christology, it follows that participation in Christ, in contrast to participation in Adam, is central to Paul’s soteriological formulations. Dunn’s study of the participation motif in Paul proceeds along exegetical lines, focusing on the related Pauline phrases (in Christ; with Christ; etc.), noting that the prevalence of the phrases demands that the motif be taken seriously. Paul uses in Christ and related phrases in at least three ways—objectively, indicating God’s salvific work in Christ; subjectively, indicating the believer’s connection to Christ; and to express a particular activity or disposition for believers.¹⁴ In relation to OT backgrounds, Dunn makes no direct claims.

Gorman has written widely on Pauline soteriology, specifically emphasizing the relationship between justification and participation. For Gorman, the key term is theosis, which in Paul’s writings should be defined as transformative participation in the kenotic, cruciform character of God through Spirit-enabled conformity to the incarnate, crucified, and resurrected/glorified Christ.¹⁵ According to Gorman, this concept most accurately describes Pauline soteriology. Having established theosis as foundational, Gorman seeks to show that rather than two separate models of salvation (judicial and participatory), "for Paul there is one soteriological model: justification is by crucifixion, specifically co-crucifixion, understood as participation in Christ’s act of covenant fulfillment." Thus, Gorman links together justification and participation resulting in a model that emphasizes both declaration and transformation.

Campbell’s recent work, Paul and Union with Christ, offers a comprehensive study by providing a broad exegetical analysis of the phrases and metaphors within the Pauline corpus related to union with Christ as well as theological reflection on the exegetical findings. Thus, he has produced a more detailed and far-reaching study than some other works included in this literature review. The bulk of the book is concerned with interpreting every Pauline passage that relates to union with Christ via specific prepositional phrases and metaphors. Campbell studies every occurrence of ἐν Χριστῷ, εἰς Χριστὸν, σὺν Χριστῷ, and διὰ Χριστοῦ, as well as related phrases and metaphors.

Campbell then turns to theological study, seeking to apply the exegetical results to theological questions. One significant advance in Campbell’s work is his attempt to define union with Christ. Drawing from his exegetical work, Campbell concludes that no one term exists to adequately define Paul’s theological meaning. Instead, he opts for four terms, which together function as ‘umbrella’ concepts, covering the full spectrum of Pauline language, ideas, and themes.¹⁶ He elucidates these terms as follows:

Union gathers up faith, union with Christ, mutual indwelling, Trinitarian, and nuptial notions. Participation conveys partaking in the events of Christ’s narrative. Identification refers to the believers’ location in the realm of Christ and their allegiance to his lordship. Incorporation encapsulates the corporate dimensions of membership into Christ’s body.

These particular terms are intended to draw together the various theological threads Campbell deems most common in his study of union with Christ in the Pauline corpus.

Regarding possible OT backgrounds, Campbell believes that while there may be some thematic OT antecedents, union with Christ is boldly innovative.¹⁷ That is, while there are some connections to the OT in regard to Paul’s usage of metaphors, there is no clear OT background that provides the language and theology of union with Christ. Campbell omits interaction with OT quotations and allusions in the analyzed texts and contexts.

Macaskill’s wide-ranging Union with Christ in the New Testament is unique in this survey in that he explores varying conceptions of union with Christ in the entire NT, in biblical scholarship, and in historical theology. Further, he devotes space to investigation into possible backgrounds for the doctrine. Macaskill considers various proposals for antecedents, concluding that covenant provides the framework within which the bond between God and his people can be conceived.¹⁸ Further, much of the messianic content of the OT, particularly the servant songs in Isaiah, incorporate ideas of covenant representation that could lay groundwork for union with Christ.¹⁹ Additionally, the concept of glory in the OT and in the Jewish literature includes the theme of shared glory, which is probably related to concepts of Christ’s glory shared with those united to him.²⁰

Most pertinent for the discussion of this book is Macaskill’s discussion of possible adamic backgrounds for union with Christ. He devotes a chapter to possible connections between the understanding of Adam as a glorious being in Judaism and the NT doctrine of union with Christ. After surveying both NT Adam-Christology and Jewish literature, Macaskill concludes that the glorious-Adam motif had little influence on NT writers in general and that adamic glory plays an insignificant role in Paul’s conception of union.²¹ According to Macaskill, the restoration taking place in believers through union with Christ is not the restoration of Adam’s lost glory, but is a different substance altogether.²²

Like Campbell, one of the important contributions of Macaskill’s work is his attempt to clarify the meaning of union with Christ. He writes,

To be united to Jesus, to be in him, is to be in the covenant through his representative headship. Thus, it is to be in a condition of covenantal communion with God, with the covenant-fulfillment of Jesus serving as the grounds for our own communion. In Christ, we keep the covenant.²³

Thus, covenantal relationship is central for the NT picture of union with Christ. This covenant relationship, along with temple themes, constitutes stronger possibilities for OT backgrounds than adamic themes in Macaskill’s interpretation of the texts.

Union with Christ features prominently in Wright’s many publications on Pauline theology. In his recent Paul and the Faithfulness of God, he draws attention to union with Christ in numerous places.²⁴ For Wright, the concept of incorporation into Jesus is important and fits into his overall narrative conception of Paul’s theology. Wright believes the gospel story of Jesus to be the climax of Israel’s story.²⁵ Moreover, believers in Jesus enter his story in union with him. Thus, participatory themes are very significant in Wright’s conception of Paul’s soteriology. Nevertheless, a narrative analysis leads Wright to argue that forensic and participatory models of salvation in Paul are complimentary rather than conflicting. That is, those who are justified are those who are incorporated into the Messiah.²⁶

For Wright, incorporation into Christ is ecclesiological in nature: the people of God are those who are incorporated into the Messiah.²⁷ Christians find unity in the Messiah and this unity transcends ethnic and social identity.²⁸ At the heart of this conception is Wright’s view of Jesus as Israel’s incorporative Messiah.²⁹ As such, Jesus is the hoped for Jewish Messiah who restores the people of God, Jew and Gentile together, in himself. He is Israel’s representative, Israel in person.³⁰ In other words, Wright’s conception of union with Christ is largely an outworking of his Christology.

Regarding OT backgrounds for union with Christ, Wright makes very few direct arguments. He argues that Paul reread OT narratives through the lens of the resurrection of Jesus. Such a rereading caused Paul to recognize corporate notions in the stories of Adam and Abraham.³¹ Further, Wright argues for the presence of corporate personality themes in the OT stories of Israel’s king, but offers little exegetical evidence of Paul’s use of this notion.³² Finally, and most importantly for Wright, the concept of union with Christ somehow fits into Paul’s understanding of the grand narrative of Scripture.³³ This is natural in Wright’s work as all theological concepts fit within the broad narrative framework of Paul’s theology.

Evaluation

While there have been many valuable contributions to the study of union with Christ, especially in recent years, there are some gaps within the body of literature which this book seeks to address.³⁴ First, scholars have given little attention to the role of union with Christ within the arguments of particular NT books. For example, Campbell examines union with Christ language within the Pauline canon as a whole as opposed to the role of the doctrine within each Pauline letter. Likewise, Macaskill offers a broad study of the theme across the entire NT. The present work builds on these studies by focusing more narrowly on Romans and the particular function of union with Christ themes within the letter.

Second, while some have studied OT antecedents to union with Christ, few have given serious attention to OT backgrounds as presented by the NT authors. Most studies of union with Christ omit examination of OT backgrounds. Those who do explore possible OT connections usually begin with the OT and hypothesize about potentially overlapping themes and theological concepts. I build on the broad surveys of potential OT backgrounds, but work from the NT into the OT via quotations, allusions, and echoes. That is, there is a need for a study that focuses both on Paul’s use of the OT and his theology of union with Christ. This book seeks to fill this gap.

Third, in this book I will draw on observations by Macaskill with regard to the covenantal nature of union with Christ, but will utilize the narrative approach of Wright.³⁵ As such, I will seek to extend the work of Wright by giving focused attention to union with Christ in Romans. While union with Christ is prominent in Wright’s work, it remains somewhat nebulous and is always treated in relation to some other theological topic, whether Christology, justification, or ecclesiology. I will seek to bring some clarity to the discussion through a narrative analysis that gives sustained attention to union with Christ as the main topic. That is, this book will attempt to clarify the particular function of union with Christ in Romans, which may have implications for Paul’s theology more broadly. Further, I will seek to show that a narrative analysis helps understand not only the covenantal aspects of union with Christ, but Paul’s use of Adam’s story in Romans for a more complete picture of this central concept.

Key Issues in Interpreting Romans

This book is focused narrowly on the concept of union with Christ in Romans. Therefore, it is important to first examine a few important issues related to interpreting the epistle, though it is not possible or necessary to discuss every issue normally labelled introductory.³⁶ Instead, the following discussion is limited to a few matters that directly affect the argument presented in the chapters to come. These matters will be treated only briefly with references to supporting publications.

Audience

Scholars continue to debate the intended audience of Romans, with seemingly no resolution in sight.³⁷ Though most have understood the composition of the Roman church to include both Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus to varying degrees, some scholars continue to maintain a more exclusive view of the audience. In multiple publications, Nanos has vigorously argued for a Jewish context for the recipients of Romans.³⁸ Nanos holds that while Romans may have been written primarily to Gentile believers in Christ, the audience was embedded within Roman Jewish life, especially the synagogue.³⁹ This argument is based largely on his understanding of the historical evidence. Though this is a creative approach, few have followed Nanos’s views.

Others contend that the audience was entirely, or almost entirely, Gentile. This view was championed by Stowers,⁴⁰ followed by Das,⁴¹ and has been taken up recently by Rodriguez.⁴² Stowers claims that this is the only conclusion to be drawn from a close reading of the text of Romans and that other opinions concerning the audience are only formed from outside sources.⁴³ Das builds on this argument, adding that the Gentile audience was familiar with Jewish tradition and belief as a result of past association with the synagogue, but at the time of writing were separated from any synagogue affiliation.⁴⁴ In addition, Das avers that external evidence upholds his thesis.⁴⁵

However, most scholars hold that the church in Rome was a mixed congregation.⁴⁶ In order to ascertain the ethnic identity of the believers in Rome, one must take into consideration both the textual evidence (often called mirror reading) and the extra-textual historical background. The order in which such an investigation takes place is a matter of dispute. Longenecker argues that beginning with the textual data has resulted in an impasse in scholarship.⁴⁷ Thus, he moves from historical background to textual examination. Longenecker concludes:

(

1

) as for their ethnic identity, the Christians at Rome constituted both Gentile and Jewish believers in Jesus, but (

2

) as for their religious character and concerns, they considered themselves closely tied to the Jerusalem church and they thought and expressed themselves in ways congenial to Jewish Christianity.⁴⁸

According to Longenecker, and in keeping with a majority view, the Roman church was mixed ethnically, but theologically closely related to Jewish Christianity. Dunn likewise avers that Roman Christianity probably was birthed out of the synagogue and included both converted Jews and Gentiles who had formerly been associated with Judaism, perhaps as proselytes.⁴⁹ However, by the time Romans was written the church(es) most likely included numerous Gentile converts who had no previous contact with the synagogues.⁵⁰

In this book, I will work from the assumption, based on the work of the aforementioned scholars, that the church in Rome included both Jewish and Gentile Christians. The Jewish background believers in Christ as well as those Gentiles formerly connected to the synagogues would have had foundational knowledge of the OT and Jewish traditions, thus making it feasible that they would have heard Paul’s more subtle echoes of the OT.⁵¹ Indeed, this understanding is fundamental to the purpose of the letter and the function of union with Christ within the argument.

Purpose

For much of the history of interpretation, the purpose of Romans has been one of the most debated issues. The debate continues as recent scholarship has produced a plethora of options.⁵² Yet, as Longenecker notes, the various proposals can be broadly categorized into two groups: pastoral and missionary.⁵³ Those arguing for a pastoral purpose tend to focus on the situation with the Roman church, at least as Paul seems to have understood it. Thus, for these scholars, Paul wrote in order to address particular issue(s) within the church. On the other hand, those arguing for missionary purposes believe that Paul’s fundamental aim in writing was related more to his own ministry and missionary aspirations than the local situation in Rome.

A detailed examination of the proposals for the purpose(s) of Romans is unnecessary for the argument of this book. Instead, the purpose of Romans that will be assumed throughout the argument is that Paul wrote in order to encourage unity among the believers in Rome for the purpose of mission. Thus, Romans was written with pastoral, missionary, and theological purposes. This understanding builds on the work of several recent scholars and needs only to be summarized here.

First, Paul wrote Romans as an extension of his apostolic ministry. Specifically, the letter was written as an act of missionary service and as a request for support for further missionary service. That Paul’s own ministry as apostle to the Gentiles was central to his purposes in writing Romans is clear from the content of letter’s opening and closing remarks. In Rom 1:1–6, Paul refers to himself as an apostle (ἀπόστολος) and says that his apostleship (ἀποστολή) is received through Jesus Christ. Further, this apostleship was for the purpose of the gospel (Rom 1:1), which he announces to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name (εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ).⁵⁴ Scholars have long noted the importance of Paul’s salutations, particularly related to the purposes and content of the letter.⁵⁵ Thus, the self-identification as an apostle to the Gentiles points to the missionary concerns of the letter.

Paul notes his desire to preach the gospel in Rome in order to impart some spiritual gift to the believers (Rom 1:11). The reason for this is the obligation to all Gentiles Paul feels through the calling he has received (Rom 1:14). It follows that at least part of Paul’s reason for writing is to fulfill his missionary calling to the Gentiles, including those within the church in Rome. Jervis holds that the purpose of writing is discerned through a comparative analysis of Romans with other contemporary Greek letters, concluding that Paul’s primary purpose was to assert his apostolic authority over the church in Rome.⁵⁶ Jervis’s point is apt; Paul certainly believed that writing to the Roman believers was well within his apostolic calling. Kruse has similarly argued that the primary purpose in writing Romans was to minister to the believers in Rome for whom he had an apostolic responsibility.⁵⁷ Yet, there seems to be more to the story than a simple claiming of authority over the church, especially considering the scholarly consensus that the church in Rome was composed of both Gentiles and Jews.

In addition to his work among the Roman believers themselves, Paul also wrote in order to elicit support for and participation in his further missionary activity. This is clear from Paul’s words in Rom 15:14–33, where he again reminds his readers of his calling to missionary service among the Gentiles and announces his plans to travel to Spain after visiting Rome. It would seem that these verses are more than the mere imparting of information. Indeed, Kruse identifies this as secondary purpose.⁵⁸ Whether or not this purpose should be relegated to secondary status is debatable, but it is clear that Paul sought to persuade the Roman believers to participate in his mission.⁵⁹

Despite the importance of these purposes, there is a second, and perhaps more important, reason for writing Romans. The ministry and missionary purposes also spurred Paul to write in order to encourage unity among the believers in Rome. Schreiner identifies this as one of the primary purposes of Romans, stating that the text of Romans reveals the existence of conflict between Jewish and Gentile believers.⁶⁰ Primary among the supporting passages is the discussion of the strong and the weak in Rom 14:1—15:13. The exact identity of these two groups need not detain the discussion here.⁶¹ For the present purposes, it is enough to simply affirm that Paul’s discussion in this passage probably reveals his felt need to push for unity among the believers. The importance of this purpose, particularly in relation to union with Christ as Paul’s chief tool for combating disunity, will feature prominently throughout the argument of this book.

Watson argues that the unity of the church in common Christian identity is the primary purpose behind the composition of Romans. Watson avers that Paul sought to encourage Jewish Christians to separate themselves from the synagogues in order to fully identify with Gentile believers.⁶² Though his thesis is problematic at points,⁶³ Watson draws attention to the key issue at hand: the unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ. It seems beyond doubt that the unity of the church was in Paul’s mind when writing Romans. Indeed, much of the exegetical work of this book will demonstrate that throughout the letter, this issue crops up time and again.

Third, the two above purposes are closely related and are deeply theological in nature. Bird holds to an eclectic purpose for Romans, involving both missional and pastoral issues. He argues that Paul was seeking to gain both spiritual and financial support from the Roman church for his planned mission to Spain. In addition, he wrote pastorally to overcome any possible divisions among the believers in Rome. To accomplish this purpose, Paul explained in great detail his understanding of the gospel and, in effect, ‘gospelizes’ them, by which I mean that he endeavors to conform them to the evangelical character of his vision for Christian communities.⁶⁴

The unity of the church in the gospel is clearly identified as important in the opening verses of Romans. Having described himself as an apostle, Paul immediately moves into a summary of the gospel message, which is the announcement of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, the risen Davidic king. Paul opens the letter with this announcement to set the stage for the argument that follows. The gospel is the source of unity among the believers, as well as the content and motivation for Paul’s apostolic mission. The kingship motif will be important throughout, especially in Rom 6, which contains some of the most explicit union with Christ language in the letter. The point is that the gospel proclaims Jesus as the risen Messiah-King and therefore his people should find their unified identity in him.

Many have noted that the Christians in Rome had probably heard of Paul, his ministry, and his gospel. It is also possible that they either had some doubts about him and his message or that they had some misinformation concerning him.⁶⁵ While this is possible, the important point to note here is that the content of Romans reflects Paul’s desire to give a detailed exposition of his gospel. If this exposition was for the purpose of defending his gospel against detractors, it was secondary to the primary reasons for writing. In any case, it is clear that Paul makes a deeply theological argument in order to encourage unity among the believers within the church, to explicate his message for their benefit, and to therefore elicit support for his continuing ministry in Spain. Jewett holds that it was necessary for Paul to clarify his understanding of the gospel in order to unite the Roman believers in Christ, which would result in the establishment of Rome as a center for future missionary service.⁶⁶ Thus, Paul wrote theologically for the purpose of mission.

The proposal offered here for the purposes of Romans are not novel. However, what is often neglected among scholarly accounts is the central importance of union with Christ within the letter, particularly as it relates to the purpose of writing. The investigation