Reading Romans after Supersessionism: The Continuation of Jewish Covenantal Identity

Reading Romans after Supersessionism

the continuation of jewish covenantal identity

J. Brian Tucker

READING ROMANS AFTER SUPERSESSIONISM

The Continuation of Jewish Covenantal Identity

New Testament after Supersessionism

6

Copyright ©

2018

J. Brian Tucker. 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.

8

th Ave., Suite

3

, Eugene, OR

97401

.

Cascade Books

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199

W.

8

th Ave., Suite

3

Eugene, OR

97401

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn: 978-1-4982-1751-4

hardcover isbn: 978-1-4982-1753-8

ebook isbn: 978-1-4982-1752-1

Cataloguing-in-Publication data:

Names: Tucker, J. Brian, author.

Title: Reading Romans after supersessionism : the continuation of Jewish covenantal identity / J. Brian Tucker.

Description: Eugene, OR: Cascade Books,

2018

| Series: New Testament after Supersessionism

6

| Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers:

isbn 978-1-4982-1751-4 (

paperback

) | isbn 978-1-4982-1753-8 (

hardcover

) | isbn 978-1-4982-1752-1 (

ebook

)

Subjects: LCSH: Romans—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Paul, the Apostle, Saint—Relations with Jews | Judaism—Relations—Christianity | Jews in the New Testament | Gentiles in the New Testament | Judaism (Christian theology) | Paul, the Apostle, Saint

Classification:

BS2665.52 T827 2018 (

print

) | BS2665.52 (

ebook

)

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

September 10, 2018

Table of Contents

Title Page

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: To the Jew First

Chapter 3: The Fatherhood of Abraham

Chapter 4: The Validity of the Law

Chapter 5: Israel’s Present Covenantal Identity

Chapter 6: Christ Fulfills Torah

Chapter 7: Israel’s Future Covenantal Identity

Chapter 8: The Weak and the Strong

Chapter 9: A Doxological Social Identity

Chapter 10: Conclusion

Bibliography

Series Preface

The New Testament after Supersessionism (NTAS) is a series that presents post-supersessionist interpretations of the New Testament. By post-supersessionism, we mean "a family of theological perspectives that affirms God’s irrevocable covenant with the Jewish people as a central and coherent part of ecclesial teaching. It rejects understandings of the new covenant that entail the abrogation or obsolescence of God’s covenant with the Jewish people, of the Torah as a demarcator of Jewish communal identity, or of the Jewish people themselves" (spostst.org). Although the field of New Testament studies has made significant strides in this direction in recent years, the volumes in this series, written by Jewish and gentile believers in Jesus, seek to advance the conversation by offering post-supersessionist readings of the New Testament that address the question of ongoing Jewish particularity, and the relationship of interdependence and mutual blessing between Jew and gentile in Messiah.

series editors

J. Brian Tucker

Moody Theological Seminary, Plymouth, MI

David Rudolph

The King’s University, Southlake, TX

Justin Hardin

Palm Beach Atlantic University, West Palm Beach, FL

projected volumes

New Testament After Supersessionism, Introductory Volume —Justin K. Hardin, David J. Rudolph, and J. Brian Tucker

Reading Matthew After Supersessionism —Anders Runesson

Reading Mark after Supersessionism —Vered Hillel

Reading Luke-Acts after Supersessionism —Mark S. Kinzer and David J. Rudolph

Reading John after Supersessionism —Wally V. Cirafesi

Reading Romans after Supersessionism —J. Brian Tucker

Reading 1 Corinthians after Supersessionism —Kar Yong Lim

Reading 2 Corinthians after Supersessionism —James A. Waddell

Reading Galatians after Supersessionism —Justin K. Hardin

Reading Philippians after Supersessionism —Christopher Zoccali

Reading Ephesians and Colossians after Supersessionism —Lionel Windsor

Reading Hebrews after Supersessionism —David M. Moffitt

Reading 1 Peter after Supersessionism —Kelly D. Liebengood

Reading Revelation after Supersessionism —Ralph Korner

New Testament after Supersessionism, Supplementary Volume —edited by Justin K. Hardin, David J. Rudolph, and J. Brian Tucker

To Bill, Kathy, and Mark

Acknowledgements

My interest in Romans extends back to two early Romans courses I took, one as an undergraduate with William A. Simmons and one in seminary with Gregory Couser. They raised numerous questions about the traditional reading of Romans that needed answers, ones I wouldn’t be able to pursue fully until the completion of my PhD studies at the University of Wales, Lampeter. While researching under the supervision of Dr. William S. Campbell, I started to see the way many of the questions raised by Drs. Simmons and Couser might be answered. This book then serves as my response to questions that have been floating around in my head since 1989. A couple of years ago I presented a paper with content reflected in this book at a scholarly society and both of them were in the audience; that was unnerving but also rewarding. Their gracious and helpful feedback encouraged me to continue to pursue the ideas presented. The book you are reading builds on my earlier work on 1 Corinthians that focuses on the way existing gentile identities continue in Christ but seeks to apply some of its key findings to Romans, addressing the way Jewish covenantal identity also continues in Christ and the relevance this has for gentiles. This present volume offers a different view of many of the key hermeneutical points that result in supersessionist readings of this letter and argues for the continuation of existing identities in Romans. Of course there is more to say; this volume seeks to address many of the objections to a post-supersessionist reading of Romans yet recognizes that many of these points require further validation—hopefully a new generation of researchers will do just that!

The majority of this book was written during my 2016 sabbatical leave, and thus I owe a debt of gratitude to my colleagues and the administration of Moody Theological Seminary, especially Dr. John Jelinek and Dr. Larry Davidhizar, for helping make this sabbatical possible. I want to thank Dr. Matthew Novenson for inviting me as a guest of the Centre for the Study of Christian Origins at the University of Edinburgh (New College) and to Dr. Tom Breimaier for his hospitality and research assistance during my time in Edinburgh. The staff at the Greek Bible College in Athens, Greece, were particularly helpful during the past two summers, and Samuel Spatola, the Dean of the Saints Bible Institute in San Lorenzo, Italy, provided excellent support and interaction during my stay there. In particular, I want to thank the Rev. Dr. Laura Hunt for her careful reading, suggestions, and editing of this book. Thanks also to the students in my Seminar on the Old Testament Use in the New Testament, Exegesis of the Greek New Testament, and Romans courses who raised provocative and insightful questions while going through earlier versions of this material.

I want to thank the staff at Wipf and Stock for their continued support. Dr. Robin Parry provided encouragement and insight throughout the process and has been a keen supporter of The New Testament after Supersessionism Series from the very beginning. I want to thank Dr. David Rudolph particularly since his continued efforts to clarify, revise, substantiate, and reconsider parts of this book have made it much better than it would have been otherwise, though I realize I am responsible for all the shortcomings that remain. Also, Ryan Heinsch who was and continues to be a helpful colleague and dialogue partner in all things Pauline. Thanks to those who discussed these ideas with me over the past few years: Dr. William (Bill) S. Campbell, Dr. Kathy Ehrensperger, Dr. Mark Nanos (the three to whom this book is dedicated), Dr. Justin Hardin, Dr. Joel Willitts, Dr. Chris Zoccali, Dr. Lionel Windsor, Dr. Robert Foster, Dr. Mark Kinzer, Dr. David Woodall, Dr. John Goodrich, Henri Goulet, Zach Johnson, Dan Thorpe, Bruce Henning, James Bryde, and Aaron Robinson. Their influence is seen throughout. I want to thank my family for their patience throughout this process: Amber, Ashley and Matthew Doyle, Alexandria and John Bodkin, Annaliese, and Abigail. To our parents Joseph and Ann Tucker as well as Richard and Carol Goode, thank you for your commitment to our extended family through the years.

J. Brian Tucker

June 2018

Abbreviations

Abbreviations follow the rules recommended by the Society of Biblical Literature, according to Billie Jean Collins, Bob Buller, and John F. Kusko (eds.), The SBL Handbook of Style for Biblical Studies and Related Disciplines (2nd ed. Atlanta: SBL, 2014). These rules include standard abbreviations for biblical books, early Jewish and Christian literature, and classical literature. The abbreviation standards found in the SBL Handbook for secondary sources such as journals, series, and standard reference works are also followed throughout this book. The following abbreviations are not mentioned in The SBL Handbook of Style.

CD Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics. Translated by G. T. Thomson et al. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936–77.

CD The Damascus Document from the Cairo Genizah.

GGBB Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

LSJ Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.

MM James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. 1930. Reprint. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.

NETS Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (eds.), A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

NIDNTTE New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Edited by Moisés Silva. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76.

1

Introduction

Paul was no supersessionist. He was part of a Jewish mission to the nations, designed to declare God’s gospel and bring about the obedience of faith among the gentiles (Rom 1:1, 5). This mission developed from within the traditions of the Jewish people, but as an ever-increasing number of non-Jews responded to the gospel, cultural tensions arose between groups that had been and continued to be different.¹ The intersection of these social identities and the way they are transformed in Christ became the focal point of much of the content of Paul’s letters. Romans is no different, even though it was written to a Christ-group he did not found. Clearly, I am not the first interpreter of Paul to recognize this; identity and the relationship between the Christ-movement and Judaism have been a regular focus of scholars. However, the dominant paradigm that emerges from their work has a problem: it is supersessionist. This calls for a new reading strategy, a post-supersessionist one. Such an approach would maintain two key ideas: the irrevocability of God’s covenant with the Jewish people and a continuing role for Torah as a demarcator of the Jewish people and their identity.

Paul’s Identity-Forming Work among the Romans

This study sets out to investigate several verses from Romans that impinge on these two claims: Israel has a continuing covenantal identity and Torah has continuing validity within the Christ-movement. While one could argue that the entire letter would need to be exposited in order to establish a post-supersessionist reading, I do not intend this book to answer all the questions that might be raised, but rather to interact with key discussions, laying out alternative understandings in order to add to the conversations about the letter as a whole.

This book is written from within the current of scholarship loosely referred to as the Paul-within-Judaism paradigm.² I have become convinced that Paul specifically, and the Christ-movement generally, is best understood within prevailing Jewish patterns of life, informed by their ancestral traditions, since the parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity was yet to occur. This study is also informed by contemporary identity research, especially Tajfel and Turner’s social identity approaches.³ Social identity—that part of an individual’s self-concept that derives from his or her membership in a group, along with the emotional attachment experienced from that membership—guides this research in terms of the identity-based groupings evident in Romans.⁴ While these approaches inform the exegesis in this book at key points, they do so in the role of background technology and not as a dominant framework. They function primarily to make my theoretical approach and assumptions accessible to the reader.⁵ The first-century Roman Empire was replete with differing ethnic groups, languages, and religious traditions all unified, according to the political elites, under the peace of Rome.⁶ This environment presents an ideal setting for the role of social identity to be brought to bear. Thus, this study will be guided by three ideas: (a) the interpretive advances of the Paul-within-Judaism approach, (b) the understanding of group-based problems from Tajfel and Turner, and (c) the way the Roman Empire functioned as an outgroup for Christ-followers in Rome.

This study builds on my earlier work on Paul, even though most of that has focused on 1 Corinthians.⁷ Those books explored the way existing aspects of the Corinthians’ Roman social identity was adversely affecting their communal life in Christ. Their civic identity was functioning too highly in their identity hierarchy, and thus Paul needed to remind them of two key ideas: (a) they belonged to Christ and (b) they were to remain in their calling with God. This suggests that the problem was not one between Judaism and the Christ-movement, a Torah-informed versus Torah-free pattern of life; rather, existing civic identities were hindering the salience of the Corinthians’ in-Christ identity. Thus, Paul was not seeking to dissociate them from Judaism but to get them to reprioritize all aspects of life under Christ’s lordship. Further, he actually sought to maintain a connection with Jerusalem via the collection (1 Cor 16:1–4). Paul does something similar with the Jerusalem collection in Romans 15:23–26; in-Christ gentiles are to remain connected with Israel and the Jewish people.⁸ Another important finding from my earlier work that continues to be relevant is that Paul’s rule in all the congregations is that ethnic identities are to continue as a matter of calling (1 Cor 7:17–24) and that Torah-informed praxis applies to both Jews and gentiles, though with different implications (1 Cor 9:19–23).⁹ For Paul what matters is keeping the commands of God (1 Cor 7:19), which suggests that he has halakhic guidance for his audience. Paul does something similar in Romans, especially at the beginning when he lets his audience know that part of his apostleship is to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles (Rom 1:5).¹⁰ Paul is, for one thing, instructing them on the social implications of the gospel, implications that differ for Jews and gentiles, and other socially relevant groups within the congregation in Rome (Rom 14:3, 5; 15:7). Much, then, of what Paul addresses in Romans has little to do with a desire to separate from Judaism, or with conflicts between his mission praxis and that of those from Jerusalem; rather, his concerns are with the normal group-based challenges that occur when individuals with differing social identifications gather for a common purpose and mission. These questions, along with the challenges of translating the gospel discourse, a set of ideas sourced in the Jewish symbolic universe, account for much if not all of the issues Paul addresses. Thus, the imposition of the idea that Paul had a problem with Judaism that needed fixing is not required. This study aims to show that Paul did not have such a problem but rather remained faithfully within the Jewish tradition even as he sought the formation of an in-Christ identity among the nations (Rom 16:26).

Supersessionist Interpretations of Romans

As mentioned above, the dominant pattern of interpretation of Romans is supersessionist; a new approach, a post-supersessionist one is needed.¹¹ Several key interpretive choices combine to produce a supersessionist understanding of Romans. What follows highlights some of these crucial choices and provides a quick orientation to ongoing debates within Romans scholarship. It highlights tension points between much of the dominant scholarship and the view put forth in this book in relation to the continuation of Jewish covenantal identity in the messianic age, especially as it relates to the social implications of Paul’s gospel.¹² It also challenges interpreters to overcome both supersessionist and implicit supersessionist tendencies in their work.¹³ One goal of this book is to highlight several interpretive moves that produce supersessionist readings of Romans. In one example of a supersessionist conclusion, Herman Ridderbos writes: The church, then, as the people of the New Covenant has taken the place of Israel, and national Israel is nothing other than the empty shell from which the pearl has been removed and which has lost its function in the history of redemption.¹⁴ While most interpreters craft more nuanced statements in the post-Shoah context, their interpretive moves still result in supersessionist readings.¹⁵ This book highlights several such results, even though some of the scholars in question deny such implications to their work. Consequently, a post-supersessionist reader will be able to consider more fully the implicit supersessionism evident in certain scholars’ arguments.

Supersessionism is not only a problem among contemporary interpreters; it finds adherents in the second century. Justin and Irenaeus are two early examples. Justin writes: As, therefore, Christ is the Israel and Jacob, even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelite race, while Irenaeus contends: For inasmuch as the former [the Jews] have rejected the Son of God, and cast Him out of the vineyard when they slew Him, God has justly rejected them, and given to the Gentiles outside the vineyard the fruits of its cultivation.¹⁶ While they are writing in a different context than Paul, they used his writings to buttress their claims. So, getting Paul right historically and socially on Israel and the continuation of Jewish identity will contribute to a better understanding of the way these later supersessionist interpreters misunderstood him.¹⁷ This book, however, will not address this later period in the development of Christianity. These two quotations are offered to alert the reader to the way supersessionism was established in Christian theology at an early period.¹⁸ With those qualifications, let’s turn to some of the interpretive choices that lead to supersessionist readings of Romans.

Paul’s letter to the Romans provides strong evidence for the continuation of Israel’s covenantal identity. At the same time, it seems to interpreters like Eisenbaum and Harink to offer conflicting declarations about Israel’s salvation: calling on Jesus’s name is prerequisite (e.g., Rom 10:13), yet all Israel will be saved without an appeal to Christ (11:26).¹⁹ This is precisely the difficulty when dealing with Israel in Romans; there is tension between Paul’s reflections on the salvific necessity of Jesus and the way diverse patterns of life might emerge within the ekklēsia of Jews and non-Jews. Because of the first, scholarly debates often focus on the uniqueness of God’s work through Jesus and its universal application.²⁰ Yet, what is the nature of the unity of the Christ-movement and the degree of acceptable diversity present there? Bilateral and variegated ecclesiology are two closely related approaches to this diversity that seek to resolve the inherent tension in Romans with regard to the continuation of Jewish and non-Jewish identities within the movement.²¹ While these approaches are in the minority there is an increasing acknowledgement that Paul has no critique for a continuation of the Jewish calling in Christ; rather, it was his expectation that such a calling continued within the ekklēsia. What is crucial to recognize is that the christological (soteriological) and ecclesiological categories are different, and scholars need to be clear as to which is being debated.²² The conflation of these two issues often leads to supersessionist readings. Thus, they will be distinguished at key points in this book for interpretive clarity.

The coming of Jesus the Messiah has at times been used to question the continued existence of God’s historic people, either unchanged or redefined.²³ The organizing framework of salvation history is sometimes used to answer these questions. In this approach, God is seen to be working throughout history for the purposes of salvation for humanity. This line of reasoning generally concludes that Israel’s scriptures and Judaism were somewhat preparatory and now that Christ has come their primary purpose has been served. Thus, Israel’s scriptures are still important, but the apostolic writings are the appropriate successors to these earlier works. In a similar fashion, what became known as the church is rightly understood as a successor to the religious expressions evident in various forms of Second Temple Judaism.²⁴ Though there are more extreme forms of replacement theologizing evident in the salvation-historical approach, many simply interpret the leaders in the Christ-movement to be arguing that their understanding of God is more correct than other Jewish understandings of their ancestral religion; the Qumran covenanters viewed themselves similarly in comparison to the Jerusalem establishment.²⁵ Either way, it is difficult to maintain a salvation-historical approach without engaging in inherently supersessionist discourse if Jewish identity and continuity are all de-emphasized.²⁶ One way forward, highlighted in what follows, is to emphasize a specific Davidic messianic nuance along with a political restoration for Israel in Romans.²⁷ Envisioning a future or consummation component for Israel’s covenantal identity will be helpful in addressing potential weaknesses in the salvation-historical approach.

The second organizing framework used to describe the status of God’s historic people before and after Christ is apocalyptic.²⁸ In its Barthian garb, this approach sees a significant rupture in time now that Israel’s Messiah has come. The new creation that emerges from his coming results in complete discontinuity with what came before.²⁹ One can easily see how this leads to supersessionist readings. In the apocalyptic conceptualization, often described by the interpretive framework of creation/new creation, the presence of the new creation removes the vestiges of the old.³⁰ Pre-existing identities have no place in the new creation at all, since they are part of that which has been done away with now that Christ has come. Jewish (as well as other) identities have, in this view, lost their fundamental significance.³¹ Romans 3:22 and 10:12 are often thought to support this organizing framework. Sometimes, the rupture between creation and new creation in Galatians—which, especially in Gal 6:15, seems to negate the continuation of Israel’s covenantal identity, and, in fact, erase all identity distinctions—undergirds interpretation in Romans.³² There is, however, another approach to apocalyptic that does not rely on Barthian thought. A more Jewish understanding of apocalyptic allows for more continuity between the epochs, between creation and new creation.³³ This approach, along with a nuanced salvation history framework, will inform the arguments put forth in this book.³⁴

Debates over salvation history and apocalyptic often focus on whether or not the covenantal framework has any continuing significance for Israel’s identity.³⁵ This raises more acutely the issue of supersessionism or replacement theologizing. It is likely appropriate to see covenant as a key guiding principle for the combined Jewish and apostolic writings. But does all Israel still maintain a covenantal identity or has that covenantal identity shifted to the ekklēsia, Jews and gentiles in Christ? While some scholars suggest that Israel’s covenantal identity remains intact and non-Jews relate to the God of Israel in Christ (and thus are not in a proper covenantal relationship), others see in the establishment of the new covenant a reframing of God’s people such that ethnic identities have now been transcended and are no longer relevant or at best indifferent.³⁶ Supersessionist interpreters often take Rom 9:4, with its plural covenants, and Rom 11:27, with its promise of the removal of sins, as evidence that with the arrival of the new covenant the existing covenantal relationship has been set aside or universalized via gentile inclusion (Isa 59:21; Jer 31:33). These interpretive moves open up possibilities for changes in the covenantal relationship, obviating it with Israel since it is assumed that existing identities are no longer relevant in Christ. What if Paul, however, thought in the framework of one covenant with multiple blessings flowing from it? What if he also thought that Israel’s covenantal identity was a present reality and part of the gifts and calling of God that are irrevocable (Rom 11:29)? Furthermore, what if the covenant mentioned in the composite quotation in Rom 11:27 simply reflects the eschatological hope of Israel’s salvation which now the nations experience through the agency of the Spirit (Rom 11:26; Isa 59:21; Ezek 36:27; Rom 8:9)? The nations being brought near (gentile inclusion) does not require the removal of Israel’s covenant relationship. Answers to these questions provided later in this book help to reframe the nature of the confirmation of God’s promises amid appearances to the contrary (Rom 9:3; 11:1, 28–29; 15:8).³⁷

The eschatological application of Israel’s covenantal identity among the nations raises important concerns with regard to the nature of this shared covenant identity and whether Paul had historic Israel as his consistent referent when using terms such as Israel, Israelites, Jews, the circumcision, or the seed of Abraham (Rom 2:28–29; 4:11–12; 9:4, 6; 11:25–26; 15:7–13). In other words, if Paul uses these words and phrases in a multivalent manner then, to at least a certain degree, his discourse could be understood as supersessionist.³⁸ Some scholars have maintained that Paul’s use of Israel (Ἰσραήλ) has a consistent referent to ethnic Israel; others suggest that Paul uses the same broad ethnic referent even though various meanings for the term may be contextually determined (e.g., an elect subgroup identity). Finally, still others see a shifting sense beyond the ethnic boundary to include Christ-followers from the nations.³⁹ This last group is most problematic in that if Israel (Ἰσραήλ) has lost its historic meaning for Paul then it has been superseded by a new or a true Israel in his thinking.⁴⁰ This approach does not seem controversial to some because they understand the nature of the identity in question to be only theological. However, identity questions precede theological ones. Yet, in order to discern identity questions in Romans an additional set of exegetical tools are needed. An identity-critical analysis will uncover new options often not considered by previous interpreters. Paul uses group-based terms like Israel, Jews, gentiles, the circumcision, the uncircumcision, and the seed of Abraham to maintain the social identity salience of his addressees in relation to relevant comparison groups. The continuing distinction between Jews and non-Jews is crucial to overcoming supersessionist tendencies among Romans interpreters and is central to the argument of this book.

It is likely that Paul’s Torah discourse in Romans contributes in a significant way to supersessionist understandings of the letter.⁴¹ One example will suffice. Paul writes in Rom 10:4 that Christ is the end (τέλος) of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.⁴² Supersessionist interpreters recognize the centrality of Torah in the formation and maintenance of Jewish identity and thus find it difficult to accept the claim that Jewish identity or Israel’s covenantal identity could continue in any meaningful sense in the context of statements that seem to indicate that the law has ended now that Christ has come.⁴³ Yet this conclusion assumes that the primary purpose of Torah was salvific and that the use of τέλος here suggests end and termination. However, even though now that the messianic age has begun there is clearly an interpretative change with regard to Torah, there may be more continuity with the previous age than some interpreters allow.⁴⁴ Romans 10:4 does suggest that Paul’s view of Torah was similar to that adopted by other Jewish writers (Matt 5:17–19). Based on Jesus’s revelation, the written Torah, while not redundant, is contextualized within the Christ-following community; in this way Christ is the law’s τέλος.⁴⁵ This approach preserves Torah as a continuing demarcator of the Jewish people; for gentiles it becomes primarily an ethical guide for life. Thus, as will be seen, it is unlikely that Paul repudiated the law in the manner often put forth by interpreters; rather, he seems to be working out his rule in all the congregations that Jews were to maintain their life as Jews as a matter of calling (1 Cor 7:17–18, 20).⁴⁶ Gentiles, in line with the Jerusalem agreement in Acts 15:29 and 1 Cor 7:19, follow Christ in ways that align with Torah-informed praxis, or so it will be argued below. This interpretation allows for my view that the Christ-movement continued to relate to the broader synagogue community. A brief word is in order, therefore, on this component of the Romans debate.⁴⁷

Jewish Community in Rome in the First Century

The Jewish community in Rome was loosely organized and lacked an ethnarch of the kind it had in Alexandria. The primary leadership group was the assembly of elders along with the various heads of the local congregations.⁴⁸ This loose structure may have contributed to the expansion of the Christ-movement within the broader synagogue community. On the other hand, the social implications of the gospel were such that there may not have been significant differences in the day-to-day lived experiences between those who had come to accept Jesus as the Messiah and those Jews who were yet to be convinced. This is actually one of the primary points of contention between the traditional reading of Paul and the Paul-within-Judaism approach. The first assumes significant social discontinuity while the second maintains more continuity between the groups at this early stage.

The earliest Christ-following community in Rome is described in a fourth-century CE document that reads:

There were Jews living in Rome in the times of the apostles, and . . . those Jews who had believed [in Christ] passed on to the Romans the tradition that they ought to profess Christ but keep the law. . . . One ought not to condemn the Romans, but to praise their faith; because without seeing any signs or miracles and without seeing any of the apostles, they nevertheless accepted faith in Christ, although according to a Jewish rite (Ambrosiaster).⁴⁹

This suggests that the earliest gatherings had a strong Jewish influence on them. Two phrases are particularly important here: (1) "profess Christ but keep the law" and (2) "accepted faith in Christ . . . according to a Jewish rite." If these two statements are brought to bear in our reading of Romans, it suggests that this community did not see Jewish identity as incompatible with in-Christ identity. However, the question here is: did Paul see this as a problem? Or did Paul accept Torah-informed praxis as a way of life for Jewish Christ-followers but not for gentile ones? If so, how could these disparate ways of life exist together?

While it is not particularly controversial to suggest that the earliest Christ-movement in Rome was heavily influenced by key aspects of Jewish identity, the broader Roman imperial cultural context impinged on this situation as well. Suetonius, as is well known, writes with regard to events occurring in 49 CE that since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, Claudius expelled them from Rome.⁵⁰ There are several debates concerning this passage: (1) does the common use of the name Chrestus suggest that Christ was not actually in view and (2) to what extent was this expulsion imposed—did it extend to all Jews in Rome or simply to key Roman leaders?⁵¹ While there is no room to address all aspects of those historical debates here, Thielman’s conclusion seems to reflect the general understanding and interpretive use of Suetonius:

[T]he disturbances were probably created by the preaching of the gospel within Rome’s various synagogues, and Suetonius’s term constantly probably means that they had been taking place for a lengthy period prior to the expulsion.⁵²

I agree that the preaching of the gospel had likely been occurring for some time within the various synagogues. I would add, however, that it is not clear that this created an uproar among the community that would lead to an expulsion. It seems more likely that Claudius’s action was an attempt "to protect the religio of Rome from foreign superstitiones which had become potential threats to Rome’s well-being and integrity."⁵³ In this way of reading the text, the problem shifts to one of Roman policy and domination rather than an incipient problem between Judaism and the Christ-movement.⁵⁴

Ian Rock has made a particularly strong case for nuancing this historical reconstruction as it applies to the letter.⁵⁵ First, he questions the way in which Suetonius is normally used, i.e., that the wholesale expulsion of Jews from Rome resulted in a gentile-dominated congregation that rejected all things Jewish. For example, he points to the fact that Claudius, earlier in his imperium, had already taken action to curtail the various expressions of Jewish life:

As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly that by reason of their multitude it would have been hard without raising a tumult to bar them from the city, [Claudius] did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their traditional mode of life, not to hold meetings. He also disbanded the clubs, which had been reintroduced by Gaius.⁵⁶

This piece of evidence should be read in concert with Suetonius. Second, the influence of Acts 18:2–4 continues to hold sway over interpreters; however, when one reads the context of Suetonius there were five other groups impacted by his edict.⁵⁷ However, Acts 18:12, with its reference to Gallio’s proconsulship in Achaia, does not align with Paulus Orosius’s claim that Josephus reports, ‘In his ninth year the Jews were expelled by Claudius from the city.’⁵⁸ So, there is at least a potential dating issue that needs resolution.⁵⁹ Further, Acts 18:2 does not state that Aquila and Priscilla were Christ-followers, only that they were Jews who were part of those Claudius had commanded . . . to leave Rome. Rock suggests that Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla were all part of the same collegium, or voluntary association, and that Aquila and Priscilla likely accepted the gospel after meeting Paul.⁶⁰ Third, Rock highlights Claudius’s direction for Polybius to translate the Aeneid into Greek as an important piece of evidence that brings to the fore the actual issue involved in the expulsion.⁶¹ A significant amount of Claudius’s political activity occurred around 49 CE, when he sought to reinstitute the policies of Augustus.⁶² Thus, his concern related to the way Roman imperial ideology would be understood, and the Aeneid served as the primary discursive marker for Claudius’s policies. This is a more plausible historical context for the community in Rome in the mid-first century: Claudius expelled several groups from Rome in order to reinforce his own political vision of Augustan Rome as described in the Aeneid.⁶³

If the expulsion of Jews in 49 CE is decoupled from disputes within the Jewish community over Jesus, what does this suggest for the idea that is often put forth by interpreters that in the five years while the edict was in force, the Roman Christ groups became predominantly gentile and were no longer associated with the broader Jewish synagogue community? For one thing, it suggests that the outgroup for the community is an imperial Roman one rather than a Jewish one. Much of Paul’s letter makes sense in light of challenges associated with civic identity and the way it is transformed in Christ.⁶⁴ The decoupling of the Jewish expulsion from the interpretation of Paul’s Letter to the Romans also suggests that there remained a Jewish presence among the Christ-following group. This would provide a more concrete setting for some of the social conflict evident in Romans 14–15. A continued Jewish presence may also hint that gentile boasting over the Jewish people was a more broad concern in the letter. This will be developed further in subsequent chapters.

Because of disagreements with regards to these historical events, a significant debate continues with regard to the audience for Romans, and thus a comment is in order. Andrew Das has put forth a rather robust argument that the letter was written to gentiles.⁶⁵ This approach rejects the idea that it was written to a mixed audience of Jews and gentiles, the more standard view.⁶⁶ The letter does explicitly identify gentiles as the audience (Rom 1:5–6; 15:15–16). Furthermore, in 11:13 Paul addresses gentiles directly. Mark Nanos has provided further detail on this issue noting the difference between the encoded and the implied audience.⁶⁷ This significant nuance, writing to gentiles about Jews, accounts for the Jewish concerns like the nature of Israel and the role of Torah (cf. Rom 2:17; 7:1; 15:7).⁶⁸ Thus, Paul may be described as one writing to gentiles about issues that would concern Jews as well as gentiles, especially if some of this group is loosely identified as former god-fearers but more precisely as, according to Runesson, Christ-fearers.⁶⁹ This does not require institutional separation between Jews and gentiles, however, especially the absolute separation suggested in the work of Francis Watson.⁷⁰ The addressed gentiles in Romans, rather, could be part of the larger synagogue community in Rome. This configuration assumes the more complex institutional organization called a semi-public synagogue.⁷¹ There were, in this view, several assemblies around the environs of Rome which would be organized as a voluntary association while maintaining