The letter to the Romans as Paul's legacy to theology: Reception in exposition

‘The Romans Debate’ fills not only volumes, but nowadays a bookshelf. In this paper I will neither argue in favour nor against this verdict of Bornkamm on the setting of Romans. Approaching his idea of the letter to the Romans as Paul’s legacy from reception history, I want to argue that the letter to the Romans became Paul’s legacy to Christian theology. In fact, it is the legacy of Paul. What I mean is that the reception of Paul’s theology is intertwined with the ‘Wirkungsgeschichte’ of the letter to the Romans. Pauline theology had its impact through the letter to the Romans.


Dedicated to Andrie du Toit, who introduced me to Paul's letter to the Romans
In 1977 I was a second year student of theology at the University of Pretoria. I remember well how Andrie du Toit came into the class, handing out notes introducing us to Paul, very clearly written, concise notes on the vita Pauli. He then lectured on the topic, referring to his notes. There were two sessions a week during which we were introduced to Paul. For the second session Andrie du Toit asked us to prepare certain sections from the book 'Paulus' by Günther Bornkamm. 2 He remarked that this was to be a discussion class, he was not lecturing on the topic, and we would have to discuss Bornkamm's work, not his. This procedure made a lifelong impression on me. 3 By distinguishing between his lectures on Paul's life during the first session of the week and the discussion class on Bornkamm's Paul, Andrie du Toit demonstrated the integrity branding his academic career. Unlike others, he would never have lectured using Bornkamm's material as if it were his.
In the first part of Bornkamm's famous book there is a section on 'Der Römerbrief als Testament des Paulus'. 4 I vividly remember how Andrie introduced us to Bornkamm's hypothesis why Romans had been written. Being in Corinth, Paul is on the brink of bringing the collection to Jerusalem. Afterwards he wants to go to Rome to set up his Spanish mission in the West. 5 Would the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem, those around James, the brother of the Lord, accept the money that the non-Jewish brothers and sisters from the Pauline congregations send to them? For Bornkamm this is the reason why Paul personally accompanied the delegation which delivered the collected money to Jerusalem. Bornkamm understood the letter from the Romans based on this situation in Paul's life. 'Sein Inhalt kreist genau um die Fragen und Intentionen der Theologie des Apostels, für die er bald danach sich in Jerusalem verantworten und einsetzen mußte und die zugleich das Fundament seiner künftigen Mission unter den Heiden bleiben und werden sollte.' 6 The letter to the Romans isn't a theological treatise without a specific setting. All the other letters of Paul have their own situations, so does the letter to the Romans. In this letter Paul sums up his previous theological insights and applies them to the challenging situation to defend his gospel before the Jewish leaders of the congregation of God in Jerusalem and to find support for his ongoing mission to the Gentiles amongst the beloved of God in Rome. 'Historisch darf man den Römerbrief das Testament des Paulus nennen.' 7 'The Romans Debate' fills not only volumes, but nowadays a bookshelf. 8 In this paper I will neither argue in favour nor against this verdict of Bornkamm on the setting of Romans. Approaching his idea of the letter to the Romans as Paul's legacy from reception history, I want to argue that the letter to the Romans became Paul's legacy to Christian theology. In fact, it is the legacy of Paul. What I mean is that the reception of Paul's theology is intertwined with the 'Wirkungsgeschichte' of the letter to the Romans. 9 Pauline theology had its impact through the letter to the Romans.
Many of us who gather here today are part of the 'Wirkungsgeschichte' of Paul's letter. First and foremost Andrie du Toit, for the greater part of his career was dedicated to the study of Romans. 10 With the hallmark of his work, exegetical precision, he thought us to focus on the text of Romans, to get to the message. This of course is best achieved in the genre of the commentary. It has always been those having to do exegesis on Romans who felt the impact of the letter most. In the following I shall attempt to characterize major commentaries on Romans during the course of the history of Christian theology. 11 As an illustration, I will thereby concentrate 7 Bornkamm, Paulus, p. 111. 8 Cf. K. P. Donfried, ed., The Romans Debate (rev. and expanded ed.;Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991); J. C. Miller, 'The Romans Debate 1991,' CurBS 9 (2001: pp. 306-349. 9 Cf. also J. P. Greenman and T. Larsen, eds When commenting on Rom 3:25-26, Origen approaches the text from Heb 9:26 and states that at the end of time God set Christ up to make appeasement for those who had sinned (ἱλασμὸν ποιησόμενον περὶ τῶν ἡμαρτηκότων). The purpose of this was to destroy the old nature of the sinners (ἀθετηθῆναι τὴν τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων φύσιν πάλαι). The ἱλασμός only benefits those who believe. 18 Origen is of the opinion that Paul took the word ἱλαστλήριον in Rom 3:25, which means "place of appeasement", from Exodus and explains that the pure gold τὸ <ἐν> Ἐξόδῳ ἱλαστήριον is meant allegorically, referring to no one else than the Savior. Like the golden ἱλαστήριον, he is the pure νοῦς, unmixed with material substance (ὕλη). Amending John 1:1, 1 Pet 2:22 and 2 Cor 5:21, Origen summarizes: "Such is our propitiation, God, in the beginning God, the Word. Or perhaps better the psyche of Jesus, because he did no sin, no guile was found in his mouth and he knew no sin.' 19 The way in which Jesus accomplished ἱλασμόν is then explained by referring to Lev 4:13-14, 16 and 20. He is the place of propitiation (ἱλαστήριον), the priest and the one who is sacrificed for the people. 20 Because he is the victim too, his bloodshed is the force causing appeasement (ἡ ἐνέργεια ἱλασμός). That appeasement is achieved, is illustrated through the forgiveness of previously committed sins. The ἱλασμός is thus concession and remittance of committed sins for those who believe. 21 Origen was confronted with Marcion's heresy dislodging Christianity from its Jewish roots. He permanently uses the law and the prophets to interpret Paul. In the process however, he has initiated an understanding of the death of Christ in Paul's letters from Exodus, Leviticus, Hebrews and the first letter of John. As can be seen from Rufinus' translation of his commentary on Romans 5:8, Origen has a clear idea that the notion that 'Christ died for our sins' had various parallels in Greek tradition. He correctly marks the major difference between the Greek heroes and Christ. None of those about whom it is told that they gave their lives for their cities or their nations are said to have taken away the sins of the whole world. 22 Although Origen realizes that Paul has used the Greek conception of 'dying for someone', he moves the focus from the background of Paul's language to the cultic traditions within the Old Testament when explaining how Christ's death has an effect. It would take theology long to disentangle this conflation of ideas and to rediscover the metaphorical background Paul himself had in mind. 23 For an overall tendency of the commentary we have to adhere to Rufinus' translation of Origen's commentary. Origen's understanding of Paul's theology presupposes the unity of God. Defending Paul against Marcion and the Gnostics, he illustrates Paul's endeavours to underline the unity between the old and the new covenants. Paul was confronted with a fundamental problem. As ethnic group the Jews were those who carried the veneration of God. Now, that all of humankind worshipped him, this religion had to be translated. According to Origen (and Rufinus' translation) Paul teaches how religion is translated: from the Jews to the Gentiles, from circumcision to faith, from shade to truth, from following the law in the flesh to following the law in the Spirit. 24 Circumcision, which was the external sign of belonging to the old covenant, is translated into the circumcision of the heart, an internal sign of an internal reality of faith. Paul 'wants to show either how salvation came to those who lived according to the law before the coming of Christ or how, on the basis of Israel´s unbelief, salvation would be bestowed upon the Gentiles through the coming of the Saviour.' 25 Not only those Gentiles who believe come to salvation, nor is the entire nation of Israel rejected, a remnant of believers are being saved. Throughout his exposition Origen takes up Paul's legacy in Romans which addresses specifically the problem of the unity of the believers from the true Israel and nations. Notwithstanding Rufinus' translation, Western Christianity would need more than a century and a half to rediscover the importance of Paul's letter to the Romans for the wild olive plant called Christianity and to realize that it cannot live without the Jewish root that carries it.
John Chrysostom (A.D. 349-409) had unbridled admiration for Paul. He called Paul the heavenly trumpet. His commentary on the letter to the Romans consists of thirty two sermons (homilies) on the letter. 26 Chrysostom realized that regarding the time in which a specific letter was written helps to understand the letter. Using Acts and the letters to the Corinthians and the letter to the Romans as basis, Chrysostom argues in the first introductory homily that Paul wrote the letter to the Romans after those to the Corinthians and to the Galatians, after his last journey to Jerusalem, when he was already on his way to Rome. 27 Paul could not yet visit the Romans, he thus wrote the letter to show them the right way and to announce that he would visit them in person. 28 When Chrysostom turns to Romans 3:24-25 in his eighth homily, he mentions various reasons for Paul's statement that those who were enslaved by sin, are now, as a free gift, justified by God's grace through the redemption in Christ. It is God who can do everything, justification comes from him. It happens without the law. But how is the redemption, which ends the slavery caused by sin, brought about? Chrysostom follows the line of Origen and interprets the phrase ἱλαστήριον from ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι. Paul took his argument from the sacrifices from the "Old" (Testament  'Augustine,' in Greenman and Larsen,Reading Romans, in Romans 7 is the human under the law (sub lege). In his exposition on 7:15 he says: 'The man described here is under the Law, prior to grace; sin overcomes him when by his own strength he attempts to live righteously without the aid of God's liberating grace.' 31 For the benefit of his addressees Paul slipped into this role. The first person does not refer to Paul himself sub gratia. Had Luther followed his Augustinian tradition, the simul iustus et peccator wouldn't have entered the Reformation claiming Paul's authority.
In an extensive discussion of Romans 9:11-15, Augustine discusses the problem of freedom of will (Exp. prop. Rom. [60][61]. Having the freedom of decision, the believer (sub gratia) is never free from the power of evil until the body is transformed during the resurrection and one arrives in the final stage in complete peace (in pace). The argument runs as follows: Good works are not one's own, as the result of love they are caused by the Holy Spirit and hence a gift of God. But who receives the Spirit? Those elected by God. But who is elected? Within the context of the divine vocation, the human decision to believe is a precondition to receive grace. God chooses those, who, in his foreknowledge he knows, will believe in him (Exp. prop. Rom. 60.11).
After having completed the Expositio in A.D. 394, Augustine began a commentary on Romans. The question of the letter based on its literal context is 'whether the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ came to the Jews alone because of their merits through the works of the Law, or whether the justification of faith which is in Christ Jesus came to all nations, without any preceding merits for works. In this last instance, people would believe not because they were just but, justified through belief, they would then begin to live justly.' 32 The next sentence summarizes what the apostle intends to teach: 'that the grace of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ came to all men.' 33 This is why it is called grace. It was given freely (gratuito datum).
It is not possible to give a full account of Augustine's doctrine of grace in the Propositions or in the unfinished Exposition here. But although Augustine's reflections on the topic set in before commenting on Romans 34 and he modified his doctrine of grace in his later writings, the letter caused decisive development in his thought and is the main source of his doctrine of grace, 35 which became so influential in the history of the Western church, deeply influencing Peter Abelard, Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther. 36 Unfortunately Augustine never finished his commentary. For those illustrious scholars who have to add the subtitle inchoata expositio to their work on Paul's letter to the Romans, it might be comforting that Augustine heads the list.
That full commentaries on Romans were not the order of the day is illustrated by the fact that next we have to move on as far as to medieval France to Peter Abelard. It was only at the end of his sad life, after Heloise, after his ordeal at St. Denis, between 1133 and 1137 in Paris, that Abelard wrote annotations on the Latin text of Romans. 37 Following the state of exegetical art of his time, the sensus litteralis was complemented with the moral and mythical sense of the text. In the special prologue on the letter Abelard explains that Paul wrote the letter to the Romans to call 33 Augustine,Rom. inch. exp the Romans who converted from Jews and Gentiles back to true humility (vera humilitas) and brotherly concord (fraterna concordia). 38 He achieves this by underlining the grace of God and by diminishing the merit of our works (opera) in order that nobody can boast their good works but rather attribute everything they achieve to divine grace. Abelard recognized that Paul took turns to attack the Jews and the Gentiles, directing his letter against the primal vice, the root of all others, quod est superbia.

mors Christi pro nobis charitatem ostendit Dei, quia dedit Filium suum, ut pro nobis satisfaciens moreretur). 47
It is by common consent accepted that the historical investigation of the letter to the Romans starts 1836 with Ferdinand Christian Baur. 48 I was thus surprised to read through the summary of the argument with which Desiderius Erasmus introduced his paraphrases of Paul's letter to the Romans in 1517 -a year after he had translated the New Testament from Greek into Latin for his edition which was to become the textus receptus of the Novum Testamentum Graece. Erasmus' paraphrase is the first commentary on the Greek text of Paul's letter since Origen. 49 He argues that the Roman Christians, Jews and Gentiles were wrongly instructed by pseudo apostles. In the early stages of the church there were those who believed that the gospel should not be propagated amongst the heathens. Such grace, so they argued, was reserved for the descendants of Abraham and the Jewish people. 50 Since the Jews will never give up their religion and the Greeks and the Romans will never accept the Jewish law, Paul 'takes special pains everywhere to annul and to reject the ceremonies of the law and to transfer to Christ alone all hope for obtaining salvation … he prepares and fortifies the Romans that they might not become careless and be trapped by the pseudo apostles … but would persist instead in the right teaching which they had begun to embrace.' 51 Paul is afraid that the pseudo apostles will regain influence in Rome and thus aims his message at both, Jews and Gentiles, in Rome. By highlighting the supreme love of God for all in the death of Christ, he argues that God opened up an approach to the grace of the gospel 'through the intervention of faith … without the assistance of the law or circumcision.' 52 But the letter is not easy to read, not even for Erasmus, for Paul first considers the Jews, then the Gentiles, then both.
Commenting on Romans 3:21-26, Erasmus states the justification is given 'freely by the divine goodness … through Jesus Christ by whose blood we have been redeemed from the tyranny of sin.' 53 Drawing on Romans 5:10 he explains that God has revealed 'that Christ is the true propitiation for all, in order that we, formerly hostile on account of our sins, now might be reconciled to God, not (as with the Jews) through the blood of beasts, but through the most holy blood of Christ himself, which washes away all the sins of all people.' 54 Erasmus can also formulate that it is God who is hostile towards men because of their sins, and he is reconciled by the blood and death of Christ. 55 Taking up Romans 3:26 again he explains the function of Christ's death: 'In this way he reveals his righteousness to all men, while through the Son he pardons the errors of their former life with the intent that they afterwards do not fall back again into sin.' 56 In his periphrasis of Romans 5:6-8, very much in the vein of Abelard, Erasmus underlines God's unconditional love for the ungodly. 'God has surpassed all examples of human love, because he handed over his Son to death for the impious and the unworthy.' 57 Erasmus dedicated his annotations on Romans to Grimani of Venice, the Cardinal of St. Mark's. The manuscript must have been finished before the dedicatory letter was written. It is dated Leiden, November 13, 1517, only thirteen days after Luther's 95 theses were put up in Wittenberg. Erasmus' historical approach had to wait more than three centuries to be recovered by Baur, but he made a re-start to study Paul's legacy to theology in the original and against its historical background. Erasmus read Romans 1:17 'My righteous man shall live by faith.' 58 He distinguished two kinds of righteousness, the first Mosaic one, consisting in ceremonies like circumcision, and the second one, through faith. This righteousness is open for Jews and Gentiles. 59 Luther's different reading changed the course of history.
Martin Luther's exegesis of Paul's letter to the Romans was the beginning of his theological work, but he did not leave us a commentary on Romans. He did however, after lecturing on the Psalms in 1513 to 1515, give an exposition of the letter to the Romans in the winter of 1515 to 1516, his second exegetical lecture. 60 Luther's own copy of the Vulgate -in 1515 Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament was not available yet -with his annotations 61 and his separate exposition as well as the notes of several students survived from this lecture. 62 Luther's exposition, however also presupposed his new understanding of Romans 1:17. 63 He wanted to understand what is meant by the phrase that the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel. Luther understood the iustitia dei in the normal philosophical sense as formal or active justice, a characteristic of God himself, who is just and punishes the sinners and the unjust (qua Deus est iustus, et peccatores iniustosque punit). 64 Scrutinizing the context of the phrase in the Latin text, he realized that the justice of God is revealed as is written: the just lives on the basis of faith: iustus ex fide vivit. Then he started to understand the righteousness of God as the righteousness that God grants those whom he justifies. He gives them the justice that they do not have as a gift (donum) in order that they can live. 65 Forty years later, in 1545, an elderly Luther looked back on this moment he understood Paul: 'Then there was for me a sense of having just been reborn and having entered through the open gate paradise itself.' 66 The letter to the Romans changed the way in which Luther understood himself before God. It changed his life, it initiated the Reformation, and it changed Europe and eventually a great part of the world.
This however was prepared through more study. Luther, who was a monk in the order of St. Augustine in Erfurt, started studying the works of Augustine. 67 The influence of the latter's doctrine on divine grace became evident in Luther's exposition of Romans 3:24-25. All those who are justified are justified freely, 'by His, God's, grace, without merits or works. This grace is not given except through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.' 68 Redemption from the enslavement by sin entails that satisfaction being made for us, we are saved (satisfaciens pro nobisque solvens). 69 Luther notes that 'He [God] has given Christ as the one who makes the satisfaction for us, so that He thus may still freely give His grace to those who make satisfaction through another.' 70 After Christ made satisfaction for us through his blood, he became a place of propitiation for those who believe. 'Therefore by His blood He is made a place of propitiation for those who believe.' 71 God passes over sins through the propitiation and thus justifies. By glossing Paul's text with legal categories like placare and satisfacere 72 (and 'versühnen' 73 in German for reconciliare in Romans 5:10) to explain the effect of the death of Christ, Luther probably imported a substantial part of Catholic dogma of the mass into Protestant theology. 74 But this should not tarnish the positive impact Romans had on the life of Luther, as we can see from the initial lines of his extensive preface to Romans in the German translation of the New Testament of September 1522. 75 I cite the initial lines: 'This letter is truly the most important piece in the New Testament. It is purest Gospel. It is well worth a Christian's while not only to memorize it word for word but also to occupy himself with it daily, as though it were the daily bread of the soul. It is impossible to read or to meditate on this letter too much or too well. The more one deals with it, the more precious it becomes and the better it tastes. … Up to now it has been darkened by glosses and by many a useless comment, but it is in itself a bright light, almost bright enough to illumine the entire Scripture.' 76 It is worthwhile reading the whole preface which led to the conversion of John Wesley. 77 Luther's lectures on Romans still followed the method on interlinear and margin notes on the Latin text. He explained and annotated the text, sometimes giving longer comments. He, however, did not do it with the same historical interest and philological acumen like Erasmus. Philipp Melanchthon introduced a change in the method of exposition of the text of Romans. Melanchthon studied Romans carefully. From the forerunner of his famous Loci of 1521, the Theologica Institutio, he explains that the first part of Romans is about faith justifying man, it is about moral law. 78 He ends the Institutio with a summary of the context of Romans which contains the summa of our justification, especially the Loci de iustificatione, 74 This begs for further research. 75 Cf. Wendebourg,: "Dise Epistel ist das rechte hewbtstuckt des newen testaments, und das aller lauterst Euangelion, Wilche wol wirdig und werd ist, das sie eyn Christen mensch nicht alleyn von wort zu wort auswendig wisse. sondern teglich da mit umb gehe als mit teglichem brod der seelen, denn sie nymer kan zu viel und zu wol gelesen odder betrachtet werden, Und yhe mehr sie gehandelt wirt, yhe kostlicher sie wirt, unnd bass sie schmeckt, […] Denn sie biss her, mit glosen und mancherley geschwetz ubel verfinstert ist, die doch an yhr selb eyn helles liecht ist, fast gnugsam die gantze schrifft zu erleuchten.' (Trans. Thornton). 77 Cf. V. Shepherd,'John Wesley,' in Greenman and Larsen,Reading Romans,150. 78 Cf. P. Melanchthon,Theologica Institutio in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos (Bizer,.
de praedestinatione et vocatione und de moribus. 79 Paul wanted to show Christ to the world, that he is the author or our justification and gives the spirit that justifies. 80 The influence of Romans on the Loci of 1521 is obvious, even on its order. In the last section of the Institutio Melanchthon formulates the status causae of the letter to the Romans: Justification is on basis of faith, without works. 81 In an overview on the letter to the Romans which stems from the notes a student of Melanchthon took in 1521, Melanchthon calls the letter διδακτικόν, the first part of the genus demonstrativum. 82  In his exposition on Romans 5:6 for example, Barth notes that grace is not something man experiences. Religious experience would be a form of human work. Grace is a precondition which God creates, a new order into which humans are taken. 89 Faith also does not have its foundation in human consciousness, it is trust in God. Barth translates Romans 3:28 'Denn wir halten dafür, daß der Mensch durch die Treue Gottes gerecht wird, abgesehen von dem Handeln, zu dem das Gesetz auffordert.' 90 God's trustworthiness opposes human religion.
In the 1919 edition the ἱλαστήριον of Romans 3:25 is translated as 'Sühnungsgabe'. Until the advent of God's righteousness, religious actions like sacrifice, prayer and sermons could have led to repentance. Building on the premise that in wrath God opposes the world, these were religious efforts to appease God ('Versuche, Gott zu versöhnen'). 91 When God's faithfulness towards man was revealed, he broke the power of sin beyond religion. He himself gave Christ as the 'Sühnungsgabe' that all piety intended to bring. Religious devotion and action thus become senseless. Because God already has given everything needed. Barth 97 Origen and the unity of Jewish and non-Jewish Christians, Augustine and the primacy of God's grace, Luther and the justification of the unjust, Melanchthon and the origin of Protestant dogmatic, Barth and the sovereignty and trustworthiness of God's election: Would theology have had that without the letter to the Romans? I doubt it. Theology should cherish its Pauline legacy, should learn and teach to study Romans. Thank you Andrie, for studying Romans in our midst and teaching us to focus on its message through its Greek text.