+

Romans
C
oming to Romans now wc nd that wc arc
ncaring thc cnd ol Pauls missionary activity.
Paul stands at a vcry signicant point. Tis
is probably thc bcst timc to takc stock ol what hc was,
what hc was doing, and how hc was gctting along. From
now on, hc rcally docs not havc thc lrccdom to travcl
around and visit churchcs. Pauls lcttcr to thc Romans is
thc pinnaclc ol all his writing, and onc ol thc most in
ucntial documcnts ol all human history. How cxciting
to bc ablc to considcr this particular situation.
Many pcoplc lccl that hc wrotc this lcttcr in Corinth,
and it sccms likcly that hc spcnt about thrcc months
doing it. Most pcoplc do not takc thrcc months to
writc a lcttcr ol coursc. 8ut, whcn Paul writcs a lcttcr,
hc is not happy to just writc a mundanc documcnt...
Hc writcs thc thcological loundation much ol latcr
Christian thcology! Now that was a lcttcr! Tosc who
havc tricd to makc Romans out as somcthing othcr
than a lcttcr as il Paul just uscd thc lcttcr gcnrc as a
prctcxt to writc a systcmatic thcology volumc prob
ably havc lailcd. So, this lcttcr was writtcn (and ! am
surc that all ol us havc donc this) to onc pcrson, but
with thc thought that it might bc hclplul to othcr
pcoplc at thc samc timc. Hc was writing to a lot ol
dicrcnt pcoplc in Romc. !t is possiblc that Paul was
cvcn writing to dicrcnt congrcgations. Hc was prob
ably consciously sctting up his cld ministrics lor his
own sakc and lor othcr pcoplcs sakc. !n this scnsc, thc
book ol Romans is a vcry balanccd ovcrall statcmcnt.
8ut who was Paul, and what was hc doing:
Pauls Methods
First lct us look at Pauls mcthods. Many pcoplc un
dcrstand Pauls Mcthods as rcvcalcd in thc Ncw Tcsta
mcnt through thc prism ol a vcry lamous book on thc
subjcct. !n thc lamous book Missionary Methods: St.
Paul s or Ours by Roland Allcn a numbcr ol intcrcsting
obscrvations and asscrtions arc madc conccrning Pauls
missionary mcthods. ! must say hcrc that ! lccl that
Roland Allcns writings prcscnt a rathcr pcculiar point
ol vicw. Hc was a rathcr pcculiar pcrson and was not
rcally a missionary lor vcry long. Allcn spcnt 40 ycars
just tinkcring with what hc wrotc altcr hc camc back
to ngland. And yct hc had vcry strong opinions that
havc bccn vcry inucntial.
Allcn says that il wc assumc that,
thc cxistcncc ol a synagoguc and thc prcscncc ol somc
Godlcaring Grccks in a city so altcr thc problcm ol
church building that mcthods uscd by St Paul undcr
thcsc circumstanccs cannot possibly bc applicd to any
modcrn conditions, ! think wc arc labouring undcr a
dclusion (p. 22).
Allcn hcrc lramcs thc issuc in cxtrcmcs. !t almost
sccms that Allcn is saying that thcrc is no valuc in
Pauls ministry whatsocvcr, bccausc ol thc lact that
thcrc wcrc Grcckspcaking Jcws and Godlcarcrsin
thc synagogucs ol thc rst ccntury. ! havc summarizcd
his position in an cxaggcratcd manncr in ordcr to
highlight why Allcn has bccn criticizcd on this point.
!n lact, Roland Allcn ocrs somc nuancing ol his own
paosition on pagc 22 in thc lootnotc ol thc sccond
cdition ol his book. !n this lootnotc hc says: Critics
ol thc rst cdition said that ! had undcrcstimatcd hcrc
thc importancc ol thc convcrts lrom thc synagoguc.
Allcn is rathcr vaguc whcn hc uscs thc word convcrts.
Actually, thc Godlcarcrs that wc hcar about in thc
book ol Acts wcrc a vcry dicrcnt class ol pcoplc lrom
thc convcrts. Tc word convert usually mcans proselyte.
Pauls Middle Missionary Letters:
Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians
Ralph D. Winter
Adaptcd with pcrmission lrom Vintcr, Ralph ., cd., ct al. (2006) Global Civilization, Classical World: Lesson Overviews, Filth dition. Pasadcna, CA: Vil
liam Carcy Library, pp. 183185.
+o P~iis Mibbiv Missiox~vv Lv::vvs: Ro:~xs, + ~xb : Covix:ni~xs
Tis convcrsion thcn docs not includc thc changc ol
hcart mcaning ol convcrsion usually thought ol ol in
cvangclical circlcs. To bccomc a prosclytc mcans somc
thing vcry similar to putting on a ncw sct ol clothing.
Vc must gct uscd to thc lact that wc as cvangclicals
usc thc word convcrt and to convcrt in onc way,
whcrcas thc gcncral populacc usually uscs thc word in
quitc a dicrcnt way. For instancc, what il you arc a
missionary going into a particular country and you arc
stoppcd at a bordcr. Tc bordcr guards could vcry cas
ily ask, Arc you hcrc to convcrt Muslims: You could
vcry honcstly rcspond, My rcligion lorbids mc to
convcrt anyonc. Tis is an honcst answcr bccausc thc
guards, along with many othcr pcoplc, misundcrstand
thc word convcrt to mcan what wc mcan by thc word
prosclytizing. ur rcligion is antiprosclytizing. To
prosclytizc somconc is to dcmand ol thcm a wholcsalc
cultural changc. Vc arc dcaling with thc hcarts ol
pcoplc, not with thcir customs and culturcs, primarily.
Now, back to thc Ncw Tcstamcnt. Tc convcrts in thc
Ncw Tcstamcnt who camc lrom thc synagoguc con
sistcd ol thrcc kinds ol pcoplc, potcntially. Tcrc wcrc
lull Jcws and phony Jcws. Tat is to say, thc lull Jcws
wcrc prosclytizcd Gcntilcs who had comc ovcr cul
turally into thc Jcwish clothing, into Jcwish customs,
adopting a Jcwish dict, and trying to bccomc Jcws
complctcly in cvcry waythcsc wcrc thc complctc
prosclytcs. Tcn thcrc wcrc Godlcarcrs, who wcrc
oltcn vcry signicant pcoplc in thc widcr community
outsidc ol thc synagoguc. Tc Roman mpirc had
many rcspcctablc clcmcnts ol morality and cthics built
into it. Tc Romans wcrc not a liccntious pcoplc to
thc cxtcnt that thc truscans wcrc, lor cxamplc. Tcy
lookcd down on thc truscans lor thcir liccntious
ncss. Many ol thcsc highmanncrcd Roman philoso
phcrs and citizcns wcrc vcry carncstly attractcd to thc
Jcwish tradition, which was omniprcscnt in a ccrtain
scnsc. Rcmcmbcr, Pctcr said: Moscs is prcachcd in
cvcry city (Acts 15:21)probably a rathcr gcncral
statcmcnt. 8ut many thousands ol Roman citizcns ol
various backgrounds across thc cmpirc wcrc attractcd
to thc synagogucs. Somc ol thcm prosclytcd, othcrs
mcrcly attcndcd. Tc lattcr wcrc probably just as dc
vout, thcy wcrc callcd dcvout pcrsons or Godlcarcrs.
!n somc cascs, thcy wcrc catcrcd to bccausc thcy wcrc
lcadcrs in thc community and gavc a kind ol protcction
to thc synagoguc. Tcy may cvcn havc bccn big donors.
Tcy wcrc, no doubt, cstccmcd pcoplc. Tcy wcrc in a
vcry dicrcnt catcgory lrom thc prosclytcs and lrom
thc Jcws.
Paul drcw lrom all thrcc groups, but probably mostly
lrom thc last. Tat mcans that thc ovcrall casts ol thc
lcllowships that wcrc cstablishcd undcr his ministry
wcrc Gcntilc rathcr than Jcwish. Although hcrc in thc
book ol Romans, wc scc him lorthrightly addrcssing
both what Christian Jcws and also lormcr Godlcarcrs.
Tcsc arc outright Gcntilcs still in thcir culturc, but
who arc lollowcrs ol Christ.
Now, il you go back to Allcn (p. vii ), you noticc
that hc says: Critics almost invariably xcd on two
points: (1) that thc gull bctwccn us and thc pcoplc to
whom wc go (nowadays in thc pionccr mission cld
situation) is dccpcr and widcr than that bctwccn St
Paul and thosc to whom hc prcachcd. ! think this is
absolutcly truc. Tc critics also say, (2) that hc could
rcly upon convcrts lrom thc synagoguc to prcscrvc his
churchcs lrom dangcrs only too plain to us. Again,
! bclicvc that is ccrtainly truc. Now, thc conclusion
drawn was that what was possiblc lor him in his day is
impossiblc lor us in ours.
A vaguc parallcl may bc going to thc most dcvout
Muslims, who wcrc thc most undcrstanding ol thc
Quran and ol thc monothcistic rcligion which !slam
consists ol. A closcr parallcl would bc that ol Chris
tianity going church to church and putting a supcr
chargcr on cvcry church. Tis again is rcasonablc to
do. Going around and rcviving thc churchcs, as many
travcling cvangclists do, is not an unholy task.
Paul was a travcling cvangclist, rcviving thc laith ol
Jcwish synagogucs. 8ut whcn opposition mountcd, hc
oltcn split thosc synagogucs. Although that was not
his main purposc, that was thc practical rcsult. Tosc
who wcnt with him, thcn constitutcd a ncw synagoguc.
r, il it was not largc cnough to bc a synagoguc, it was
a ncw ejkklhsiva. Tc ejkklhsiva is a smallcr
lcllowship, usually rclcrring to thc housc. Tc house
church is probably thc bcst translation ol thc word ejk
klhsiva in most cascs in thc Ncw Tcstamcnt.
So, Paul ccrtainly did build on that loundation. Rathcr
than a copout or an casy path, it was simply thc logi
cal, impclling and rcasonablc thing to do.
Furthcr, Allcn statcs, St Paul always bcgan his work
by prcaching in thc synagoguc, to Jcws and Godlcar
ing Grccks (p. 19). Hc could havc said: to Jcws and
Ralph D. Winter ++
proselytes and Godlcaring Grccks. Tat statcmcnt
alonc makcs vcry wcak his assumption that Pauls min
istry was that ol a pionccr missionary. Tc two timcs
whcn Paul spokc to pcoplc without that synagoguc
background wcrc at Lystra, whcrc thcrc was kind ol a
mob situation. Tc othcr occurrcncc was at thc Arcop
agus whcrc hc was actually invitcd by somc lascinatcd
Grcck philosophcrs whom hc mct in thc markctplacc.
Probably cvcn in thc markctplacc hc was dcaling with
Jcws, lor thc most part, but othcr pcoplc listcncd in.
Athcns was a placc whcrc cvcrybody was vcry curious
about dicrcnt points ol vicw. So hc got invitcd to this
rathcr auspicious situation.
!n both Lystra and thc Arcopagus, hc camc out with
a mcssagc that was radically dicrcnt. So radically
dicrcnt was thc mcssagc, somc pcoplc havc thought
maybc this was spurious or Lukc did not catch on. 8ut
hcrc wc scc thc dicrcncc in approach that would bc
rcasonablc il you arc dcaling with pcoplc without any
background, comparcd to pcoplc with a trcmcndous
background. Tc Jcwish movcmcnt prior to Christ is
drastically undcrcstimatcd in its powcr, its scopc and
its tcaching. Tc prcaching ol Paul clcarly built upon a
vast prior group ol pcoplc.
Tus whcthcr wc should lollow, or try to lollow, litcr
ally what Paul did is a signicant issuc. At lcast, !
bclicvc, thcrc is rcason lor us to build on pcoplc who
arc sccking God, rathcr than on pcoplc who arc ccing
thcir own rcligion. Although thcrc is nothing wrong
with doing both, most ol our missionary work has lo
cuscd on pcoplc who arc alrcady disacctcd with thcir
own rcligionmaybc lor good rcasons, maybc not lor
such good rcasons.
Anothcr major considcration that could takc hours
ol discussion is thc possibility ol Romans balancing a
potcntial conict bctwccn Jamcs and Galatians. Takc a
good look at thc kcy passagc in Romans which, in my
opinion, balanccs out both Jamcs and Galatians. Ga
latians was thc rst lcttcr that wc havc ol Paul (maybc
not thc rst that hc wrotc, but thc rst wc havc). At
thc cnd ol chaptcr 9, Paul sums up thc naturc ol thc
law and ol laith which is a vcry satislactory conclusion.
Hc statcs, Vhat shall wc say, thcn: Paul comcs to a
sort ol conclusion hcrc. kay. Tc Gcntilcs thcyrc
not notcd lor pursuing thc kind ol rightcousncss that
wc think about, but thcy attaincd rightcousncss ol a
sort, thc kind ol rightcousncss which is that hcart
sccking ol God. Tat is a lrcc translation. 8ut !sracl,
pursuing a law ol rightcousncss, a writtcn dcscription
ol rightcousncss, did not arrivc. Vhy: 8ccausc thcy
did not pursuc it in laith.
As Paul statcs clscwhcrc in Romans, thc law is holy,
just, and good. !t is not bad. !t just is not by itscll sal
vic. Anybody who simply gocs through thc motions is
not going to gct anywhcrc. n thc othcr hand, it is no
grcat advantagc not to havc that law. !n Romans Paul
is doing a balancing act ol marvclous ncssc bctwccn
both thc Jcwish bclicvcrs in Christ and thc Gcntilc bc
licvcrs in Christ. Ultimatcly Paul dclcnds onc against
thc othcr all thc way through this book.
For us, ol coursc, onc ol thc brilliant qucstions rc
garding Romans rclatcs to, !s thcrc any missiological
signicancc in this book: Carson docs point this out.
Hc talks about Pauls dcsirc to go on to Spain, and thc
missionary naturc ol this. Hc oods you with othcr
pcoplcs vicws ol all kinds, and shows how most ol thc
cort cxpcndcd by Christians on thc book ol Romans
has bccn unintcrcstcd in or unawarc ol thc missiologi
cal signicancc ol thc lcttcr. Tc vast numbcr ol writ
ings on thc book ol Romans ignorcs that totally. 8ut
lortunatcly, Carson, Moo, and Morris do not, and lor
that wc arc gratclul.
Tis is an cxciting momcnt in Pauls ministry, having
just nishcd his magnum opus. Tis is also thc last ol
his visiting ol churchcs. Although hc visits a lcw pco
plc on thc way to Jcrusalcm, thcrc hc is capturcd. From
now on hc is a prisoncr. Hc writcs thc socallcd prison
cpistlcs in Romc. 8ut his actual cld missionary work,
whcn thcrc is not much timc to writc a lot ol lcttcrs, is
bchind him. Tis is a vcry kcy point in his ministry.
Reection
Upon lurthcr rccction on Allcns book, it might bc
pointcd out that in his chaptcr on prcaching, hc has
somc rathcr dcvastating commcnts that could bc
construcd as bcing anticontcxtualization. For instancc,
hc mcntions thcrc must bc a complctc brcak with thc
past (p. 70). Tcn hc says laith in Jcsus Christ rcquircs
brcaking lrom thc old law (p. 71). !t mcant thc aban
donmcnt ol thc old conccption ol lilc. !t mcant thc
casting away ol all thc lormcr things. Tis givcs you thc
lccl that his intuition would bc whcrcvcr a missionary
works, thc pcoplc havc to brcak with thc past, turn lrom
Satan to thc living God. Tis is, ol coursc, languagc
lrom Acts 26. Although valid, hc is unawarc, ! bclicvc,
+: P~iis Mibbiv Missiox~vv Lv::vvs: Ro:~xs, + ~xb : Covix:ni~xs
ol thc modcrn, morc rcccnt cmphasis on contcxtualiza
tion. Tis is prcanthropological talk.
!ntcrcstingly, hc has thc most dcvastating statcmcnt
! havc sccn in print ol thc idca ol rcviving thc truc
mcaning ol thc old rcligion. According to Allcn, it is
a wrong thcsis to say that thc work ol thc Christian
missionary is not to call mcn lrom thc hcathcn tcmplc
into thc Church ol God but to trim thc dimly glowing
lamp ol God in thc hcathcn tcmplc, and to pour into it
a lcw drops ol thc oil ol Christian doctrinc till it shincs
with a ncw radiancc (p. 71) Tis is what hc is against,
and ! think its valid.
n thc othcr hand, you could also makc a vcry dicr
cnt mcaninglul statcmcnt, bccausc pcoplc do not shcd
all ol thcir culturc and thcir tradition, nor cvcn thcir
scnsc ol what is right and wrong. Although that docs
not ncccssarily coincidc with our Christian cthical and
moral tradition. ! am not surc, lor cxamplc, that whcn
Allcn was writing, hc was awarc that a spring goddcss
ol lcrtility cclcbration at thc timc whcn thc sun camc up
carlicst or latcst, thc astcr sunrisc scrvicc was a pagan
scrvicc. And thc missionary lcttcrs ol Grcgory thc Grcat
in Romc to Augustinc communicatcd, You dont nccd
to throw out that ugly, cvil ccrcmony, lcts translorm it.
You know wc still throw ricc at wcddings. Tats not a
clcan brcak with thc past, this is what thcy wcrc doing
in thc Roman mpirc bclorc Christ was born. Vc havc
so many things that comc lrom thc past, that to say in a
carclcss lashion, Vcvc got to makc a clcan brcak with
thc past is probably unwisc.
Also indicatcd is Allcns talk about thc powcr ol thc
Jcwish tradition. Tosc churchcs wcrc composcd almost
cntircly ol Grcck convcrts (p. 19), and hc contrasts this
to Jcwish convcrts. Hc apparcntly docs not stop to think
that thc Grcck convcrts could havc bccn out ol a syna
goguc. Tcrc wcrc Jcws and prosclytcs and Godlcarcrs
in thc synagoguc. Tc lattcr two catcgorics wcrc Grccks.
So, whcn hc says thc churchcs wcrc lull ol Grcck
convcrts, hc cannot rcally say that thcsc convcrts camc
lrom somc othcr placc than thc synagoguc. Hc ccrtainly
cmphasizcs prosclytcs and Godlcaring Grccks brought
into thc Church that wcrc clcmcnts ol thc utmost
valuc lor thc luturc lilc ol thc body (p. 21).
! am not saying that cvcry singlc pcrson in thc Paulinc
churchcs had bccn rcading thc Torah and hcaring thc
rcadings ol thc ld Tcstamcnt lor ycars and ycars. My
contcntion is that thcrc wcrc cnough such pcoplc to
constitutc a strong loundation. Tis sccdplanting basc,
in a ccrtain scnsc, asks whcthcr it is absolutcly lair to
say that Paul was a churchplanting missionary. !n
almost all cascs, hc was building on anothcr. Hc was
building on thc marvclous and signicant impact ol
Judaism all across thc Roman mpirc.
Allcn combats this by saying, You know, this causcd
him morc troublc than it hclpcd him, bccausc hc startcd
up thc hostility ol thc Jcws. bviously, Paul was not
trying to makc things hard lor himscll by dclibcratcly
stirring up thc Jcws. Rathcr, hc was trying to makc
things casy lor himscll, il you wish, by going whcrc
thc pcoplc wcrc sccking God. And thats what hc did.
So whcn hc said: ! havc prcachcd thc gospcl all thc
way lrom Jcrusalcm to Yugo slavia (to usc a modcrn
phrascor 8osnia, or Croatia), hc says hc covcrcd all
thc synagogucs in thosc placcs. Tat was his modus
operandi, and an cxccllcnt stratcgy. Such is not cxactly
thc kind ol stratcgy that pcoplc today would bc ablc to
lollow. Tat, ol coursc, is thc major wcak ncss ol Allcns
particular trcatisc, which is so valuablc in many ways.
Additional rccction on Romans and thc potcntial
conict bctwccn Jamcs and Galatians should involvc
thc kcy rcalization that wc arc not looking lrom a lc
galistic Jcwish tradition into a Grcck tradition, wc arc
looking lrom a lcgalistic Grcck tradition into a rcncwal
ol that tradition. Tc Grcck statc church today has all
ol thc lcgalistic charactcristics ol thc Jcwish tradition
lrom which Paul was moving. So it was not just a casc
ol Jcws and Grccks, but also a casc ol lcgalism vcrsus
vitality. Tat is critical to our undcrstanding.
Luthcr vcry validly applicd this situation to thc lcgal
istic Roman situation. Tc t was not thcrc, howcvcr,
whcn hc tricd to apply it willynilly on top ol thc
Gcrmans. Paul was ablc to utilizc this kind ol cmpha
sis at that point as wcll. Luthcr, as with Paul in Gala
tians, was so unhappy about that lcgalistic imposition
that hc rcactcd vcry ncgativcly. Luthcr actually said:
Hcy, thc lcttcr ol Jamcs is an cpistlc ol straw. nly
latcr in his ministry did hc rcalizcd that maybc thcrc
was somcthing to Jamcs. So wc nccd to rcalizc that thc
balancc that wc scc in Romans 9 and in othcr parts ol
Romans is a vcry important corrcction.
Tcn as wc considcr how Romans rclatcs to thc Grcat
Commission, Carsons point on thc signicant aspcct
ol Spain in this picturc is hclplul. Hc makcs a wondcr
lul statcmcnt. Spcaking ol ccrtain cxpositors claims,
Ralph D. Winter +
hc says that thc gcncral thcological tcnor ol thc lcttcr
is duc to Pauls dcsirc to provc that hc is orthodox
and worthy ol support (p. 249). Most commcntators
would not go quitc that lar.
! bclicvc that Paul had othcr rcasons bcsidcs just say
ing, Look, !m worthy ol support. 8ut this occasioncd
a lulldrcsscd trcatmcnt ol his prcaching. Vhcn you
go to a church to gct support lor missionary mobiliza
tion or missionary cldwork, it is only lcgitimatc that
pcoplc know cxactly what you stand lor, what you
bclicvc and prcach. So Paul spcnt a good part ol thrcc
months writing Romans. For mc, it took a ycar and a
hall in my dcvotions cvcry day to put this into my own
words. Romans is a marvclous lcttcr lor that rcason.
8ut ccrtainly, in its occasion lor writing and cxplicit
purposc lor writing, it is a mcans ol bonding with thc
Roman congrcgations and with thc hopc ol going on
to Spain to go to morc and morc ol thc synagogucs.
nc othcr aspcct in Carson, Moo, and Morris is thc writ
ing about Gods rst word to thc Jcws and his sccond
word to thc Grccks or Romansthc Church (pp.
254255). Although that may bc an intcrcsting approach,
lrankly, it was thc samc word. Tc assumption that God
changcd his mcssagc, and cspccially thc idca that a ncw
dispcnsation occurrcd in which things wcrc radically and
totally dicrcnt, is complctcly unwarrantcd.
Tc dispcnsational scholars ol thc past havc donc
a grcat blcssing to cvcryonc by pointing out dicr
cnccs. 8ut thc intcrprctation ol thosc dicrcnccs can
vary with thc passing ol timc. Vcvc changcd our
plan now, wcrc going to say things dicrcntly and
do things dicrcntly, wc havcnt bccn locuscd on thc
Gcntilcs bclorc, but now wc arc. A changc ol chro
nology and ol stratcgy may bc common. Far bcttcr, it
would sccm to mc, is to considcr this thc samc word in
a dicrcnt contcxt. Tc contcxtualization ol that word
occasions thc dicrcnccs, rathcr than somc chronology
which says, Lcts scc, Gods going to try a ncw trick.
Tc simultancity ol thc Cross itscll and thc cross
cultural movc ol thc Vord arc what conlusc pcoplc.
!t is as il thc Cross cnablcd or crcatcd thc possibility
ol spcaking dircctly and impcllingly to thc Gcntilcs. !
do not bclicvc that to bc truc. Tc Cross cnablcd thc
Vord ol God to comc to pcoplc bclorc it happcncd,
just as wcll as altcr it happcncd. Tc continuity or
discontinuity can bc intcrprctcd, obviously, in scvcral
dicrcnt ways.
Tis book ol Romans is not somcthing that wc arc
going to covcr in a bricl pcriod. ur wholc purposc
in this coursc is to introducc you into richcs that may
takc ycars to digcst. Vc arc pcrlcctly happy lor that
proccss to lcngthcn out across thc ycars. ur cxpccta
tion is not that you will lay asidc thc book ol Romans
lrom this point on bccausc you havc gottcn it all al
rcady. !nstcad, lct us anticipatc a rich luturc in contcm
plation ol thcsc dicrcnt mattcrs.