Paper on Solving the Romans Debate[i] – A book by A. Andrew Das

By Hugh O’Donnell, MA degree student, Theo 60141, June 23, 2007

The first part of this paper will describe what A. Andrew Das intended by writing the book, Solving the Romans Debate. The second part of the paper will relate Das’ book to my catechesis ministry in a retirement community here at Notre Dame. I will link Das’ information on the makeup of the Roman church with new insight from Romans 3:26 to more clearly see developmental stages of spiritual growth that exist in all communities. Luke Timothy Johnson, our course 60141 professor, offered a profound insight around his exegesis of Romans 3: 26 which when combined with content from Das will help me resolve conflict within my own Christian ministry.

Intent of Solving the Romans Debate

The book begins with an introduction that describes a debate that has raged furiously for 40 years concerning whether Paul’s letter to the Romans was addressed to a exclusively gentile audience or a mixed audience of Jewish and gentiles Christians within the church at Rome in 56-58 CE. Using five chapters, Das lays out his argument for an exclusively gentile audience but while doing so, he addresses numerous other currently debated issues concerning Paul’s letter to the Romans.

So, not only is Das’ book a thorough and indepth review of one Romans debate issue, it also covers what others have written on this single issue and all the other side issues Das raises. The surprise of the book for me was the many other side issues that got brought into the audience composition debate. It is almost as if the intent of the book was Raising All the Romans Debate Issues.

For example, in chapter one, Das discusses a continuity issue concerning whether there were one, two or three versions of the letter. Next, he covers a debate on how many topics were of concern to Paul within his letter and which topic was foremost to Paul as the main purpose for writing the letter. The possible purpose issues include 1) questions on his mission in the East, particularly with the Jerusalem church 2) theological objectives of the letter 3) possible problems within the community that Paul might be addressing and 4) the questions of fund raising for a future mission to Spain.

So while addressing the audience composition issue, Das treats us to great detail on the possible “concrete situation” that might have existed within the Roman church. For example, were there separate worship sites for gentiles and Jews and what was the character of these worship sites? Another central side issue covered in chapter 1 is the “who” of the weak and strong mentioned in Paul’s letter.

In chapter 2, beside arguing for an exclusively gentile audience, Das writes about literary issues such as style of writing and the “who” of interlocutors for a couple of diatribes. Since Paul’s letter has many Scriptural passages, Das elaborates on possible reasons Paul might have introduced these scripture texts suggesting how these scripture references would have been understood by Jews, gentiles and a third group of law abiding gentiles called God-fearers.

During Das’ thesis support in chapter 3, he makes the case a break may have taken place between the gentile audience to which Paul’s letter was exclusively addressed and the Jewish Christians who may have worshiped separately. In the same chapter, Das returns to the “who” issue for strong versus weak spending a great deal of time writing on the contentions of a Jewish exegete, Mark Nanos, and then comparing Nanos’ contentions with Robert A. J. Gagnon’s differing contention that the weak were Torah respecting gentiles and the strong were non law observant gentiles within an all gentile audience.

Chapter 4 treats us to a great deal of historical information on the period from 44 CE, when the emperor Claudius abolished the Jewish state, to 66 CE, when Nero made a clear distinction between Christians and Jews at the start of the Jewish revolt. In chapter 4, Das explains how history helps support his thesis for an exclusive gentile audience.

In Chapter 5, Das concludes by suggesting his thesis for a thoroughly gentile audience helps solve yet two more debated side issues, the identity of “I” in Romans 7, and the who of “all Israel” in 11:25-26. Finally, at the very end of the book, we get a glimpse of ”so what.” So what interpretive insight can be gleaned if Paul’s letter was intended for an exclusively gentile audience? Das concludes it is so that gentiles will come to understand they too share Israel’s privileges as elect sons of God. With so little “so what”, perhaps Das did intend the book more as a survey on Romans debate issues.

Ministry insight from Das’ book and Timothy Luke Johnson.

Rather than describe the positive and negative aspects of Das book, I would like to broaden the perspective of this required course paper. In part two of this paper, I will describe an exciting new insight provided in class by our professor last week, Timothy Luke Johnson, on Romans 3:26. Coupling Johnson’s proposed insight with Das’ detailed description on the makeup of the Roman community, a better view comes forward for me on how to resolve conflicting issues separating Christians today. The insight centers on how Christians mature spiritually.

Timothy Luke Johnson suggests that Romans 3:26 should be read “…and justify the one who has the faith of Jesus Christ” rather than the way it has been translated for centuries as “...the faith in Jesus Christ.” If Johnson’s thesis is accepted, his translation of the Greek will profoundly change the Christian church of the 21^st century helping it better move toward a more mature, more interdependent, less factious church.

History tells us human growth and spiritual growths are marked by 3 developmental stages. The first stage, dependence or childhood, is marked by complete dependence on parental laws. The second stage, independence or adolescence, is marked by freedom to choose apart from parental customs. The final stage, interdependence or mature adulthood, is marked by a collective dependence on a variety of independent beliefs.

The same three developmental stages can be seen at play in Das’ description of the Roman church. The dependent members of the Roman Christian community would be those Jewish Christians who were very dependent on Jewish law despite the Gospel. These Christians would have been characterized by their strict dependence on the customs of their parents. These Christians seldom grow past dependence on a well-defined structure of laws or set of authoritative dogma.

The second, independent group, in Das’ Rome, was the main group; the group of gentile Christians who had little use for former Jewish practices once the gospel was understood. According to Das, it was these independent minded gentile Christians that Paul was exclusively addressing. It was this independent minded gentile group that wanted to split from tradition like the reform Christians of a few centuries ago who split from an authority dependent, ritual oriented Catholic Church.

The third, an interdependent group, would be those Christians that merge Jewish and pagan traditions with the new Gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe Paul’s letter indeed was directed mainly to this second group, independent minded Christians gentiles, that Paul was exhorting to become interdependent Christians living interdependently in community with their fellow Jewish Christians, Jew first, Gentile second, but all equal and all collectively dependent on one another as Christ had showed them in the gospel.

Today, as in Paul’s time, very few people have advanced to the interdependent stage of Christian growth. One reason for this may be a profound misinterpretation of Romans by both a dogmatic and reformed church. Today, we see many Catholics stuck in centuries of dependence on Catholic dogma based on now questionable exegesis of Scriptures. Today we see many independent minded reformed Christians who have misread Romans believing salvation comes from faith in Jesus Christ, or a personal relationship with Jesus, apart from community.

It would seem the time is right for Christians to read Romans carefully again. Salvation is collective. Salvation comes from an interdependent community of believers who respect the independence of each other as equal members of one community. Salvation does not come from faith in Jesus or any other set of one-sided dictatorial dogma, it comes from faith or faithfulness to the example of Jesus Christ as revealed by the gospel.

As I begin my ministry as a Catechist in the retirement apartment village due for completion this fall called Holy Cross Village (HCV) at Notre Dame, I hope to do as Paul exhorted us to do, help all move to the third stage of spiritual growth. For more on my Catechist goals for HCV see http://www.nd.edu/~hodonne1/HCVGOALS.htm .