In his reasoning, Paul states three indefinite objects of love one after the other in the progression of his arguments. If the line of argument is closely followed, it may be seen that they occur in the following order: one another, the other, and the neighbour. However, the indefinite reciprocal pronoun - ἀλλήλους, the adjective - τὸν ἕτερον and the adverb - πλησίον as objects of ἀγάπη raise the question of the identity of the addressees of the injunction. Scholarly debate over the identity of the addressees of the letter to the Romans has never ended. Diverse and opposing proposals have been submitted since Ferdinand Christian Baur first proposed an entirely Jewish audience. No matter how unconvincing Baur’s conclusion may be, his evidence for the existence of Jewish audience has continued their influence in the next generation of scholars. Scholars such as J.H. Ropes, W. Manson, T. Fahy, and S. Mason, for instance, modified Baur’s position and argued for mainly Jewish audiences. Core evidence adduced to this position entails: Paul’s concern for the spiritual life of his kinsmen (1:16; 10:1-3 and 11:13-36), calling Abraham our father (4:1), those who know the Law (7:1), Jewish themes such as the Law, righteousness, redemption, and election of Israel, the remnants, and application of Jewish rhetoric (Longenecker 2011:76-77).
90
Unlike an audience made up entirely or of a majority of Jews, , a few scholars argued for an exclusively Gentile audience (Munck, 1959:200-209; Stowers, 1994; Gaston, 2000:35–42; Das, 2007). Among others, Andrew Das (2001; 2007; 2012) has made extensive and sustained argument for exclusively Gentile audiences; therefore, his point of view will be discussed at length followed by a critique of his position.
Das contends that it is possible to discover the purpose and situation of the letter from encoded readers of the letter defining the encoded audience “as reconstructed from the letter itself and as conceptually distinguished from the actual original hearers” (italics his) (Das, 2012:29). By “encoded readers”, he means that whether the Jews physically existed in the congregation of Jesus followers in Rome or not, Paul is addressing exclusively Gentile Jesus followers. Das’ reconstruction of the audience of the letter of Romans is predicated on the following assumptions: (1) There were many God-fearing Gentiles in Rome and they were attending the Synagogue along with the Jews. (2) Later, they accepted the Gospel along with Jews. (3) But Claudius’ edict evicted the Jewish Jesus followers, which resulted in the complete separation of the Gentile God-fearing believers form the synagogue. (4) Thereafter, new Gentiles, who were not God-fearers, were added to the community of Jesus followers. (5) They created problems for the Gentile God-fearers in terms of their keeping Jewish law. (6) Therefore, Paul is writing his letter to bring peace and build bridges between them through his letter. The entire assumption raises the question of plausibility as an argument from God-fearers, which has created a hypothetical subgroup to validate his claim. The evidence that adduces the assumption does not satisfy a sufficient condition to put the Jewish Jesus followers’ audiences out of the equation.
Das’ exegetical argument impinges upon five key texts: (1) Greeting in 1:1-7 is about obedience of all the Gentiles not among all nations, because the preposition ἐν is partitive, the parenthetical structure of the phrase attracts the attention of the audience, and no grammatical break exists between v. 5 and v. 7. Therefore, “all the Gentiles” in v. 4 is equated with “all God’s beloved” in v. 7 (Das, 2007:54–56). (2) “Thanksgiving” in 1:8-15 refers to the rest of the Gentiles in relation to the Roman reader particularly in 1:13, and in 1: 15 “to you also who are in Rome” is also used to designate non-Jews (2:14, 24; 3:29; 9:24,30; 11:11-13,25; 15:9-12,16). More especially, Paul directly identifies his readers in 11:13 and “impurity” and “iniquity” in 6:17-19 do not fit the Jews as they mean “law-less” and unclean respectively for describing Jews with such terminology is an insult (Das, 2007:54–64, 69-70). Similarly, Romans 13:11-14 does not speak of the Jews, because they are lists of vices reminiscent of 1: 18-32. However, Das concurs that the vices in 1:18-32 and 13:11-14 could also include the Jews. Paul identifies the “weak”
91
in 15:15-16 as Gentiles who are sympathetic towards Judaism based on Josephus and Horace’s documents (Das, 2012: 64-66, 69–70). For Das, the names listed in chapter 16 do not necessarily show a Jewish audience because they are in second person plural asking the recipient of the letter to pass the greeting on behalf of them. Finally, Das contends that there is a break between Jews in the synagogue and the Gentile Jesus followers after the edict of Claudius in 49 AD.
There is no question that Paul emphasised Gentiles in his greetings; however, there is not sufficient reason to conclude that he is addressing exclusively Gentiles because an equally tenable argument for “all nations” can also be maintained in 1:5. Nor is 1:5 hard evidence for an exclusively Gentile audience, because it focuses on the purpose of the gift of apostleship, not on the identity of the addressees. Paul insists that apostleship, including other apostles, is “to bring about the obedience of faith among all the nations” (RSV). The extract, “…including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ” (v.6) is also primarily connected to the purpose than to the nations. The purpose of the apostolic mission is to bring the obedience of faith from the unbelieving nation, whether Jews or Gentiles, and from the believing community in Rome for the sake of God’s name. Further, πᾶσιν in v.5 and v. 7 cannot be the same insofar as the former is general and the latter refers to a specific location – “in Rome.” The term Πᾶσιν in v. 7 also betrays Das’ argument of an exclusively Gentile audience as Paul uses more inclusive terms, such as “all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints.” If Das accommodates the possibility of the physical presence of the Jews among the believing Gentiles in Rome, then Paul is including them as well in his greetings, πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ. However, since this text mitigates Das’ arguments, he totally evades it from his discussion.
Knowledge of Scriptures content (which is Baur’s contention for a Jewish audience), discussion of the Law (in chapters 2, 3, 7, and 13), circumcision (in chapter 4), faithfulness of God to Israel (in chapter 9- 11), knowledge of the Law (in chapter 7:1), and Jewish scripture citations are some examples of the concrete evidence in the letter. Das, however, argues that Gentile God-fearers know the Scripture, particularly chapter 7:1, which is not difficult to know with a limited knowledge of the Scripture. However, Das himself thinks that, “Ancient readers did not normally have written manuscripts available for study in the same way as the modern reader”(Das, 2007:35). He adds, “even if Paul’s Gentile readers somehow had access to synagogue manuscripts of the Scriptures, only ten to twenty percent of the people were literate in a world where most people struggled to survive” (Das, 2012:35). If this is granted, then it is hardly possible to be sure whether the God-fearing Gentiles ever read the Scripture for themselves. Further, Das’ description of the Gentile God-fearers’ knowledge of Scripture and the concept of sin in
92
Chapter 7 do not fit with Paul’s discussion of the relationship between the Law and sin. Das trivializes the importance of the story and context of the Scripture, cited in the letter when he said that the understanding of Scripture is not necessary in order to understand Paul's point (Das, 2012:36–37). Particularly, in light of Chapter 4 where Paul’s argument hinges on the timing of the circumcision of Abraham, Das’ claim fails to recognize how important for Paul even the details of scriptural knowledge are. Furthermore, the discussion on Israel in chapters 9-11 demands a detailed knowledge of the Scripture as Paul is making historical as well as theological arguments based on the Scripture.
Das assumes that Paul already taught about marriage in 1 Cor 7:10-11, 39-40 (Das, 2012:35), therefore the Gentile readers in Rome know Rom 7:1-6. This reading demands an assumption that what is taught in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 39-40 must have been taught in Romans. Paul had never been in Rome and nor is there evidence that the letter to the Corinthians was being read by the Roman congregation. Nor does Paul speak about it or alludes to it. Although there is no explicit mention of the Jews in 7:1, there is no fallacy in including the Jewish readers within the equation insofar as no compelling evidence is adduced to read it otherwise.
The evidence for a Jewish audience also comes from 2:17 where Paul calls “a Jew” and from a listing of Jews who are Jesus followers in 16:1-16. Since Das consents that “Discerning an imaginary interlocutor, as opposed to a very real person, is difficult in actual letters” (Das, 2007:89), his conclusion on this text as speaking of imaginary Jews is not conclusive. The listing of Jews in 16:1-16 particularly Prisca and Aquila, Andronicus, Junia and Herodion (16:11) are also taken as one of the strongest evidence for a Jewish audience. But Das’ transferring the literal “synenes” to metaphorical language in 16:17 is hardly convincing. For one, he did not demonstrate the existence of such a word describing someone in metaphorical kinship language from contemporary letter either Roman or Greek literature (Das, 2007:91). Das himself observes, “Whenever synenes are employed in context with words such as ‘brother’, ‘sister’, or ‘mother’ in ancient Greek literature, the meaning is always ‘relative’ and “Loyalty and trust in the first century were primarily to one’s blood relatives” (Das, 2007:93). Then, he assumes this loyalty is transferred to the Christian community and speculatively concludes: “Paul is using ‘affectionate language’ to build ‘bridges’ with the Roman congregation” (Das, 2007:93). If “syn” heightens the familial kinship, why did Paul not use the term for all the 24 names so that he could build a better bridge? Why out of the 24 only three received such a designation?
Paul calls for welcoming one another in 15:7-9; this is also used as evidence for a Jewish audience. Das speculates that there were Gentile God-fearers who followed the Jews without adducing hard evidence
93
(Das, 2007:105). Paul, in 15:8-9, points towards serving the circumcised or the Jews mentioning Jesus as a model. The circumcised according to 4:12 must be the Jews; no God-fearing Gentiles are called circumcised in the letter. Jesus glorified the father by serving the circumcised and so the followers are expected to do the same. Welcoming and receiving one another (15:7) addresses both groups: the circumcised and the uncircumcised. It is hardly possible to discount Jewish audience of the letter. Others take a middle ground claiming that the audiences of the letter are Jews (minority) and Gentile (majority) Jesus followers. The reasoning behind this conclusion is based on historical reasoning (particularly the eviction of Jews from Rome by Claudius in 49 AD) and mirror reading of the text which was first proposed by Sandy and Headlam (1902: XXXi–XXX vi; Denney, 1900:2.561-677; Dunn, 1988b:xlv; Jewett & Kotansky, 2007; Moo, 1996). The mirror reading mainly depends on the evidence within the text. Chapters 1:5-6, 13-15; 11:13; 15:16 are examples where the audiences are explicitly identified as Gentile readers. In Chapter 2 the diatribe form of Hellenistic argumentation reflects Gentile literary culture. “The people of Israel, my brothers and those of my own race (9:3), my own people (11:14)” are expressions that distinguish Paul from the Gentiles (Longenecker, 2011: 77). Chapter 16 lists both Jews and Gentile Jesus followers whom Paul personally knows.
Paul’s discussion on the ‘weak’ and the ‘strong’ in 14:1-15:13 is evidence adduced towards Jews and Gentile audiences. However, no consensus has been reached regarding the identity of the ‘weak’ and ‘strong’. According to Reasoner (1999), the different conclusions about them can be divided into two points of departure: those who read the section through the lens of the situation in Corinth and those who read it through the lens of the situation of Roman society and Jews in the diaspora. Sandy and Headlam (1902) and Karris (1991) hold the first position. The second position has reached at least three different conclusions in determining the identity of the ‘weak’: (1) it is impossible to know;(2) they are non- Christian Jews (Nanos, 1996); and (3) they are Christian. However, those who hold a Christian identity arrived at diverse conclusions: (a) the weak Christians are Jews (e.g.Godet, 1883:467; Cranfield, 1979:690–97; Käsemann, 1980:368–69; Jewett, 1985:354; Watson, 2007:94–98; Dunn, 1988b; Tomson, 1990; Fitzmyer, 1993; Barclay, 1996; Moo, 1996); (b) they are both Christian Jews and Gentiles (e.g. Wedderburn, 1988; Ziesler, 1989; Reasoner, 1999); and (c) they are entirely Gentile Christians (e.g Stowers, 1994).While agnostic reading deprives the text of its historical context, non-Christian Jewish reading denies the existence of believing Jews among the community although it grounds its assumption on Gentile believers and non-believing Jews meeting in the same synagogue. Nanos (1996:85–165), a proponent of the latter position, is refuted by Robert Gagnon (2000:64–82). The ‘weak’ is said to be
94
whom Christ died for (14:15 which parallels 1 Cor 8:11). Both the ‘weak’ and the ‘strong’are called upon to build and bear one another mutually (14:19; 15:1, 2 parallels 1 Cor 14:3). The prayer wish in 15:5-6 includes the ‘weak’ as Paul criticised them, along with the ‘strong’. Both the ‘weak’ and the ‘strong’ should welcome one another (15:7), and the ‘weak’ stands in faith by the Lord (14:4). Therefore, there is a strong indication in the text that both the ‘weak’ and the ‘strong’ are Jesus followers.
Nonetheless, Paul neither mentions their identity nor treats them as separate sects or groups. Instead, he seems to be addressing them within the same community notwithstanding their difference in diet, Sabbath and Calendar. Every extreme position goes into unwarranted speculation. However, it can be safely concluded from two fronts: historically, there is a growing consensus that Jews and God-fearing Gentiles existed in Rome, albeit during Claudius’ eviction of the Jews in AD 49. Exegetically, as the majority of the scholars believe, the existence of Christ-believing Jews and Christ-believing Gentiles in Rome is highly probable. The ‘weak’ most probably are the Jews but could also include God-fearing, believing Gentiles and the “strong” believing Gentiles. Granted this, the audience of the letter could be Jewish Jesus followers, God-fearing Gentile Jesus followers, and Jesus-following Gentiles though the majority seems to be Jesus-following Gentiles.
This conclusion has direct bearing on the discussion of the identity of ἀλλήλους, τὸν ἕτερον and πλησίον. It is argued that since Μηδενὶ μηδὲν (13:8a) is a universal negative and influences the next section of the sentence, ἀλλήλους must refer to a wider application (Parry, 1912:170; Moule, 1879:358; Murray, 1959:166; Cranfield, 1975:675). Although this conclusion might be legitimate, the use of the term in the entire letter must be taken into account to decide its function in this unit. The term ἀλλήλους occurs mainly within discussions related to intramural topics except in 1:27 where it speaks of disobedient outsiders. Itis a reciprocal pronoun stating a reciprocal spiritual benefit (1:12), functional dependency (12:5), unity in thinking (12:10a; 16; 15:5), respect (12:10b), avoiding judgement (14:13), seeking peace and mutual building (14:19), accepting fellow believers (15:7), admonishing (15:14) and greeting (16:16). The word is used mainly in building the community by keeping peace and unity. It refers to the interdependence of each member of the Jesus followers for the construction and existence of the community. Hence, ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν refers to love among the Jesus followers (believing Jews, believing God-fearing Gentiles and believing Gentiles).
The phrase τὸν ἕτερον (13:8c), as argued above, is the object of ἀγαπῶν. Yet, most scholars ascribed an indefinite identity to it such as any person brought to the believing community or mutual relationship among men (Parry, 1912:170; Murray, 1959:160; Cranfield, 1975:676; Ziesler, 1989:317). Paul seems
95
to be using the word for contrasting categorically similar or differing groups or things. In 2:1, Paul castigates a person who judges the other (κρίνεις τὸν ἕτερον). The term ἕτερον here might be in the same or different category in the sense that Gentiles or Jews, for the judge seems to take τὸν ἕτερον different from himself in a given behavioural standard. In 2:21, the Jew teaches another person (ὁ οὖν διδάσκων ἕτερον) who might as well categorically be from the same group (a Jew) or a different group (a God-fearing Gentile). However, the person who is taught is different from the Jewish teacher in terms of knowledge of God. In 7:3-4, marrying a different person is also understood as ἕτερον which is also a different relationship. The ‘other’ Law in 7:23 refers to a different Law. In 8:39 any other creature might also be understood as a different creature other than that listed by Paul. ‘Any other’ commandment (13:9) refers to additional commandments different from what have been listed. In all its occurrences in the letter, ἕτερον contrasts persons or things in the same or different category, highlighting their differences.
In case of 13:8c ἕτερον could refer to either categorically different or similar groups insofar as the whole sentence is indefinite. Rom13:8c portrays a paradigmatic character (see chapter seven of this study) that the community should emulate and hence ἕτερον is not limited categorically. It embraces either a categorically different group or a similar group. Nonetheless, as the use of the word within the letter demonstrates, it contrasts and highlights differences against the one who is the subject of the verb ‘love’ in 13:8c. Therefore, ἕτερον in 13:8c is the all-embracing ‘Other’ (i.e. both insider and outsider) emphasising differences.
The term πλησίον is used only three times in the whole letter (13:9, 10; 15:2). A few scholars think that it refers to all men or any person with whom the community interacts (Moule, 1879:358; Sanday, & Headlam, 1902:373; Lenski, 1963:800; William, 1980:240; Hendriksen, 1981:439; Cranfield, 1975:676; Käsemann, 1980:361; Stuhlmacher, 1994:209). However, the citation from Lev 19:18 and Paul’s use of it in 15:2 seem to indicate that πλησίον refers to the insiders. In the former case, it refers to Israel but is transferred to the Jesus followers and, in the latter case, it refers to the members of the believing community particularly to ‘the weak’ because Paul uses οἰκοδομήν which is edifying the believing community. Therefore, primarily πλησίον refers to the believing community.
Hence, while ἀλλήλους and πλησίον refer to the insiders, that is, the audiences of the letter namely: the believing Jews, the believing God-fearing Gentiles and believing Gentiles, τὸν ἕτερον embraces categorically different groups: both believing and unbelieving persons. The phrase τὸν ἕτερον underlines
96
differences within the same or different category while ἀλλήλους and πλησίον underscore similarities within a category despite diversity and differences in opinion or practices.