Use of 2Sam12:1-9 technique in Romans 1-2

[mikew]

So, if there were Jewish believers in Rome is there any reason Paul wouldn't want them to see the letter too? It would be totally applicable to any Jew who might be tempted to follow the ethnocentric Jewish view expressed in Rom 2:17-24, etc. In fact most of the letter would seem applicable to all believers, first for the Jew, then for the Gentile (or you can reverse the last phrase if you like).

I mentioned earlier that the Jews were apparently excluded from the majority fellowship. In light of Paul's purpose, the Jewish believers would be most interested in the effort to change the opinion of this gentile majority faction such that everyone could be reunited. There would also be general interest, among the Jewish believers, in seeing what Paul's perspective was. Most certainly Paul was not trying to hide the letter from the Jewish believes; The main thing, however, was to correct the severe problems among the gentiles. Paul was trying to address a whole list of root problems in Rome within Rom 1-8 before addressing the ultimate issue in Rom 9-11. This ultimate issue was the promotion of a benevolent attitude toward Jews and the promotion of the idea that Jews could still be saved.

I agree that Romans were not "addressed to Jews". It would be a mistake to think Paul meant it this way. I also agree that the typical Jewish member of the congregation did not think as the Jew referred to in 2:17; however church members, Jew or gentile, could be influenced by such a person.
In my view, one of Paul's major reasons for writing the letter was to present an interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures that stressed the universal, non ethnic, view of the People of God, now that the Messiah has come; very different from the ethnocentric view taught by the 2:17 Jew.
In general I suspect our views on Romans could be quite similar, despite the surface disagreement.

My working assumption is that the Jewish believers had a sufficiently good attitude toward gentiles. It seems that Jewish believers had accepted gentiles into Messianic Judaism since at least 36AD. Plus, the Jewish believers probably did not get reaccepted into the synagogues (after returning from the expulsion by Claudius) and as such would hope to have fellowship with the gentile believers. All the believers in Rome (as in other localities) were shunned by a portion of their respective communities.

My proposal isn't intended to address so much the agreement or disagreement with different views. I am just trying to provide an insight into the flow and context of the letter. Everything in the letter fits together really well in what I propose. The confusion of the role of Rom 3:1-8 disappears. The role of 5:12-21 should become obvious in my proposal -- this section has been a challenge to scholars over the years. (However, I'm not sure how well my solution will fit within conventional exegesis. It may be that conventional exegesis cannot lead to the proper solution for Rom 5:12ff and Rom 6.)

As you may be able to tell, I am trying to present a proposal to be considered alongside the views of major scholars, not something for mere personal interest. I think there will be many surprises but there is also much in scholarly discussions that is preserved. Certainly much work is involved to get the proposal developed to any reasonable (or formal level).

Thanks for the discussion. Romans certainly is an engaging book.

[Tychicus]

I mentioned earlier that the Jews were apparently excluded from the majority fellowship.

What would be the reason you think this?

My working assumption is that the Jewish believers had a sufficiently good attitude toward gentiles. It seems that Jewish believers had accepted gentiles into Messianic Judaism since at least 36AD.

Certainly some Jewish believers (e.g. Paul) welcomed gentiles in. But many didn't, as can be seen in Galatians.

Plus, the Jewish believers probably did not get reaccepted into the synagogues (after returning from the expulsion by Claudius) and as such would hope to have fellowship with the gentile believers. All the believers in Rome (as in other localities) were shunned by a portion of their respective communities.

Do you get this background from Das, or somewhere else?

Everything in the letter fits together really well in what I propose. The confusion of the role of Rom 3:1-8 disappears. The role of 5:12-21 should become obvious in my proposal

I understand that some views of Romans might have a problem with these passages, but is your view the only one that has no problems?

Thanks for the discussion. Romans certainly is an engaging book.

Yes, Romans is an engaging book. I am glad you wish to discuss it.

[mikew]

I mentioned earlier that the Jews were apparently excluded from the majority fellowship.

What would be the reason you think this?

I first saw this in the response of Paul shown in Rom 11:1-5. I haven't written out the whole argument. But in Rom 10 it seems that no Jews were being saved. Then in Rom11:1-5 Paul offers a rebuttal and says "Hey look I'm a believer." Then in Rom 16 there is further evidence by the requirement to 'greet those in the household of [x]' which best represents that the people listed were not audience to the letter.

My working assumption is that the Jewish believers had a sufficiently good attitude toward gentiles. It seems that Jewish believers had accepted gentiles into Messianic Judaism since at least 36AD.

Certainly some Jewish believers (e.g. Paul) welcomed gentiles in. But many didn't, as can be seen in Galatians.

The generally accepted idea (and only known possibility as far as I know) is that Christianity started in the synagogue. The expulsion of Jewish followers of Christ, due to apparent internal fighting among Jews in the synagogue was done by Claudius. Das presents this interpretation of the Claudius edict.
Weifel (in The Romans Debate 1991) basically provided a good model. Here it is as summarized by Elliott (Rhetoric Of Romans, 51.)

Wolfgang Wiefel's suggested reconstruction of this interim period carries conviction. After the
Claudian edict prohibiting assemblies in the synagogues, the Christians left in Rome, the majority
of whom probably were Gentiles, would have been able to assemble only in private homes, no
longer in the synagogue. It is reasonable to assume that careful observance of the Jewish Law
would quickly have become dispensable for these Christians; moreover, Wiefel argues that this
predominantly Gentile Christianity would have developed within an atmosphere of strong anti-
Jewish sentiment in the city. The subsequent return of Jewish Christians like Prisca and Aquila
and their efforts to reconstruct a communal life oriented around Torah observance undoubtedly
generated tensions.

This should answer your question in a roundabout way.
There are portions of this where my model differs. Yet most of his points are dead on.

Plus, the Jewish believers probably did not get reaccepted into the synagogues (after returning from the expulsion by Claudius) and as such would hope to have fellowship with the gentile believers. All the believers in Rome (as in other localities) were shunned by a portion of their respective communities.

Do you get this background from Das, or somewhere else?

The quote from Elliott should answer part of your question. A portion of ideas are enhanced by Das' observations. I basically have proposed the idea that Jews who returned to Rome would be isolated from both the synagogues and the majority gentile faction. Also, it is my impression that the gentiles addressed by Romans were isolated too. There is evidence in the letter that some government authorities were causing problems. The believers seemed to have resisted taxes, as presented in Rom 13.

Everything in the letter fits together really well in what I propose. The confusion of the role of Rom 3:1-8 disappears. The role of 5:12-21 should become obvious in my proposal

I understand that some views of Romans might have a problem with these passages, but is your view the only one that has no problems?

As far as I can tell, my theory is the only one that makes sense of every passage. However, I won't know if my proposal has blind spots until my whole proposal is presented intact. There are several unexpected interpretations of passages, but even these unexpected passages. So I will hope to see what the reactions are when these come up.

I certainly don't expect acceptance of my proposal to occur quickly. There are too many ideas that people will have to resolve in their own minds.