The traditional view that the purpose of Romans was to provide a theological manifesto or treatise has come under fire. Stanley Porter points beyond the traditional view toward seven other possible purposes for the book of Romans: (1) to convey his deepest conviction, (2) to document his last will and testament, (3) to argue for an apology to Jerusalem, (4) to send a letter of introduction, (5) to provide an apostolic grounding, (6) to address Jewish and Gentile relations, and (7) to produce a piece of anti-imperial rhetoric.^[1] In the end, Porter concludes that no significant risk exists in recognizing multiple purposes for Paul’s letter.^[2] However, certain views are more persuasive than others.

In general, the theory that I find most persuasive aligns with a nuanced view of the traditional perspective, but the occasional nature of the letter cannot be ignored. However, certain suggestions, such as conveying Paul’s deepest convictions and documenting a last will and testament, seem to defy both the traditional view and the specific occasion since Paul had never visited Rome and likely did not have a strong enough relationship to support such perspectives.^[3] However, other suggestions seem to adhere nicely to the traditional view while simultaneously taking the specific occasion and audience into consideration. For example, a letter of introduction would seem reasonable to a group of believers that he had never met but to limit Paul’s purpose to a self-introduction seems unnecessarily restrictive. Furthermore, the view that the book of Romans addresses potential divergences between the Jewish and Gentile communities is definitively supported by the book’s content, especially in light of Romans 14-15.^[4]

The Letter to the Romans: New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT)

However, the overall content of Romans seems to move beyond any specific issue in Rome. Accordingly, although it is reasonable that a multi-faceted view of the purpose of Romans exists, to suggest that all proposed views are equal goes too far.

A more coherent and comprehensive view of purpose may occur under the umbrella of mission. As Douglas Moo explains: “We moderns must beware the tendency to overhistoricize: to focus so much on specific local and personal situations that we miss the larger theological and philosophical concerns of the biblical authors.”^[5] Moo’s observation potentially explains why N. T. Wright’s emphasis that the book of Romans purports anti-imperial rhetoric may miss the mark.^[6] The risk of overhistoricizing does not negate the possibility that Wright’s view adds to the conversation, but it does not adequately address the larger concerns of Paul.

Several of the purposes do feed into Paul’s overall initiative and purpose of mission such as a letter of introduction, Jewish and Gentile unity, an apostolic grounding, a manifesto of deep convictions, and even anti-imperial rhetoric. Although Paul addresses certain immediate concerns of the community, Paul’s purpose moves beyond the local community to an initiative of communicating the gospel message to the ends of the earth. Accordingly, in line with Moo, “the various purposes share a common denominator: Paul’s missionary situation.”^[7] Thus, the key reason for Paul writing the letter to the Romans was missional.

__________________________

[1] Stanley E. Porter, The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2016), 302–12.

[2] Ibid., 312.

[3] Ibid., 305–6.

[4] Ibid., 310.

[5] Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed., New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 20.

[6] See Porter, The Apostle Paul, 311–12.

[7] Moo, The Letter to the Romans, 19.

Bibliography

• Moo, Douglas J. The Letter to the Romans. 2nd ed. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018.
• Porter, Stanley E. The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2016.