416 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
KOMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
Finally, so far aa the future is concerned, God's casting' oti'of His people is only temporary ; it is a stage in the conversion of the Gentile world, and in tlie end both Jew and Gentile will be united in Christ. This again rests on the unfathomable ]mrpose of God. The chs. are anionx the most dillicult of the Pauline Epistles (2 P 3'"). In 9'»"- St. Paul states the Divine sovereignty in a way that seems to leave little room for free-will. The dilliculty ia ea.*ed, but not removed, by the re- minder that he is dealing with nations and not with individuals. The only real answer is that in ch. 10, as elsewhere in his Epistles, especially in his ethical teaching, he in.si.sts no less strongly on human responsibility and the power of choice. He is dealing with one of the ultimate problems of thought, and for the moment, after his manner, isolates a single element. It is a mistake to look in his teaching for any detailed theory on the problems of metaphysics ; nor does he ever answer the question as to l\\e final fate of the heathen or of ' vessels prepared for destruction.' It must be admitted, however, that the principle of the appeal to the absolute rights and unchallengeable will of God as Creator has its dangers. It cannot hold good as against those questionings which come from man's moral sense of justice, since, if all that is best in our human instincts of truth and good- ness does not rest in the end on corresponding elements in the Divine nature, we have no means of knowing God at all and no criterion of right and wrong.
It may be added that considerable light is thrown on St. Paul's argument here and through- out the Epistle by a study of contemporary Jewish literature and especially of 4 Ezra. There is no question of anj' direct connexion, but we see in such a book how the problems with which St. Paul deals were the problems which occupied the minds of other thoughtful Jews, particularly after the fall of Jerusalem. We find the same questions as to the choice and apparent rejection of Israel, the power of sin and its relation to the Law (4 Ezr. lii., iv., V. 23 if'.). There is the same emphasis on Adam's sin and its etl'ects on his descendants (iii. 7, vii. 11), and the same contrast between the choice of Jacob and the rejection of Esau (iii. 16). Stress is laid on man's universal sinfulness (vii. 46) and the general absence of 'good works' (viii. 31), while in ix. 7 works and faith are coupled as alter- native means of salvation. The solution of the problem is based both on the inscrutability of God's ways and on trust in ' the goal of the love that I have declared unto my people' (v. 40, viii. 47 fi. ), a two-fold doctrine found in similar contexts in St. Paul ; cf. Ro 9"f- 11™^- S^^if-. The greatest con- trast with St. Paul's teaching — assuming, of course, the absence of the Christian solution — is to be found in the narrow nationalism of the writer. The world has been created for Israel's sake ; the nations are but sjiittle and a drop on a bucket (vi. 5Sff.); the writer can even rejoice over the fewness of the saved (vii. 60 S.), and the supremacy of the Law remains unchallenged (iii. 19 ff., ix. 31 11.) ; it ' perishes not but abides in its glory,' in spite of the fact that it is unable to save the sinner who transgresses it ; his fate can only be acquiesced in as deserved.
A further question, which can only be raised here, is how far, side by side with such Jewish influences, we may trace the influence, possibly unconscious, of Greek and Oriental pagan thought. Christianity, when it pas.sed from Jerusalem to Antioch, and then into the Graeco-Roraan world, found itself in an atmosphere seething with a variety of religious ideas ; particularly important are those connected with Astral Stoicism and the mystery- religions. Many of its converts must have come
from such systems. They found in the new religion the redemption, the new birth, the union with the Godhead, and the lioi)e of immortality they had sought elsewhere in vain. We should expect a priori that the language and mode of thought to which they had been accustomed would leave some mark on Christianity.* With regard to Romans, the question arises specially in relation to ch. 6 (see, e.g., Lietzmann, ad Inc.; Reitzenstein, Die hellenlslischen My.^terienreli(jionen, Leipzig, 1910, p. 100 ll'.), but it can be answered only when con- sidered in its bearings on the whole development of Pauline theology and early Christian thought. It is still sub judice, and hasty answers are to be de- precated, but the student should bear it in mind as one of the factors which may have to be taken very seriously into account.
9. Literary relationships. — (a) Other Pauline Epistles. — Romans stands in the same group as Gal. and 1 and 2 Cor., the four being known as the Haupthriefe, or central letters of the Pauline corpus.\ It is connected with them in style, language, and thought, and with 1 and 2 Cor. in date also, being written shortly after them. Many would add that it is also related in date to Gal., though the present writer believes that the latter is in fact the earliest extant Pauline Epistle, having been written before the Council of Ac 15. A discussion of the question would be out of place here ; the only point with which we are concerned is that Romans is certainly later than Galatians.:J: The two deal with the same subject— the relation of the gospel to the Law, and the position of the Gentile Christian in the Church. The parallel is worked out in detail by Lightfoot [Galatians*, London, 1876, p. 45 fl'. ) ; cf. especially Gal 3«-'» and Ro4^'"' ; in fact, most of Gal 3 may be paralleled in Romans. Lightfoot on the strength of this puts the writing of Gal. a few months before that of Romans. This conclusion, however, is notnecessary, since it is quite possible for a writer to repeat him- self very closely on tlie same subject after the lapse of several years, if his views were fairly formed at the earlier date. The important point is the difference between the two Epistles, which Light- foot himself fully admits : ' The Epistle to the Galatians stands in relation to the Roman letter as the rough model to the finished statue ; or rather, if I may press the metaphor without mis- apprehension, it is the first study of a single figure, which is worked into a group in the latter w riting ' (ib. p. 49). And this difference is generally ad- mitted. Gal. is definitely controversial, written red-hot to convince \yaverers and recover back- sliders in the midst of a pressing crisis. Romans is not indeed an academic treatise, but it is the calm and studied statement of a position reached during years of debate. It is worth noting that some of the .arguments of Gal. which are most after the Rabbinical manner and are least convincing are in fact dropped in Romans, e.g. the allegory of Hagar, and the argument derived from the singular of ' seed ' (Gal 3'"). In Ro 4"'^-