The various opinions as to the purpose of the letter have been: classified by almost all writers on Introduction under similar heads: it is only necessary to premise that such opinions do not in fact (whatever their authors may think) necessarily exclude one another.
1. The purpose of the letter, according to some, is dogmatic. It is a systematic and formal exposition of the Gospel according to: Paul. It is a doctrinal treatise, to which only accident gave the form of a letter; in other circumstances it might have been a book. This was the opinion which ruled at the time of the Reformation. Luther calls the epistle absolutissima epitome evangelit. Melanch- thon calls it doctrine Christiane compendium. No one can say that these descriptions are inept. Luther did find the Gospel in Romans, and found it in a power which made him the greatest conductor of spiritual force since Paul, which directly regenerated one half of Christendom, and indirectly did much to reform the other half. Melanchthon made the epistle the basis of his Loci. He was delighted to find a theology which did not philosophise about the mysteries of the Trinity, or the modes of incarnation, or active andi passive creation; but through sin and law and grace gave the know-
ledge of Christ and His benefits. The dogmatic conception of the epistle has held its ground even in modern times, and among writers who pride themselves in giving the historical its due. Thus Haus- rath describes it as “the essential content of what he otherwise preached by word of mouth”. Hilgenfeld calls it “a complete presentation of the Gospel which Paul preaches among the Gentiles ”. Pfleiderer, more dogmatically still, speaks of it as “απ objective de- velopment of the truth of the Gospel, drawn from the nature of the Gospel itself”. And certainly, whatever the writer’s motive may have been, the letter has a systematic character. There is no analogy in any other of his epistles to the connected train of thought which runs from i. 16 to viii. 39 or even to xi. 36. There is indeed a break between chaps. viii. and ix., but there is no unbridgeable gulf. Holtzmann gives, as specimens of the way in which they can be con- nected, the opinions of Mangold (in i.-viii. Paul justifies his doctrine of salvation, in ix.-xi. his action as-a missionary), of Holsten (in i.-viii. he justifies the content, in ix.-xi. the result, of his preaching), and of Pfleiderer (in i.-viii. there is the dogmatic, in ix.-xi. the historical aspect of his gospel). This last agrees pretty much with Godet, who makes the subject of the whole eleven chapters salvation by faith, chaps. i.-viii. treating this in relation to the individual, and chaps, ix.-xl. in relation to its development in history. The systematic character of this part, therefore, is beyond doubt. Those who in- sist upon it are not of course blind to the parts of the epistle (claps. xiv. and xv.) in which incidental matters affecting the Church at Rome are touched upon; but it is not in these, they would say, but in the formal presentation of the truth in chaps. i.-xi. that the purpose of the letter is revealed. Granting this, however, the question arises whether the systematic character of the epistle is. equivalent to a dogmatic character. In other words, is Paul simply expounding, in a neutral, unprejudiced, objective fashion, the whole scope and contents of his gospel, or is he expounding it in relation to something present to his mind, and to the mind of his readers, which gives the exposition a peculiar character ?
2. The latter alternative is affirmed by those who hold that the purpose of the epistle is controversial. It is an exposition of Paul’s gospel indeed, but not a purely dogmatic one, which in an epistle would be gratuitous and out of place. The exposition is throughout conducted with reference to an attack such as. would be made on Pauline Christianity from the point of view of Judaism, or even of Jewish Christianity. It is not so much an exposition as a defence and a vindication. Practically this idea governs many interpretations. e.g., that of Lipsius. That there is.