Judgment and Life for the Lord: Occasion and Theology of Romans 14,1–15,13 Scholars frequently cite the uniqueness of Romans as foundational for any interpretation of the letter as a whole. Hence the customary observation that Paul is writing to a congregation that he himself had not founded (1). The most striking feature of Romans, however, is its challenge to the methodological principle that all of Paul’s undisputed letters are occasional pieces, addressing discrete concerns within specific communities (2). I shall address this issue of the ambiguous occasional character of Romans throughout the development of this article. While agreeing with the above principle as advocated by scholars such as K. Donfried, I think that its application requires a widening of scope (3). In accord with scholarly consensus, I do think that Romans addresses a real situation (4). The situation, however, is nuanced in the sense that it reflects Paul’s own historical circum- stances as much as the historical circumstances of the community at Rome (5). Reconstructions of this passage as addressing either a discrete conflict within the Roman community or as totally general and removed from the social reality of the Roman Christians equally result (1) While passages from the Roman historians Tacitus (Annals 15.44) and Suetonius (Claudius 25.4) speak to a Christian presence in the city, the question of precisely when and how Christianity came to Rome is unknown. See R. BRÄNDLE – E.W. STEGEMANN, “The Formation of the First ‘Christian Congrega- tions’ in Rome in the Context of the Jewish Congregations”, Judaism and Christianity in First Century Rome (ed. K.P. DONFRIED – P. RICHARDSON) (Grand Rapids 1998) 117-127, here 127; see also F.F. BRUCE, “The Romans Debate- Continued”, The Romans Debate. Revised and Expanded Edition (ed. K.P. DONFRIED) (Peabody, MA 1991) 175-194, here 178. (2) See K.P. DONFRIED, “False Presumptions in the Study to the Romans”, The Romans Debate, 102-125, here 103. (3) DONFRIED, The Romans Debate, lxx. (4) Ibid., lxix. (5) See W. LANE, “Social Perspectives on Roman Christianity”, Judaism and Christianity, 197-198. Donfried provides a good summary of the major scholars who propose what he calls “the non-historical” view inclusive of Bornkamm, Fuchs, Jervell, Jewett, and Karris; see DONFRIED, “False Presumptions”, The Romans Debate, 103.