Romans, Epistle to the
Romans Epistle To The
1. Date and destination.-The Epistle is usually supposed to have been written to Rome (Rom 1:7; Rom 1:15) during the visit of Act 20:2 f., i.e. towards the close of the third missionary journey. The year will depend upon the general scheme of chronology adopted for St. Pauls life; c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 58 is the usual date. The grounds on which this view is based are:
(1) The reference to the collection for the saints (Rom 15:23 ff.). This is prominent in 1 and 2 Cor. (1Co 16:1, 2Co 8:3), which belong to the same period of St. Pauls life, and is mentioned incidentally in Act 24:17 as forming part of the purpose of the final visit to Jerusalem. According to Romans 15 the collection is nearing completion, and St. Paul is about to start for Jerusalem; this points precisely to the circumstances of Acts 20.
(2) Act 19:21 shows that the Apostle had in mind at this time a visit to Rome, which again corresponds exactly to the indications afforded by Rom 15:23 ff; cf. Rom 1:10.
(3) Timothy and Sosipater (Rom 16:21) were with St. Paul at this period (Act 20:4). The fact that the other travelling companions of Acts 20 do not happen to be mentioned creates no difficulty; they may have had no connexion with Rome, or they may not yet have joined St. Paul.
(4) Phoebe, a deaconess of Cenchreae, the port of Corinth, is prominently mentioned (Rom 16:1); possibly she is the bearer of the Epistle.
(5) Gains is the Apostles host (Rom 16:23), and we hear also of a Gaius at Corinth, evidently in close personal relation to St. Paul, since he was one of the few baptized by him (1Co 1:14).
(6) We hear of Erastus, chamberlain of the city (Rom 16:23); in 2Ti 4:20 we read that an Erastus was left at Corinth, which may thus have been his home.
Some of these indications are slight; (3) cannot be pressed, and the force of the references to Gaius and Erastus is weakened by the frequency of the names. But the first two cross-correspondences are very strong, and the data fit in so exactly with what we knew of St. Pauls movements at this period that the commonly accepted placing of the Epistle might be regarded as indisputable, if it were not that it rests upon an assumption which may be questioned, as taking for granted its integrity. The indications come from the last two chapters; did these form part of the original Epistle? In particular, even if ch. 15 is accepted, can we safely use ch. 16?
2. Integrity.-There are here two distinct, though possibly related, problems to be considered: (a) the original destination of ch. 16, (b) the existence of a short recension of the Epistle.
(a) Was ch. 16 originally addressed to Rome?-We are at once struck by the fact that though St. Paul has never visited Rome, and in the body of the Epistle betrays no detailed acquaintance with local conditions, yet according to Rom 16:3-16 he seems to have a large number of friends there. Indeed the list of persons greeted is longer than in any other Epistle, and personal details are mentioned freely in a way which suggests a considerable knowledge of the work of the church. It is therefore widely held that Rom 16:1-23 (the concluding doxology offers a separate problem which will be considered under (b)) would be more in place if addressed to some church where St. Paul had made a long stay. Ephesus best satisfies the conditions at this period, and indeed two features point to it directly.
(1) In. Rom 16:5 b we find a greeting to Epaenetus, who is called the firstfruits of Asia. [Note: AV firstfruits of Achaia rests on poor MSS evidence, and is contradicted by 1Co 16:15, where Stephanas is so described.] Of course he may have moved to Rome, and St. Paul may be commending him to his new home, but the words are more naturally explained as addressed to the church of which Epaenetus is the oldest member; and in Asia St. Paul first preached at Ephesus.
(2) Of greater significance is the reference to Prisca and Aquila (Salute Prisca and Aquila and the church in their house, Rom 16:3 f.). We learn from Acts that they had come from Rome to Corinth, where they had met St. Paul; thence they accompanied him to Ephesus (Acts 18) and remained there. In 1Co 16:19, written from that city shortly before the date usually assigned to Romans, they are there still, and St. Paul sends a greeting from them and from the church in their house; similarly in 2Ti 4:19 he sends greetings to them, again at Ephesus. Hence Ephesus evidently became their home. It is of course possible that at the time when Romans was written they might have returned temporarily to Rome to settle their business affairs; their expulsion perhaps left them but little time to put them in order; but the strange thing is that when they were in Rome only for a short visit their house should there, as well as at Ephesus, be the meeting-place of the local church.
These facts, then, suggest that the verses are really a fragment of a letter addressed to Ephesus. It may be added that the sudden outburst in 2Ti 4:17 ff. is certainly surprising if meant for Rome; it is severe and emphatic in tone, and suggests that St. Paul is speaking of an existing danger, not of something which may happen, and yet the body of the Epistle gives no hint of the presence there of false teachers of this type (see 4).
On the other side the attempt is made to rebut these arguments by considerations derived from inscriptions and from archaeological evidence. [Note: See the discussions in Lightfoot, Philippians 4, London, 1878 (detached note on Caesars Household, p. 171 ff.), Sunday-Headlam, ICC, Romans5, pp. xciv ff., 418 ff., with criticisms in K. Lake, Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, London, 1911, p. 330 ff.] It is pointed out that most of the names in this chapter can be paralleled from inscriptions found in Rome; it is not suggested that these refer to the actual people mentioned by St. Paul, but that such a combination of names-Greek, Jewish, and Latin-could as a matter of fact be found only in the mixed population which formed the lower and middle clasps of Rome (Sanday-Headlam, p. xciv). We have, however, to allow for the fact that the corpus of Roman inscriptions has been greater than those of other places. As inscriptions, e.g. from Asia Minor, are studied and catalogued, more and more of the names of this chapter are found in them too, so that the argument is somewhat precarious. [Note: To describe the personal names in Romans 16 as specifically Roman on the strength of inscriptions found in the city of Rome is about as safe as to describe Wilhelm, Friedrich, Luise as specifically Berlin names because they are found on Berlin tombstones. The names referred to are found swarming in inscriptions, papyri, and ostraca all over the Mediterranean world (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, Eng. tr., London, 1911, p. 278, n. 1). Similarly G. Milligan, The New Testament Documents, do., 1913, p. 183, n. 1.] Again, much stress cannot be laid on the attempts to trace on antiquarian grounds evidence of an early connexion of Prisca and Aquila with Rome. It is possible that the households of Aristobulus and Narcissus (Rom 16:10-11) may refer to the slaves of the Imperial household inherited from Aristobulus, the grandson of Herod the Great, and to those of the Narcissus who was executed by Agrippina, but again the names are common, and, as Lake points out, we should expect instead of , words ending in -ani being usually transliterated. The most that can be said is that while these expressions suit Rome, they do not positively demand it.
Our conclusion may be that, though it is not impossible that this section may be an integral part of the Epistle, it is more probable that it was addressed to a church St. Paul had visited, and that the indications point to Ephesus. No doubt this conclusion would be more readily accepted if it were possible to give a reasonable explanation of the way in which the chapter came to be attached to this particular Epistle; a suggestion will be made when we come to deal with the next problem. Meanwhile it need only be added that those who regard the verses as misplaced often see in them a letter, [Note: According to Delssmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 226), there is no lack of analogies for a letter of recommendation plunging at once in medias res and beginning with I commend. He suggests that the short letter to Ephesus followed that to Romans in the letter-book (a book containing copies or letters sent or received) of Tertlus, St. Pauls amanuensis.] or part of a letter, commending Phoebe (see Rom 16:1). to Ephesus (Renan, etc.). Gifford [Note: For this and other theories see Moffatt, LNT, p. 138.] and others suggest that it may have been written to Rome after St. Pauls first imprisonment there; this would explain the large circle of acquaintances (but not the references to Aquila and Prisca, or Epaenetus), and it might easily become attached to the earlier letter. It should be clearly understood that very few critics question the Pauline authorship of the chapter; the doubt is whether it is in its right place.
(b) The short recension.-This problem is not a little complicated, and its study requires some knowledge of the principles of NT criticism. It will be best to state the facts before proceeding to discuss the solutions which have been offered.
(1) Evidence that a recension of the Epistle existed which omitted chs. 15, 16.-It should be understood that no extantmanuscript omits these chs.; the evidence is indirect. () In the breves or chapter-headings [Note: It must be remembered that the chapters or sections referred to are not our present chapters.] of the Codex Amiatinus of the Vulgate (a system found in many other Manuscripts ) the 50th chapter clearly describes Rom 14:15-23, and the 51st, and last, the doxology (Rom 16:25-27), the remainder of 15 and 16 being omitted. In the same way the breves of Codex Fuldensis point to a similar text, without the doxology, while the concordance, or harmony, of the Pauline Epistles found in the Codex Morbacensis unmistakably implies the use of the Amiatine breves based on the short recension.
() Neither Cyprian, Tertullian, nor Irenaeus quotes from the last two chs.; [Note: According to Moffatt (p. 140), Clement of Alexandria and Origen are the only Ante-Nicene Fathers who do so.] the argument from silence, often so dangerous, is here significant. (i.) We should expect Cyprian in his Testimonia to use Rom 16:17 under the headings which refer to the duty of avoiding heretics; (ii.) Tertullian (adv. Marc. Rom 16:14) quotes Rom 14:10 as occurring in clausula, i.e. in the closing section, of the Epistle, while he does not use against Marcion any of the obvious passages from 15-16, or accuse him of having cut them out of the Epistle.
() Origen does in fact say that Marcion removed (abstulit) the final doxology and cut away (dissecuit) [Note: On the whole, it is not probable that this means merely separated off or cut about. Hort tries to explain away Origens evidence, but he has not been generally followed; see Sanday-Headlam, p. xc; Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, London, 1893, p. 287 ff. (including a paper by Hort).] the last two chapters. This agrees with the evidence from Tertullian just quoted, though, as we have said, he does not accuse Marcion of tampering with the text; their copies apparently agreed.
() In the group of Manuscripts DEFG, which seem to come from a common ancestor, it is argued that the text of the last two chs. is so different from that of the rest of the Epistle that somewhere in the line of transmission there must have come amanuscript containing only 1-14, which was supplemented from some other source for chs. 15-16. It is probable that this archetype also omitted the doxology. [Note: Lake, Earlier Epistles, p. 341; Sanday-Headlam, p. xcviii.]
(2) The position of the final doxology.-It should be carefully noted that there is no break in thought between chs. 14 and 15 (our present chapter divisions are late and do not always correspond to breaks in the sense), and the chs. as they stand offer a reasonably connected sequence of thought, except for the fact that there seem to be several distinct endings- Rom 15:33, Rom 16:20; Rom 16:25-27. But when we come to examine the textual phenomena the case is even more complicated. In some Manuscripts and Fathers (Chrysostom, Theodoret, etc.), representing the Antiochene text, the last three verses, which it will be convenient to refer to as the doxology, are found at the close of ch. 14; Origen also knew of codices in which this was the case. A few authorities, including A, have it both there and at the end. FGg and a few other authorities omit the doxology altogether, as we know was the case with Marcion. The variation in the position of the Grace (Rom 16:20), which is inserted in some Manuscripts after Rom 16:23 and in Textus Receptus by a natural conflation in both places, is additional evidence of the existence of copies which did not end with the doxology.
It will be understood that the evidence for the doxology after Rom 14:23 is also evidence for the existence of a short recension, since the doxology cannot have stood originally between Rom 14:23 and Rom 15:1 making a complete break in the sense. Its position there can only imply that the Epistle ended, or was supposed to end, at that point.
(3) Omission of the address to Rome.-There is evidence that the text used by Origen and Ambrosiaster omitted (in Rome) in Rom 1:7; Rom 1:15, and rend (in love), which is actually the reading of G. [Note: For details see Lake, op. cit., p. 346, who, supplements Sunday-Headlam, ad loc., by calling attention to the fact, discovered only in 1897, that the scholiast of cod. 47 was really using Origen. Lightfoot (Biblical Essays, p. 287) points out that Ruflnus Latin text of Origen also implies the omission.] It should be remarked that these authorities coincide with part of the evidence for the short recension, a point which may or may not be significant.
We have, then, these three textual phenomena-the existence of a short recension of the Epistle; the displacement, or omission, of the doxology; and the omission of the words in Rome-together with the doubt attaching to the original destination of Rom 16:23, though it is not yet clear how far they are all connected. The primary problem is to explain the short recension and the displacement of the doxology, which do undoubtedly stand in close relation to one another. Any solution must account for the fact, to which attention has already been called, of the close connexion of thought between Rom 14:23 and Rom 15:1. How then did the Epistle come to be truncated at this point, and the doxology to be inserted there? This consideration seems fatal to views such as those which regard chs. 15-16 as altogether unauthentic (Baur), or as belonging to a different recension of the Epistle made by St. Paul himself (Renan, Lightfoot, Lake). It is very difficult to believe that it ever ended with Rom 14:23, with or without the doxology.
The most popular explanation, therefore, is that adopted tentatively by Sanday-Headlam, following Gifford. They suppose the short recension, with the consequent confusion of text, to be due to Marcion. They point out truly enough that the opening verses of ch. 15 contradict his teaching entirely, and that he could not possibly have admitted them. He therefore cut them out, as Origen apparently says, and it is supposed that this influenced later orthodox practice. When in adapting the text for the purposes of church use it was thought advisable to omit the last portions as too personal and not sufficiently edifying, it was natural to make the division at a place where in a current edition the break had already been made. [Note: Sanday-Headlam, p. xcvii.] The doxology was afterwards replaced at the end of ch. 14, while Marcion is also supposed to be responsible for the omission of the words in Rome, which he struck out as an unimportant local allusion.
The theory has, however, been criticized by Lake. [Note: Earlier Epistles, p. 350 ff.] It implies that Marcion had a greater influence than is altogether probable on the formation of the canon of the Pauline Epistles and on the text of the NT; von Sodens estimate of the extent of this influence has not been generally accepted. Further, Tertullian seems to have used the short recension, and his corpus was independent of Marcions; this fact and the widespread nature of the evidence for the omission of the last two chs. suggest that catholic collections of the Epistles, containing only the short recension, existed before Marcion. The charge that he cut the chs. out may only mean that they did not in fact stand in the copies he used.
As to his supposed responsibility for the omission of the reference to Rome, Lake points out that it is clear from the recently discovered Marcionite prologues that he did in fact describe the Epistle as to the Romans in the usual way.
To these criticisms we may add others which are no less damaging. What evidence is there of any serious manipulation of the Epistles in order to fit them for ecclesiastical use? There is, e.g., no trace of the omission of 1 Corinthians 16, which is equally local and personal. And if this was done in the case of Romans, how came the doxology to be re-inserted? It cam have come only from amanuscript which had the complete ending, and in that case surely Rom 15:1-13, which is in every way suited for public reading, would have been restored at the same time.
Lake himself has a fresh theory. He suggests that the original Epistle consisted of chs. 1-14, with or without the doxology, and without the mention of Rome; this was sent as a circular letter, dealing with the Judaistic propaganda, to churches St. Paul had never visited, and belongs to the same period as Galatians. The latter Lake regards as the earliest of the Pauline Epistles, written before the Council of Acts 15. Later on St. Paul sent a copy of the letter to Rome, adding ch. 15, and ch. 16, if it really belongs to the Epistle. It is obvious to compare the relation of Ephesians, also regarded as a circular letter, to Colossians, written at the same time and closely resembling it. The theory has the advantage of accounting for the partial identity of the witnesses for the omission of the last two chs. and of the reference to Rome, and it is also attractive to those who, like the present writer, agree that Galatians is the earliest Pauline Epistle, since it accounts for the similarity of style and language between it and Romans, but it still seems to fail at the crucial point. It does not explain the break after Rom 14:23, since it is very difficult to believe that the Epistle ever ended there, whether with or without the doxology, which Lake indeed is inclined to regard as unauthentic. The close is too abrupt, and Rom 15:1-13 does not read as an afterthought. Further, ch. 1, even without the reference to Rome, gives the impression of being addressed to a particular church; it is more definite in tone than Ephesians.
The present writer is inclined to suggest a fresh theory, based on a hint given by Lake himself. He calls attention to the fact that in the Muratorian Canon Romans stood last of the Epistles to the Churches, and that it was also last in Tertullians, Cyprians, and Origens collections. We may remark that, being the longest and most important of the Epistles, it might equally well stand first, as in our own canon, or last, as in these, there being no attempt at chronological order in either. There is also good ground for regarding the doxology as not genuine. Its length and its position at the close of the Epistle are without parallel in the letters of St. Paul, and the language is to some extent un-Pauline (see Moffatt, p. 135). No doubt this would not be sufficient to justify our rejecting it if there were no other grounds for suspicion. But the fact of a passage being found in different places in our Manuscripts always suggests the possibility that it is a later addition (cf. the Pericope in Joh 7:53 ff.), so the internal and the external lines of evidence here confirm one another. As Lake points out, it is a habit of scribes to add doxologies at the close of books or collections of books (cf. the doxology at the end of each book of the Pss.); this doxology may therefore have been inserted to mark the close of the Pauline corpus. We may, however, go further, and find here the key to the whole problem. (1) The Epistle may have originally ended with Rom 15:33; the short prayer is quite in keeping with St. Pauls practice. (2) The last page of themanuscript or roll was lost, leaving only chs. 1-14 (cf. the lost ending of Mk.). (3) To this, standing at the end of a collection of Pauline letters, the doxology was added. (4) The lost conclusion was then, copied in from some other source, and ch. 16, a genuine fragment, of the Pauline correspondence, was also added as a sort of postscript to the corpus. (5) It was realized that the doxology was out of place, and it was transferred to the end, whether regarded by now as an integral part of the Epistle or not. If the process seems complicated, it will be seen that each step, with the exception of (1) and the first part of (4), is in fact represented by some part of our evidence; the variations are themselves so many that any theory which is to account for them must be somewhat complex. It may be added that the theory can in fact be presented in a simpler form if we regard ch. 16 as an integral part of the Epistle. We need only suppose, then, that the last two chs. were lost, the doxology added after ch. 14, and then transferred to the end of ch. 16 when the missing chs. had been replaced.
It is true that this hypothesis offers no explanation of the omission of the words in Rome. But, as we have seen, the attempts of Sanday-Headlam and Lake to bring them into connexion with the short recension are not very successful; it only remains, therefore, to regard this as a primitive textual error, or perhaps as a deliberate omission made in order to catholicize the Epistle.
Since the discussion of these textual phenomena has been of necessity somewhat long, it may be well to point out their bearing on the general view of the date and destination of the Epistle. Roughly speaking, they leave it unchanged on any theory which regards ch. 15 as genuine, whether belonging to a first or to a second edition. Rome remains as the destination, and the closing period of the third missionary journey as the date. The rejection of ch. 16 only removes the reference to Corinth as the place of writing. It must, however, be remembered that if Lakes view that the Epistle was not originally intended for Rome be accepted, the reference of the details of the Epistle to the circumstances of the Roman Church will fall to the ground.
3. Authenticity.-The Pauline authorship of the Epistle is practically undisputed, except by the Dutch School. But since their views have found no foothold even among the most advanced critics, it does not seem necessary to discuss them here. The curious English reader may find them stated by W. C. von Manen in Encyclopaedia Biblica , s.v. Romans (Epistle), with a refutation in the same Encyclopaedia by P. W. Schmiedel, s.v. Galatians; see also R. J. Knowling, Witness of the Epistles, London, 1892, p. 133 ff., Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, do., 1905, p. 34 ff., and Lake, Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, p. 421 ff. The external evidence for Romans is in fact peculiarly strong. It begins with 1 Peter, and perhaps with Hebrews and James (see 9), and clear traces, though without definite quotation, are found in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr (see full quotations and references in Sanday-Headlam, p. lxxix ff.; Moffatt, p. 148). Marcion (circa, about a.d. 140) is the first to mention the Epistle by name; from the time of Irenaeus onwards we have numerous direct quotations. In the Muratorian Canon it stands the last of the seven Epistles to the Churches.
4. Purpose of the Epistle.-It seems obvious at first sight to look for the object of the Epistle in circumstances connected with the Roman Church. Most of St. Pauls letters are in fact pieces doccasion, called forth by special difficulties or dangers arising in churches in which he is interested; the Epistles to Galatia and Corinth are the outstanding examples. Accordingly, attempts have been made (Baur, etc.) to reconstruct from hints afforded by the Epistle the conditions of the Christian community in Rome, and the relations existing between its Jewish and Gentile elements; the strong and the weak of chs. 14, 15 are identified with parties supposed to have arisen there; and from these features so discovered the main purpose of the Epistle is deduced. It will not be denied that this method is justifiable in certain cases, but it is questionable whether it gives us the right point of view from which to approach this particular Epistle. For Romans is distinguished from the other Epistles just named by two important features. (a) It is addressed to a church which St. Paul has not founded, or even visited. He must therefore have been dependent upon reports received from others for any knowledge of its difficulties or of the various influences at work. No doubt such reports were available (? Prisca), but (b) the Epistle itself does not suggest that it was written in view of them. There is no hint in it [Note: Except Rom 16:17, on which see 2 (a).] that St. Pauls purpose is to counteract errors or divisions which he has reason to believe have actually arisen. Indeed, he seems to safeguard himself from being supposed to do so (Rom 15:14), and suggests that his object is the imparting of a spiritual gift (Rom 1:11, Rom 15:15). He does not insist on his authority as an apostle except in the opening section. What he does insist on is his desire and frustrated attempts to visit Rome (Rom 1:13, Rom 15:22 ff.). It would appear, therefore, that the letter is intended partly to take the place of this visit, and partly to prepare the way for it, if it should be possible in the future. Remembering the circumstances under which it was written, we can hardly doubt that the writer was acutely conscious that the visit might in fact never take place. Already we have hints of the premonitions as to the result of the journey to Jerusalem (Rom 15:31), which soon became still more defined (Act 20:22; Act 21:10 ff.). St. Paul realized the outstanding importance of Rome and a church there both at the moment and still inure for the future. He may well have felt that in case he should never be able to go there himself he would wish that church to have some permanent record of his teaching. The Epistle is not a formal compendium of Paulinism, but it is the longest and most carefully thought out statement of his views on certain points, and we may conjecture that, though addressed to Rome, St. Paul had in mind the possibility of its penetrating to other churches. [Note: Note, however, that it is not a circular letter (see 2 (b)); the references to Rome in both ch. 1 and ch. 15 are quite definite so far as they go.] In other words, the letter does not arise primarily from a desire to meet a particular situation in the Roman Church; it arises from the wish to put it and others in possession of his views in some more or less permanent form. Apart from the few personal references, it might have been equally well written to any church, and we can draw few conclusions from it as to the circumstances of the Roman Church in particular. The Epistle, however, remains of the greatest value as affording material for the reconstruction of the thought and conditions of Apostolic Christianity. It tells us the kind of questions St. Paul found men asking generally, the difficulties they felt, and the forms of error to which they were exposed. For the particular examples he had in mind we should probably look to the churches he knew, or even to the church in which he happened to be writing, rather than to Rome.
In the light of these considerations we may examine two questions which have bulked large in discussions of the Epistle.
(a) Was St. Paul writing to Jews or to Gentiles?-Certain passages imply clearly that he has Gentiles in mind; e.g. Rom 1:5 f., Among all the nations [i.e. Gentiles, ] among whom are ye also; Rom 1:13, That I might have some fruit in you also, even as in the rest of the Gentiles; Rom 11:13, I speak to you that are Gentiles. But the curious thing is that there are other sections in which the writer seems to associate his readers no less decisively with himself as fellow Jews-4:1, Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh; Rom 7:6, We have been discharged from the law; Rom 9:10, Our father Isaac. Further, the general argument of the Epistle presupposes acquaintance with Jewish Scriptures and ways of thought, and is addressed to Jewish as much as to Gentile Christians. In Galatians, on the contrary, St. Paul addresses his readers as those who have not been under the Law, though in 1Co 10:1, written to a Gentile church, he speaks of our fathers. The obvious conclusion is that in Romans he has both Jews and Gentiles in mind, and the combination is made easier when we remember that many of the latter approached Christianity by way of the Synagogue, while some would even have been proselytes. A. Robertson, (Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iv. 298b) suggests that these predominated and gave the tone to the community, sc. of the Christian Church in Rome. If, however, what has been said above holds good, we shall be cautious about drawing from the Epistle conclusions as to the composition of the Roman Church. Baur, followed by Mangold and others, argues that it was predominantly Jewish and a stronghold of Judaistic Christianity. In this, however, he has not been generally followed, and a priori considerations confirm what we gather from our sources as to the origin of the Roman Church, leading us to suppose that it contained both elements. The Epistle implies that the relation between Jew and Gentile Christians would be likely to arise in that church, but it does not suggest that it was a burning question, as in Galatia, or that Judaistic teaching had already obtained a strong footing there.
(b) What teaching is St. Paul combating in chs. 14, 15?-In other words, who are the weak and the strong? In these chs. St. Paul discusses questions as to food and the observance of days. One man hath faith to eat all things: but he that is weak eateth herbs (Rom 14:2); One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike (Rom 14:5); It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth (Rom 14:21); We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak (Rom 15:1). Here again it has been assumed that the reference is to definite parties or sects existing in Rome, and the attempt has been made to identify them on this basis. It is suggested that the ascetics were Judaizers (Origen, etc.), but the obvious difficulty arises that the reference is not to scruples about eating things offered to idols as at Corinth, [Note: It is in fact doubtful whether these Corinthian Puritans were Judaizers at all, at any rate of the ordinary type; see Lake, Earlier Epistles, p. 219 ff.] but to abstinence from meat and wine altogether, which was in no way characteristic of the party of the circumcision. More probable is the view that Essene [Note: It is not, however, quite certain that these practised vegetarianism; see Lietzmann, Com. ad loc., for the various traces of this type of asceticism in different quarters.] practices are referred to (Liddon, Lightfoot, Gifford), or vegetarian ascetics of the type mentioned by Seneca; Baur suggests Ebionites, who seem, however, to belong to a later period. Any of these ideas may have been in St. Pauls mind, but the point is that it is by no means certain that he was referring to any particular sect in Rome: he mentions abstinence from meat as a typical instance of excessive scrupulousness (Sanday-Headlam, p. 402). We conclude that the whole passage is probably due not to anything which St. Paul has heard of as going on in Rome, but to tendencies which he has found at work in the churches he knows, and particularly in Corinth, where he is perhaps writing. [Note: For scrupulousness as to days see Gal 4:10 and Col 2:16, where meat and drink are also mentioned; for these cf. 1Ti 4:3.] The passage is not an answer to a question or a report, but he knows that errors which have arisen in the Church at large are sure to be represented sooner or later in Rome.
In the light of these considerations we may also answer the question as to
(c) How far Roman is a true letter.-Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 225), arguing on the basis of the recently discovered papyri and the light thrown by them on the language and methods of NT writers, has gone very far in the denial of any literary character to the Epistles; [Note: also the same writers Paulus, Tbingen, 1911, p. 4 ff., Eng. tr., London, 1912, p. 9 ff.] The letters of Paul are not literary; they are real letters, not epistles; they were written by Paul not for the public and posterity, but for the persons to whom they are addressed. Almost all the mistakes that have ever been made in the study of St. Pauls life and work have arisen from neglect of the fact that his writings are non-literary and letter-like in character. He admits that Romans is at first sight least like a letter, but he still persists in including it in his category: Here also, therefore, if we would understand its true significance, we must banish all thought of things literary (p. 231). No doubt the warning is valuable against exaggerations; no one of the Epistles, not even Romans, is a theological treatise in which the epistolary form is adopted as a mere literary device; in their interpretation we must always allow for the personal factor and also for the special circumstances in which they were produced. At the same time Deissmann has carried his thesis too far. We may quote on the other side one who is equally qualified to speak from the point of view of the new discoveries: The letters of St. Paul may not be epistles, if by that we are to understand literary compositions written without any thought of a particular body of readers. At the same time, in view of the tone of authority adopted by their author, and the general principles with which they deal, they are equally far removed from the unstudied expression of personal feeling, which we associate with the idea of a true letter. And if we are to describe them as letters at all, it is well to define the term still further by the addition of some such distinguishing epithet as missionary or pastoral. It is not merely St. Paul the man, but St. Paul the spiritual teacher and guide who speaks in them throughout (Milligan, The New Testament Documents, London, 1913, p. 95).
If this applies generally, it applies with special force to Romans, which has in it something both of the manifesto and of the homily.
5. The primitive Roman Church.-The bearing of the Epistle on the composition of the Roman Church and its supposed parties has already been discussed ( 4). It remains to put together what we can gather as to the character of the community addressed by St. Paul. Since the time of Pompey (63 b.c.) there had been considerable settlements of Jews in Rome, and Latin literature is full of references to them, mostly of an unfavourable character (see quotations in Sanday-Headlam, p. xix. ff.). We may therefore safely assume that there would also be in Rome large numbers of those proselytes and God-fearers, attracted by the monotheism and ethical teaching of the Synagogue, from whom St. Paul and early Christian missionaries in general drew many of their converts. The importance of the Jewish community also implies frequent direct contact between Rome and Jerusalem (cf. the connexion of the Herods with the Imperial Court). There was a synagogue of Roman libertini at Jerusalem (Act 6:9), and strangers from Rome, Jews and proselytes, are mentioned among the first hearers of the gospel on the day of Pentecost (Rom 2:10). It is not unreasonable to trace the first beginnings of Christianity in Rome to this fact. But possibly more important was the constant intercourse between such cities as Ephesus and Corinth and the capital. A Christian church would be founded there almost imperceptibly, owing to the visits and migrations of converts, each of whom, after the manner of the first generations of Christianity, became a centre of missionary effort. There is at any rate no evidence of any definite propaganda in Rome on the part of Peter or any other of the apostles before the period of our Epistle. The stories of an early preaching of Peter (q.v. [Note: .v. quod vide, which see.] ) in the capital are comparatively late and unsupported. Our oldest authorities speak only of his martyrdom there at a later date. The evidence of Romans itself is certainly against any idea that he had visited Rome before the writing of the Epistle. It is true that the interpretation of Rom 15:20 is not undisputed, Lake and others seeing in the hindrance the fact that the church had actually been founded by another-presumably St. Peter. But a careful reading of the passage shows that v. 22, wherefore I was hindered these many times from coining to you, refers to the urgent necessity under which St. Paul had lain of preaching in other districts first, not to the objection of intruding on anothers foundation. He clearly implies that the hindrance has now been removed; he has, in fact, no more any further place in these regions; i.e. he has done his work. On the other hand, the objection that Rome was another mans foundation would be valid permanently, and it is most improbable that in these circumstances St. Paul would even have written to the Roman Church, at any rate without making the least reference to St. Peters work and position there. There would not, however, be the same objection to writing to or visiting a community in which Christianity had simply sprung up, as it were, of itself.
The remark of Suetonius (Claud. 25) that Claudius Judaeos, impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes, Roma expulit (confirmed by Act 18:2) may well be an indication of the existence of Christianity in Rome c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 52. [Note: Under Nero (a.d. 54) the Jews again exerted considerable influence in the capital.] It is true that Chrestus may be the name of an actual individual (it was a common slave name), but more probably it represents Christus, in which case we have a hint either of some Messianic disturbance of a general character or else, more specifically, of troubles arising between Jews and Christians owing to the preaching of Jesus as Christ. The Roman historian might easily suppose from hearing the name that Christus, or Chrestus, was the actual ringleader. It may be that the reminder in Rom 13:1 ff. of the duty of proper submission to the civil power has a special reference to this event; Christians are to hold aloof from every type of lawless action, and from anything which might lead, however unintentionally, to collision with those responsible for law and order. Lake, however (Earlier Epistles, p. 392 ff.), suggests that the passage is more general and refers to the danger of being mixed up in the agitations and abortive rebellions of the Zealots. It is at any rate important as reflecting the Pauline and Lucan attitude to the Imperial power, in strong contrast to the hostility of the Apocalypse. And written to Rome, it might have a considerable apologetic value if a copy of the Epistle chanced to come into the hands of anyone connected with the Court.
We may now consider what light is thrown by the Epistle on the circumstances of the Roman Church. It has already been pointed out that it is precarious to argue too definitely from it to the conditions supposed to exist at Rome, and we must bear in mind that the destination of ch. 16, with its personal references, is doubtful. But, whether this ch. refers to Rome or to Ephesus, it is equally valuable as giving some indication of the wide spread of Christianity at this period among different classes and races. Slaves and freedmen are largely, but not exclusively, represented. If Narcissus is the freedman of Claudius, and Aristobulus (v. 10) the grandson of Herod the Great (see 2 (a)), it is interesting to find that Christianity had reached their households, i.e. their slaves and entourage. But if these identifications be rejected, we then probably have the names of prominent and presumably more or less wealthy members of the church. The ch. also suggests that the community is organized in groups and household churches, and this harmonizes with other indications afforded by the Epistle which, in common with others of the same period, has no reference to a developed ministry. We hear only generally of men who prophesy, teach, exhort, and rule (Rom 12:6 ff.), mentioned in a way which leaves it doubtful whether permanent officials are intended. Such a stage of development would be very natural in Rome, if the church had not been founded by any leading missionary but had grown up more or less haphazard. In ch. 16 the importance of the work of women is noticeable; Mary, Tryphaena and Tryphosa, and Persis are mentioned; Prisca is prominent, and Phoebe is the servant or deaconess () of the church at Cenchreae; it is, however, questionable whether a definite official is meant.
Of the sacraments, baptism is taken for granted, but there is no reference to the Eucharist. Though prophecy and, in St. Pauls own case, miracles are mentioned, we do not hear of the startling gifts so prominent at Corinth. Disputes as to the relative value of charismata seem to lie in the background of Rom 12:3 ff., but this may only be a reflexion of St. Pauls general experience, and need not imply the actual existence of such quarrels in Rome in particular. The whole picture of church life in chs. 12, 13 is markedly sober and practical; the Christian has his trials (8, Rom 12:12), but definite persecution is excluded by Rom 13:4. The importance of hospitality in the primitive Church is well known; the duty would be specially urgent in Rome, whither so many travellers came (Rom 12:13).
6. The bearing of the Epistle on the personal history of St. Paul.-Romans is primarily important as marking a definite stage in the development of Christian doctrine, and it has comparatively little to offer with regard to the external history of St. Pauls life. There are, however, a few scattered indications which it may be well to group together. Its chief interest is with regard to the form his teaching had come to take; we find but few of those intimate personal touches in which 1 and 2 Cor. are so rich. Ch. 7 is no doubt autobiographical in the sense that it is based on personal experience, probably of struggles before conversion. At the same time the I seems to be typical of the divided soul in general and not to refer to St. Paul specifically. The passionate outbursts in Rom 9:1 ff., Rom 10:1 throw a strong light on St. Pauls burning patriotism. It has been remarked that if he had not spent himself in the service of Jesus he would have shed his blood with other natives of Tarsus on the walls of Jerusalem in. a.d. 70. As has been pointed out ( 1), the Epistle touches the narrative of Acts at two points.
(1) It emphasizes St. Pauls strong desire to visit Rome (cf. Act 19:21). Without any unworthy flattery it helps us to realize the importance he attached to that city and to its church, an importance natural to a Roman citizen who worked along the great roads and concentrated on the great towns of the Empire, and who understood to the full the opportunity afforded by the Pax Romana for the spread of Christianity. The Epistle underlines this particular feature in the Apostles missionary policy. Whether the journey to Spain of which he speaks (Rom 15:28) ever took place must remain doubtful, though it may be covered by the expression of Clement of Rome (Ep. ad Cor. i. 5) that he reached the western limit of the world. The Muratorian Fragment also speaks of a visit to Spain, but on that we can lay little stress.
The phrase even unto Illyricum (Rom 15:19) is difficult. It seems that it does not imply an extension of St. Pauls missionary activity to the east coasts of the Adriatic, of which there is no hint in Acts, but merely that when he was in Macedonia he found himself on the border of Illyricum; this, when he wrote, formed the western limit of his preaching.
(2) The other important point of contact is the reference to the collection for the saints (Rom 15:25 ff.), which appears as the main motive for the visit to Jerusalem. We see from the Epistle St. Pauls anxiety as to his reception and his keen desire that the gift should be favourably received. Romans itself is in a sense an eirenicon between Jew and Gentile, both within and without the Church (see esp. chs. 11-13), and the purpose of the Epistle is therefore in harmony with that of the visit to Jerusalem, showing that at this period St. Paul was taking particular pains both to secure unity within the Church and, if it were possible, to win over the nation as a whole. [Note: On this point, which has an important bearing on the reliability of the view of St. Pauls character and policy presented on Acts, see A. Harnack, Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, Eng. tr., London, 1911, pp. 64, 72 ff.]
We should not pass over the incidental reference in Rom 15:19 to St. Pauls power of working miracles. It is not known what event is referred to in Rom 16:4; it can hardly be the riot of Act 19:23.
7. Analysis
(a) Introduction (Rom 1:1-17).
Rom 1:1-7. Extended greeting.
Rom 1:8-17. Congratulations and personal notes, leading up to statement of the writers Gentile apostleship and the theme of the Epistle-the righteous shall live by faith.
(b) Righteousness (Rom 1:18 to Rom 5:21).
Rom 1:18-32. Even the Gentiles might have known God, but they have not; sin has followed ignorance, and Gods anger is just.
Rom 2:1-11. Gods judgment is universal and is only delayed in mercy (n.b. Rom 2:9-11, taking up the thought of Rom 1:16 and emphasizing the similarity between Jew and Gentile).
Rom 2:12-16. Not the possession of the Law but the doing of it is the crucial question from the point of view of Gods judgment.
Rom 2:17-29. Do the Jews keep the Law? Certainly not. This suggests that we must look deeper to discover the true Jew and the true circumcision, which turn out to be spiritual.
Rom 3:1-8. Preliminary objections. What is the advantage of the Jew (the answer is not given till chs. 9-11)? Mans disobedience does not invalidate Gods promises, nor may this fact be made an excuse for sin.
Rom 3:9-20. Universal sinfulness proved by an appeal to Scripture, as it has already been proved by the appeal to experience.
Rom 3:21-31. Gods real method of salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ. It is connected with His death. This faith brings full forgiveness of sin and justification; it excludes all idea of personal merit and is essentially universal.
Rom 4:1-25. The principle considered in relation to Abraham. He was justified by his faith, not by his actions, and that before the institution of circumcision. Nor did the promise come through the Law. His faith was shown by his acceptance of the promise of a son. These facts make him the father of all believers, of whatever race (Rom 4:11-12; Rom 4:16; Rom 4:23 ff.).
Rom 5:1-21. The results of this new righteousness by faith. It carries with it the assurance of present free access to God and the hope of final salvation, guaranteed by the love of God displayed in the death of Christ. The work of Christ stands in strong contrast with the effects of Adams fall (Rom 5:12-21).
(c) Sanctification (chs. 6-8).
Rom 6:1-14. Our baptism is a death unto sin; it therefore implies a constant conflict against evil (some interpret this passage as implying that theoretically at least the Christian cannot sin; see 8).
Rom 6:15 to Rom 7:6. This truth illustrated by the double metaphors of emancipation from slavery and of marriage.
Rom 7:7-24. What, then, is the position of the Law? It brings the occasion and the possibility of sin, though not itself sinful. To it is due the inward struggle in the self between good and evil (flesh), from which we are delivered by Christ (this section apparently refers not to the experience of the Christian but to that of the unregenerate man).
Rom 8:1-17. The work of the Spirit, bringing deliverance from the flesh (Rom 8:1-9), the guarantee of bodily resurrection (Rom 8:11-13), of sonship and final glory.
Rom 8:18-39. The sorrows and yearnings of creation point forward to a future deliverance (Rom 8:18-28). In our present weakness we are sustained by the Spirit, and the certainty of Gods final purpose for us, a purpose which nothing can hinder.
(d) The problem of the rejection of Israel (chs. 9-11).
Rom 9:1-5. The problem stated in its personal and general bearings.
Rom 9:6-13. From the first there was a progressive selection and rejection; the promise was not to all the actual descendants of Abraham.
Rom 9:14-29. The principles of this selection rest on the will of God as Creator (Pharaoh, and the metaphor of the potter); against these the creature has no right of complaint. The OT shows that Gods choice was to embrace Gentiles as well as Jews (Rom 9:24-29).
Rom 9:30 to Rom 10:21. Israel chose the wrong way of attaining righteousness (Rom 9:30 to Rom 10:3), yet its attainment was near and easy. The universal preaching of the gospel has brought to Israel both opportunity and warning.
Rom 11:1-10. But after all the true Israel has always been a remnant, or small fraction, of the whole.
Rom 11:11-36. Their very fall has the purpose of opening the way to the admission of the Gentiles. Yet they too must beware of presuming on their position (the olive tree); the rejection of the Jew is only temporary, till the final purpose is worked out. This is one of mercy to all, based on the methods of Gods working, which are unfathomable by man.
(e) Practical exhortations (chs. Rom 12:1 to Rom 15:13).
Romans 12-13. Miscellaneous exhortations, centring round the idea of peace and unity, including sections on the right use of spiritual gifts and the attitude to the civil power.
Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:7. The practical problem of the relation of the weak brother to the strong within the Church.
Rom 15:8-13. Both Jew and Gentile have their place in the purpose of God (the return to this topic is apparently dictated by the need of insisting on unity).
(f) Conclusion (Rom 15:14 -end).
Rom 15:14-33. Personal explanations; motive of the Epistle; visits to Rome and Jerusalem, and the collection for the saints.
Rom 16:1-16. [Note: On the question whether this ch. in fact forms part of the Epistle see 2 (a).] Greetings to various friends.
Rom 16:17-20. A warning against false teachers.
Rom 16:21-23. Greetings sent by St. Pauls companions.
Rom 16:25-27. Doxology.
8. The argument of the Epistle.-The problem to be solved is the method by which man may attain righteousness. The underlying idea in this is not merely salvation, regarded as something external-the winning of certain privileges and the escape from punishment. It is an inner state of the man, bringing him into a right relation to God. No doubt in virtue of this he will escape the wrath of Gods righteous judgment (Rom 2:5, Rom 5:9), but this is not the primary thought. St. Pauls answer may be best understood if we approach it from the point of view of his own spiritual experience. [Note: Attempts have been made, e.g. by Schweitzer (Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung, Tbingen, 1911, p. 192), to deny the influence of St. Pauls experience, and in particular of his conversion, on his thought. It is true he does not make many direct references to this, but it is impossible to read such an Epistle as Romans sympathetically without realizing that the experience of himself and his converts is always in the background.] In this we can trace three main elements.
(a) There is the consciousness of his own sin and impotence; the Law had not helped him in the past to attain the righteousness he desired; it had only brought the sense of failure and of guilt, and this experience was general both with Jew and with Gentile (2, Rom 7:7 ff., Rom 8:3).
(b) On his surrender to Christ at his conversion he became conscious of an entire breach with the past and of a completely new point of view. The death and resurrection of Christ have introduced a new factor into the relation between God and man (Rom 3:24 ff., Rom 4:25, Rom 5:8 ff., Rom 8:32 ff.). The starting-point is now what He has done, not what man can succeed in doing for himself. But this work of Christ does not remain something external to the believer; transactional theories of the Atonement and unethical views of salvation have always been based on the isolation of the work, generally the death, of Christ, regarded as a past event which the believer has only to accept. To St. Paul the Christian is identified with Christ and shares in His death, burial, and resurrection (6, Rom 8:10 f.); this truth is absolutely central in his teaching. The term which he applies to this identification of the self with Christ is faith. It is well known that to him faith is not the intellectual acceptance of a creed, but a personal surrender to a new power; the believer is a new creature; he is in Christ and Christ in him (see Sanday-Headlam, pp. 102, 162); faith is inseparable from the mystical union. The external method by which the union is effected is baptism. With regard to this it must be remembered that to St. Paul and to the first Christians in general baptism was always the accompaniment of a definite conversion and change of life, by which the convert died in a very real sense to the old past, turning his back not only on its sins, but on its religious beliefs and practices, its habits of life, and very often on its friendships and social ties. The primary result of this new experience is a sense of forgiveness or justification (Rom 3:24, etc.); the believer, having died to the sinful past, can now be treated as righteous before God; he starts afresh [Note: It may be noted that under the pressure of this vivid experience St. Paul sometimes goes very far in the sharpness with which he draws the line between the regenerate and the unregenerate man; he hardly regards the new life as the quickening of a spark which already burns, however feebly, in all men; it is an entirely new thing ab extra. It is true that in Romans 7 he represents the flesh and the spirit as already in conflict before conversion, but at other times the natural man would seem to be abandoned to the flesh (Rom 8:4 ff.). From such a point of view it must be either one or the other; they cease to be two tendencies at work in every one. See Flesh.] (see, further, Justification).
(c) The third element is the sense of new power which comes from the union with Christ. This may be described as sanctification through the Spirit, or as a present sharing of the resurrection of Christ (Rom 6:4; Rom 6:11, Rom 7:4, Rom 8:10); it is very difficult to trace any real or final distinction between the Spirit and Christ (cf. the interchange of terms in Romans 8). That the sense of the possession of the Spirit is primarily based on experience comes out most clearly in the question of Gal 3:2, which is the starting-point of St. Pauls argument, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? It is common ground that a new force has come into the converts life; the only question is whether it is to be ascribed to the gospel or to the Law. This new power, then, is inseparably connected with the conversion experiences and with faith, though it does mark a development which for certain purposes may be distinguished from them; i.e. sanctification is not the same as justification; it is the fruit which grows from this root. But the closeness of the connexion avoids all danger of the unethical conclusions which some were ready to draw from St. Pauls teaching (Rom 6:1). The life of righteousness must follow; in a certain sense it is unthinkable that the Christian can continue in sin, [Note: It has sometimes been argued, on the basis of expressions in Romans 6, 8, as well as in other Epistles, that St. Paul expected the Christian to be actually sinless, an idea of which we have traces in 1 Jn. and in Hermas. Observation of life in the early Christian communities must have at once made it difficult to hold any such theory, and it is contradicted by the whole tone of the exhortations of the Epistles. The expressions which suggest it belong to the sharp dichotomy between the regenerate and unregenerate already noticed; they are part of the theory of the Christian life, unhappily at once negatived by experience. St. Paul found, in fact, that it took more to kill the old Adam than he had expected; the crucifixion of the flesh and the old self was a gradual process, not something completed at a definite moment. This truth has an important bearing on the difficulty which arises from the slow working of the leaven of Christianity.] and practical moral injunctions fill the latter part of the Epistle. But the stress is not on works as the starting-point; St. Paul always goes deeper down to the power and motive from which they will inevitably spring.
It is in the light of these doctrines that we may best understand St. Pauls attitude to what is superficially the central problem of the Epistle, viz. the relation between Jew and Gentile. It is obvious that considerations such as a mans physical descent and his obedience to external requirements such as circumcision and a ceremonial Law, or indeed any law, considered as such, become irrelevant. Experience was in fact proving daily that the new life was open to the Gentile at least as freely as to the Jew. But at once there arose a difficulty. It requires some effort of sympathetic imagination to enter into the feelings of a Jew brought up to regard his people as the favourites of God, and the Law as the Divine means by which life was to be won. No doubt he might hope for the Gentiles to be converted to Judaism, but if they could obtain all the privileges of the Messianic kingdom without this, what became of his Scriptures with their promises to the children of Abraham? Why had God chosen them or given the Law at all? St. Paul, as a Jew, was bound to meet the objectors on their own ground; he appeals to the Scriptures themselves, to the story of Abraham justified by faith before the giving of circumcision or the Law (ch. 4), and to the purpose of the Law as revealing sin. He argues on the analogies of slavery and marriage that its sway is abolished by the death to the old self (Rom 7:1), and, more effectively, he shows its practical failure (v. 7ff.). It is well to admit frankly that St. Pauls arguments do not always appeal to us so directly on these points; he is arguing as a Rabbi brought up to use a certain method of interpretation, which is not our own to-day. The real proof of the truth of his position lies in the appeal to spiritual experience and history, and that is even stronger than when he wrote. The supreme value of the Epistle is to be found in the imperishable passages, such as chs. 6-8, in which the facts of the spiritual life are described in language which must remain classical for all time.
There still, however, remained the problem of Gods choice of the Jews and their apparent abandonment. Under this new method of salvation, which has been proved from the Scriptures themselves to be the right one, what is the meaning of the past history of Israel and what is to be its fate in the future? Chs. 9-11 deal specifically with these difficulties, [Note: Baur regarded these as the central portion of the Epistle, for the sake of which all the rest was written; this, however, is to go too far, though it is probable that they are not an afterthought or an appendix, as the modern reader is sometimes inclined to think.] resuming the question of Rom 3:1. In them St. Paul shows that there had always been a principle of selection and rejection in Gods dealings with His people, a principle resting on His inscrutable will (ch. 9). And in fact the Jews were themselves to blame; they had adopted a wrong method of seeking righteousness, in spite of the teaching of their own Moses, and when the Messiah came they rejected Him, though they had full opportunity of hearing the message (ch. 10). Finally, so far as the future is concerned, Gods casting off of His people is only temporary; it is a stage in the conversion of the Gentile world, and in the end both Jew and Gentile will be united in Christ. This again rests on the unfathomable purpose of God. The chs. are among the most difficult of the Pauline Epistles (2Pe 3:16). In Rom 9:10 ff. St. Paul states the Divine sovereignty in a way that seems to leave little room for free-will. The difficulty is eased, but not removed, by the reminder 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 insists 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 the 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 mans moral sense of justice, since, if all that is best in our human instincts of truth and goodness 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. Pauls argument here and throughout the Epistle by a study of contemporary Jewish literature and especially of 4 Ezra. There is no question of any 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. 3, 4, 5:23ff.). There is the same emphasis on Adams sin and its elects on his descendants (3:7, 7:11), and the same contrast between the choice of Jacob and the rejection of Esau (3:16). Stress is laid on mans universal sinfulness ( 7:46) and the general absence of good works (8:31), while in 9:7 works and faith are coupled as alternative means of salvation. The solution of the problem is based both on the inscrutability of Gods ways and on trust in the goal of the love that I have declared unto my people (5:40, 8:47ff.), a two-fold doctrine found in similar contexts in St. Paul; cf. Rom 9:14 ff; Rom 11:33 ff; Rom 8:35 ff. The greatest contrast with St. Pauls 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 Israels sake; the nations are but spittle and a drop on a bucket (6:55 ff.); the writer can even rejoice over the fewness of the saved (7:60 ff.), and the supremacy of the Law remains unchallenged (3:9 ff., 9:31 ff.); 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 passed from Jerusalem to Antioch, and then into the Graeco-Roman 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 God-head, and the hope 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. [Note: A good example of the influence of terms (though in this case the idea behind them is rejected, not accepted) may be found in the difficult height and depth of Rom 8:38. Lietzmann points out that and are technical astrological expressions for the ascension and declination of a star. Remembering how fate and the stars were connected in the religious ideas of the day, we may develop this hint and suggest that St. Paul implies that among the forces conquered by Christ is that tyranny of fate, astrologically conceived, which must so often have made life a burden. Similarly, the powers () which immediately precede (separated, be it noted, from the angels) may be the supposed influences of the stars.] With regard to Romans, the question arises specially in relation to ch. 6 (see, e.g., Lietzmann, ad loc.; Reitzenstein, Die hellenislischen Mysterienreligionen, Leipzig, 1910, p. 100 ff.), but it can be answered only when considered 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 deprecated, 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 Galatians , 1 and 2 Cor., the four being known as the Hauptbriefe, or central letters of the Pauline corpus. [Note: See Sanday-Headlam, p. lviii, for list of words peculiar to the four.] 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 Acts 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. [Note: Clemen, however, with a special chronology of his own, puts it earlier (Chronologie der paulinischen Briefe, Halle, 1893).] 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 5, London, 1876, p. 45 ff.); cf. especially Gal 3:6-10 and Rom 4:3-15; in fact, most of Galatians 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 not necessary, since it is quite possible for a writer to repeat himself very closely on the 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 Lightfoot 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 misapprehension, it is the first study of a single figure, which is worked into a group in the latter writing (ib. p. 49). And this difference is generally admitted. Gal. is definitely controversial, written red-hot to convince waverers and recover backsliders 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 3:16). In Rom 4:13 ff. the seed is interpreted in the natural way of Abrahams descendants in general. A comparison of the two Epistles by no means excludes the possibility of some considerable interval between them.
(b) Other books of the NT
(1) The Epistle of St. James.-Here again we have certain resemblances in language (Sanday-Headlam, p. lxxvii), accompanied, however, by an apparent contradiction in teaching. Both quote Gen 15:8 (Abraham believed God, etc.; Jam 2:23, Rom 4:3, etc.), but draw from it opposite conclusions, St. James arguing that Abraham was justified by works and not by faith. There are really two distinct questions. (i.) Is there any direct literary relation between the two? The date of James is most uncertain; it may be one of the earliest or one of the latest of the books of the NT, and, therefore, if there is indebtedness, it would be very difficult to say which of the two was the borrower. But in fact the general parallels in language are not sufficient to prove that either had the others work before him. They are mostly commonplaces of Jewish and Christian teaching, and, if any further explanation were required, it might-on the supposition of the apostolic authorship of James-be found in personal intercourse between the two writers. The common quotation seems at first sight more significant, but it ceases to be so when we remember that this text was frequently used in Jewish discussions (Lightfoot, Galatians 5, p. 158 ff.; Sanday-Headlam, p. 104). Of course if St. James be placed late the case is then somewhat altered, and it becomes possible that the writer knew Romans and was attempting to answer either it or exaggerated deductions drawn from St. Pauls teaching.
Apart, however, from the question whether either writer is intending to controvert the other or not, it is important to ask (ii.) how far the two points of view are really exclusive. It at once becomes obvious when we look below the surface that the two mean different things by faith. [Note: See Sanday-Headlam, p. 102 ff.] St. Paul with his conception of faith could never have said that the devils believe and tremble. St. James is on the level of the plain matter-of-fact man, insisting on conduct, not on profession. St. Paul goes deeper down to the springs of conduct. The two do represent different points of view, but they are not necessarily contradictory. St. Paul would probably have accepted all that St. James said, granting his use of the terms, but would have argued that it did not go to the root of the matter. St. James would probably have been quite ready to agree with St. Paul, when he had explained what he meant, with the mental reservation that he was not quite sure that he understood him. There is certainly room for both within the Churchs canon.
(2) 1 Peter.-Here the literary relationship is far stronger and indeed almost indisputable. The parallel passages may be seen in Sanday-Headlam, p. lxxiv ff. Their conclusion is as follows: Although equal stress cannot be laid on all these passages the resemblance is too great and too constant to be merely accidental. In 1Pe 2:6 we have a quotation from the O.T. with the same variations from the Septuagint that we find in Rom 9:33. Not only do we find the same thoughts, such as the metaphorical use of the idea of sacrifice (Rom 12:1, 1Pe 2:5), and the same rare words, such as , , [Note: See Rom 12:2; Romans 12 :1Pe 1:14; Rom 12:9; Romans 12 :1Pe 1:22.] but in one passage (Rom 13:1-7, 1Pe 2:13-17) we have what must be accepted as conclusive evidence, the same ideas occurring in the same order. And their verdict that 1 Peter is the borrower must be accepted on every ground. We are not here concerned with the possible bearing of this fact on the question of the authorship of that Epistle; we need only point out that it makes it probably the earliest external witness to the existence of Romans.
(3) It may be added that there are fairly close resemblances between Rom 4:17-21 and Heb 11:11-12; Heb 11:19, and between Rom 12:19 and Heb 10:30, where Deu 32:35 is quoted with the same variations from the Septuagint . Jud 1:24 f. is also of the same type as the doxology of Rom 16:25 ff.; on this see 2 (b).
(c) Writings outside the NT
(1) Wisdom.-Here we pass to a book which undoubtedly influenced St. Paul. The main parallels are found in Rom 1:20-29 (the attack on idolatry), which is closely similar to various passages in Wisdom 13, 14, and in Rom 9:19-23, for which cf. Wis 11:21; Wis 12:10; Wis 12:12; Wis 12:20; Wis 15:7. In each case the passages will be found in full in parallel columns in Sanday-Headlam (pp. 51, 267). On the other hand, the contrast between Romans 2 and Wis 15:1 ff. is most instructive. In the latter passage the writer boasts of the freedom of the Jew from idolatry; St. Pauls words gain in force if read as a retort to this. Further, while Wisdom distinguishes between the principles and motives of Gods chastisement of Jews and heathen, very much to the favour of the former, St. Paul teaches that both are ultimately on the same level.
(2) Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.-Here again a long list of parallel passages will be found in Sanday-Headlam, p. lxxxii f., and also in R. H. Charless ed. of the Testaments, London, 1908, p. lxxv ff. To take a single example, we may compare with Rom 12:21, Test. Benj. iv. 3, By doing good he overcometh evil ( ). Sanday-Headlam suppose the Testaments to be the borrower, but they are now very generally assigned to an earlier date (Charles, c. [Note: . circa, about.] 100 b.c.), and we may accept Charless verdict, It will be clear that St. Paul was thoroughly familiar with the Greek Translation of the Testaments, with the conclusion that his Epistles are sometimes dependent on that version. It need only be remarked that the parallels in Romans do not stand alone.
Literature.-For literature dealing with the Pauline Epistles and theology in general, see under Paul. The literature on Romans itself is very large: reference may be made to article Romans, Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iv. 306; to the list of Commentaries in Sanday-Headlam, International Critical Commentary , Romans5, Edinburgh, 1902, p. xcviii ff.; and to J. Moffatt, Introd. to Literature of the New Testament (Moffatt)., London, 1911, p. 130. Among the best for general purposes may be mentioned E. H. Gifford, Speakers Commentary, iii., London, 1881; C. J. Vaughan, St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans 3, do., 1870; B. Jowett, Epistles of St. Paul to the Thess., Gal., and Romans 3, do., 1894; J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles of St. Paul (covering Romans 1-7), do., 1895; F. Godet, Commentary on St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans, Eng. translation , Edinburgh, 1881-82; J. Denney, Expositors Greek Testament , Romans, London, 1900; and, above all, Sanday-Headlam, International Critical Commentary .
Of German Commentaries the best are perhaps Meyer-Weiss, Der Brief an die Rmer9, Gttingen, 1899; A. Jlicher, in Schriften des NT, do., 1907; H. Lietzmann, in Handbuch zum NT, Tbingen, 1910 (valuable for quotations from contemporary literature).
Of studies we may mention H. F. Liddon, Explanatory Analysis of St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans, London, 1893; F. J. A. Hort, Prolegomena to St. Pauls Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians, do., 1895; H. C. G. Moule, Expositors Bible, Romans, do., 1894; C. Gore, St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans , 2 vols., do., 1899-1900.
Reference may also be made to the articles in the Bible Dictionaries. Literature on special points has been indicated in the course of the article.
C. W. Emmet.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
Romans, Epistle to the
Paul wrote this Epistle at Corinth, c.58, before leaving for Jerusalem with the collections he had made for the relief of Christians there. He wished to prepare the way for a visit to the members of the Church in Rome, whom he longed to meet, because they were for the most part Gentiles and he was the Apostle of the Gentiles. Besides, he appreciated the mission of Rome as a center for the propagation of the faith everywhere. In the Epistle he dwells on the justification of mankind through faith in Christ, the sinfulness of the world, the meaning and fruits of justification, why Israel failed to come unto the law of justice, what faith is, and why it is essential, and its fruits, viz:, humility, obedience, unity, and charity. Chapters 12-16 are the most fervent and impressive. It is read in the Divine Office immediately after the Epiphany.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Romans, Epistle to the
This subject will be treated under the following heads: I. The Roman Church and St. Paul; II. Character, Contents, and Arrangement of the Epistle; III. Authenticity; IV. Integrity; V. Date and Circumstances of Composition; VI. Historical Importance; VII, Theological Contents: Faith and Works (Paul and James).
I. THE ROMAN CHURCH AND ST. PAUL
Among the Epistles of the New Testament which bear the name of the Apostle Paul, that written to the Roman Church occupies the first place in the manuscripts which have come down to us, although in very early times the order was probably otherwise. The Epistle is intended to serve as an introduction to a community with which the author, though he has not founded it, desires to form connexions (i, 10- 15; xv, 22-24, 28-29). For years his thoughts have been directed towards Rome (xv, 23). The Church there had not been recently established; but its faith had already become known everywhere (i, 8) and it is represented as a firmly established and comparatively old institution, which Paul regards with reverence, almost with awe. Concerning its foundation, unfortunately, the Epistle to the Romans gives us no information. To interpret this silence as decisive against its foundation by Peter is inadmissible. It cannot indeed be ascertained with complete certainty when Peter first came to Rome; there may have been Christians in the capital before any Apostle set foot there, but it is simply inconceivable that this Church should have attained to such firm faith and such a high standard of religious life without one of the prominent authorities of nascent Christianity having laid its foundation and directed its growth. This Church did not owe its Faith solely to some unknown members of the primitive Christian community who chanced to come to Rome. Its Christianity was, as the Epistle tells us, free from the Law; this conviction Paul certainly shared with the majority of the community, and his wish is simply to deepen this conviction. This condition is entirely incomprehensible if the Roman Church traced its origin only to some Jewish Christian of the community in Jerusalem, for we know how far the fight for freedom was from being ended about A. D. 50. Nor can the foundation of the Roman Church be traced to the Gentile Christian Churches, who named Paul their Apostle; their own establishment was too recent, and Paul would have worded his Epistle otherwise, if the community addressed were even mediately indebted to his apostolate. The complete silence as to St. Peter is most easily explained by supposing that he was then absent from Rome; Paul may well have been aware of this fact, for the community was not entirely foreign to him. An epistle like the present would hardly have been sent while the Prince of the Apostles was in Rome and the reference to the ruler (xii, 8) would then be difficult to explain. Paul probably supposes that during the months between the composition and the arrival of the Epistle, the community would be more or less thrown on its own resources. This does not however indicate a want of organization in the Roman community; such organization existed in every Church founded by Paul, and its existence in Rome can be demonstrated from this very Epistle.
The inquiry into the condition of the community is important for the understanding of the Epistle. Complete unanimity concerning the elements forming the community has not yet been attained. Baur and others (especially, at the present day, Theodore Zahn) regard the Roman community as chiefly Jewish Christian, pointing to vi, 15-17; vii, 1-6; viii, 15. But the great majority of exegetes incline to the opposite view, basing their contention, not only on individual texts, but also on the general character of the Epistle. At the very beginning Paul introduces himself as the Apostle of the Gentiles. Assuredly, i, 5, cannot be applied to all mankind, for Paul certainly wished to express something more than that the Romans belonged to the human race; in corroboration of this view we may point to i, 13, where the writer declares that he had long meditated coming to Rome that he might have some fruit there as among the other “Gentiles”. He then continues: “To the Greeks and to the barbarians, to the wise and to the unwise, I am a debtor; so (as much as is in me) I am ready to preach the gospel to you also that are at Rome” (I, 14 sq.); he names himself the Apostle of the Gentiles (xi, 13), and cites his call to the apostolate of the Gentiles as the justification for his Epistle and his language (xv, 16-18). These considerations eliminate all doubt as to the extraction of the Roman Christians. The address and application in xi, 13 sqq., likewise presuppose a great majority of Gentile Christians, while vi, 1 sqq., shows an effort to familiarize the Gentile Christians with the dealings of God towards the Jews. The whole character of the composition forces one to the conclusion that the Apostle supposes a Gentile majority in the Christian community, and that in Rome as elsewhere the statement about the fewness of the elect (from among the Jews) finds application (xi, 5-7; cf. xv, 4).
However, the Roman community was not without a Jewish Christian element, probably an important section. Such passages as iv, 1 (Abraham, our father according to the flesh; viii, i (I speak to them that know the law); vii, 4; viii, 2, 15, etc., can scarcely be explained otherwise than by supposing the existence of a Jewish Christian section of the community. On the other hand, it must be remembered that Paul was out and out a Jew, and that his whole training accustomed him to adopt the standpoint of the Law–the more so as the revelation of the Old Testament is in the last instance the basis of the New Testament, and Paul regards Christianity as the heir of God’s promises, as the true “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16). St. Paul often adopts this same standpoint in the Epistle to the Galatians–an Epistle undoubtedly addressed to Christians who are on the point of submitting to circumcision. Even if the Epistle to the Romans repeatedly addresses (e. g., ii, 17 sqq.) Jews, we may deduce nothing from this fact concerning the composition of the community, since Paul is dealing, not with the Jewish Christians, but with the Jews still subject to the Law and not yet freed by the grace of Christ. The Apostle wishes to show the rôle and efficacy of the Law–what it cannot and should not–and what it was meant to effect.
II. CHARACTER, CONTENTS, AND ARRANGMENT OF THE EPISTLE
A. Character
The chief portion of this Epistle to the Romans (i-xi) is evidently a theological discussion. It would however be inaccurate to regard it not as a real letter, but as a literary epistle. It must be considered as a personal communication to a special community, and, like that sent to the Corinthians or the cognate Epistle to the Galatians, must be judged according to the concrete position and the concrete conditions of that community. What the Apostle says, he says with a view to his readers in the Roman community and his own relations to them.
Language and style reveal the writer of the Epistle to the Corinthians and the Galatians. Its emphatic agreement with the latter in subject-matter is also unmistakable. The difference in the parties addressed and between the circumstances, however, impresses on either Epistle its distinctive stamp. The Epistle to the Galatians is a polemical work, and is composed in a polemical spirit with the object of averting an imminent evil; the Epistle to the Romans is written in a time of quiet peace, and directed to a Church with which the author desires to enter into closer relations. We thus miss in the latter those details and references to earlier experiences and occurrences, with which the former Epistle is so instinct. Not that Romans is a purely abstract theological treatise; even here Paul, with his whole fiery and vigorous personality, throws himself into his subject, sets before himself his opponent, and argues with him. This characteristic of the Apostle is clearly seen. Hence arise unevenness and harshness in language and expression noticeable in the other Epistles. This does not prevent the Epistle as a whole from revealing an elaborately thought out plan, which often extends to the smallest details in magnificent arrangement and expression. We might recall the exordium, to which, in thought and to some extent in language, the great concluding doxology corresponds, while the two sections of the first part deal quite appropriately with the impressive words on the certainty of salvation and on God’s exercise of providence and wisdom (viii, 31-39; xi, 33-36).
The immediate external occasion for the composition of the Epistle is given by the author himself; he wishes to announce his arrival to the community and to prepare them for the event. The real object of this comprehensive work, and the necessity for a theological Epistle are not thought out. The supposition that St. Paul desired to give the Romans a proof of his intellectual gifts (i, 11; xv, 29) is excluded by its pettiness. We must therefore conclude that the reason for the Epistle is to be sought in the conditions of the Roman community. The earliest interpreters (Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Theodoret) and a great number of later exegetes see the occasion for the Epistle in the conflict concerning Judaistic ideas, some supposing an antagonism between the Gentile and Jewish Christians (Hug, Delitzsch) and others the existence of some typically Jewish errors or at least of an outspoken anti-Paulinism This view does not accord with the character of the Epistle: of errors and division in the Church the author makes no mention, nor was there any difference of opinion concerning the fundamental conception of Christianity between Paul and the Roman Church. The polemics in the Epistle are directed, not against the Jewish Christians, but against unbelieving Judaism. It is true that there are certain contrasts in the community: we hear of the strong and the weak; of those who have acquired the complete understanding and use of Christian freedom, and who emphasize and exercise it perhaps regardlessly; we hear of others who have not yet attained to the full possession of freedom. These contrasts are as little based on the standpoint of the Law and a false dogmatic outlook as the “weak” of I Corinthians. Paul would otherwise not have treated them with the mild consideration which he employs and demands of the strong (xiv, 5-10; xiv, 15-xv, 7). In judging there was always a danger, and mistakes had occurred (xiv, 13: “Let us not therefore judge one another any more”). According to the nature of the mistake divisions might easily gain a footing; from what direction these were to be expected, is not declared by the Apostle, but the cases of Corinth and Galatia indicate it sufficiently. And even though Paul had no reason to anticipate the gross Jewish errors, it sufficed for him that divisions destroyed the unanimity of the community, rendered his labours more difficult, made co-operation with Rome impossible, and seriously impaired the community itself. He therefore desires to send beforehand this earnest exhortation (xvi, 17 sq.), and does all he can to dispel the misconception that he despised and fought against Israel and the Law. That there was good ground for these fears, he learned from experience in Jerusalem during his last visit (Acts 21:20-1).
From this twofold consideration the object of Romans may be determined. The exhortations to charity and unity (xii sqq.) have the same purpose as those addressed to the weak and the strong. In both cases there is the vigorous reference to the single foundation of the faith, the unmerited call to grace, with which man can correspond only by humble and steadfast faith working in charity, and also the most express, though not obtrusive exhortation to complete unity in charity and faith. For Paul these considerations are the best means of securing the confidence of the whole community and its assistance in his future activities. The thoughts which he here expresses are those which ever guide him, and we can easily understand how they must have forced themselves upon his attention when he resolved to seek a new, great field of activity in the West. They correspond to his desire to secure the co-operation of the Roman community, and especially with the state and needs of the Church. They were the best intellectual gifty that the Apostle could offer; thereby he set the Church on the right path, created internal solidity, and shed light on the darkness of the doubts which certainly must have overcast the souls of the contemplative Christians in face of the attitude of incredulity which characterized the Chosen People.
B. Contents and Arrangement
Introduction and Reason for writing the Epistle arising from the obligations of his calling and plans (i, 1-15): (1) The Theoretic Part (i, 16-xi, 36). Main Proposition: The Gospel, in whose service Paul stands, is the power of God and works justification in every man who believes (i, 16-17). This proposition is discussed and proved (i, 18-viii, 39), and then defended in the light of the history of the Chosen People (ix, 1-xi, 36).
(a) The justice of God is acquired only through faith in Christ (i, 18-viii, 39). (i) The proof of the necessity of justifying grace through faith (i, 18-iv, 25): without faith there is no justice, proved from the case of the pagans (i, 18-32) and the Jews (ii, 1-iii, 20); (b) justice is acquired through faith in and redemption by Christ (the Gospel, iii, 21-31). Holy Writ supplies the proof: Abraham’s faith (iv, 1-25). (ii) The greatness and blessing of justification through faith (v, 1-viii, 39), reconciliation with God through Christ, and certain hope of eternal salvation (v, 1-11). This is illustrated by contrasting the sin of Adam and its consequences for all mankind, which were not removed by the Law, with the superabundant fruits of redemption merited by Christ (v, 12-21). Conclusion: Redemption by Christ (communicated to the individual through baptism) requires death to sin and life with Christ (vi, 1-23). To accomplish this the Law is ineffectual, for by the death of Christ it has lost its binding power (vii, 1-6), and, although holy and good in itself, it possesses only educative and not sanctifying power, and is thus impotent in man’s dire combat against sinful nature (vii, 7-25). In contrast to this impotence, communion with Christ imparts freedom from sin and from death (viii, 1-11), establishes the Divine kinship, and raises mankind above all earthly trouble to the certain hope of an indescribable happiness (viii, 12-39).
(b) Defence of the first part from the history of the people of Israel (ix, 1-xi, 36). The consoling certainty of salvation may appear threatened by the rejection or obduracy of Israel. How could God forget His promises and reject the people so favoured? The Apostle must thus explain the providence of God. He begins with a touching survey of God’s deeds of love and power towards the Chosen People (ikx, 1-5), proceeding then to prove that God’s promise has not failed. For (i) God acts within His right when He grants grace according to His free pleasure, since God’s promises did not apply to Israel according to the flesh, as early history shows (Isaac and Ismael, Jacob and Esau) (ix, 1-13); God’s word to Moses and His conduct towards Pharao call into requisition this right (ix, 14-17)); God’s position (as Creator and Lord) is the basis of this right (ix, 19-24); God’s express prophecy announced through the Prophets, the exercise of this right towards Jews and pagans (ix, 24-29); (ii) God’s attitude was in a certain sense demanded by the foolish reliance of Israel on its origin and justification in the Law (ix, 30-x,4) and by its refusal of and disobedience to the message of faith announced everywhere among the Jews (x, 5-21); (iii) In this is revealed the wisdom and goodness of God, for: Israel’s rejection is not complete; a chosen number have attained to the faith (xi, 1-10); (iv) Israel’s unbelief is the salvation of the pagan world, and likewise a solemn exhortation to fidelity in the faith (xi, 11- 22); (v) Israel’s rejection is not irrevocable. The people will find mercy and salvation (xi, 23-32). Thence the praise of the wisdom and the inscrutable providence of God (xi, 33-36).
(2) The Practical Part (xii, 1-xv, 13).–(a) The general exhortation to the faithful service of God and the avoidance of the spirit of the world (xii, 1-2). (b) Admonition to unity and charity (modest, active charity), peacefulness, and love of enemies (xii, 3-21). (c) Obligations towards superiors: fundamental establishment and practical proof (xiii, 1-7). Conclusion: A second inculcation of the commandment of love (xiii, 8-10) and an incitement to zeal in view of the proximity of salvation (xiii, 11-14). (d) Toleration and forbearance between the strong and the weak (treated with special application to the Roman community) on account of the importance and practical significance of the question; it falls under (b): (i) fundamental criticism of the standpoint of both classes (xiv, 1-12); (ii) practical inferences for both (xiv, 13- xv, 6); (iii) establishment through the example of Christ and the intentions of God (xv, 7-13). Conclusion: Defence of the Epistle: (1) in view of Paul’s calling; (2) in view of his intended relations with the community (xv, 22-23); (3) recommendations, greetings (warning), doxology (xvi, 1-27).
III. AUTHENTICITY
Is the Epistle to the Romans a work of the great Apostle of the Gentiles, St. Paul? Undoubtedly it has the same authorship as the Epistles to the Corinthians and the Epistle to the Galatians; consequently, if the authenticity of these be proved, that of Romans is likewise established. We shall however treat the question quite independently. The external evidence of the authorship of Romans is uncommonly strong. Even though no direct testimony as to the authorship is forthcoming before Marcion and Irenæus, still the oldest writings betray an acquaintance with the Epistle. One might with some degree of probability include the First Epistle of St. Peter in the series of testimonies: concerning the relation between Romans and the Epistle of St. James we shall speak below. Precise information is furnished by Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, and Justin: Marcion admitted Romans into his canon, and the earliest Gnostics were acquainted with it.
The internal evidence is equally convincing. Modern critics (van Manen and others) have indeed asserted that no attempt was ever made to prove its authenticity; they have even gone further, and declared the Epistle an invention of the second century. Evanson (1792) first attempted to maintain this view; he was followed by Br. Bauer (1852, 1877), and later by Loman, Steck, van Manen (1891, 1903), and others. A less negative standpoint was adopted by Pierson-Naber, Michelsen, Völter, etc., who regarded Romans as the result of repeated revisions of genuine Pauline fragments, e. g., that one genuine Epistle, interpolated five times and combined finally with an Epistle to the Ephesians, gave rise to Romans (Völter). These critics find their ground for denying the authenticity of the Epistle in the following considerations: Romans is a theological treatise rather than an epistle; the beginning and conclusion do not correspond; the addresses cannot be determined with certainty; despite a certain unity of thought and style, there are perceptible traces of compilation and discordance, difficult transitions, periods, connexions of ideas, which reveal the work of the reviser; the second part (ix-xii) abandons the subject of the first (justification by faith), and introduces an entirely foreign idea; there is much that cannot be the composition of St. Paul (the texts dealing with the rejection of Israel lead one to the period after the destruction of Jerusalem; the Christians of Rome appear as Pauline Christians; the conception of freedom from the law, of sin and justification, of life in Christ, etc., are signs of a later development); finally there are, according to Van Manen, traces of second-century Gnosticism in the Epistle.
We have here a classical example of the arbitrariness of this type of critics. They first declare all the writings of the first and of the early second century forgeries, and, having thus destroyed all the sources, construct a purely subjective picture of the period, and revise the sources accordingly.
That the Epistle to the Romans was written at least before the last decades of the first century is established; even by external evidence taken alone; consequently all theories advocating a later origin are thereby exploded. The treatment of a scientific (theological) problem in an epistle can constitute a difficulty only for such as are unacquainted with the literature of the age. Doubts as to the untiy of the Epistle vanish of themselves on a closer examination. The introduction is most closely connected with the theme (i, 4, 5, 8, 12, etc.); the same is true of the conclusion. An analysis of the Epistle reveals incontestably the coherence of the first and second parts; from chapter ix an answer is given to a question which has obtruded itself in the earlier portion. In this fact Chr. Baur sees the important point of the whole Epistle. Besides, the interrelation between the parts finds express mention (ix, 30-32; x, 3-6; xi, 6; xi, 20-23; etc.). The author’s attitude towards Israel will be treated below (VI). The rejection of the Chosen People could have become abundantly clear to the author after the uniform experiences of a wide missionary activity extending over more than ten years. The unevennesses and difficulty of the language show at most that the text has not been perfectly preserved. Much becomes clear when we remember the personality of St. Paul and his custom of dictating his Epistles.
Were the Epistle a forgery, the expressions concerning the person and views of the author would be inexplicable and completely enigmatic. Who in the second century would have made St. Paul declare that he had not founded the Roman community, that previously he had had no connexion with it, since at a very early date the same Apostle becomes with St. Peter its co-founder? How could a man of the second century have conceived the idea of attributing to St. Paul the intention of paying merely a passing visit to Rome, when (as would have been palpable to every reader of Acts 28:30-31) the Apostle had worked there for two successive years? The Acts could not have supplied the suggestion, since it merely says: “I must see Rome also” (xix, 21). Of Paul’s plan of proceeding thence to Spain, the author of Acts says nothing; in recording the nocturnal apparition of the Lord to St. Paul, mention is made only of his giving testimony at Rome (Acts 23:11). The arrival at Rome is recorded with the words: “And so we went to [the wished for] Rome” (Acts 28:14). Acts closes with a reference to Paul’s residence and activity in Rome, without even hinting at anything further. Again, it would have occurred to a forger to mention Peter also in a forged Epistle to the Romans, even though it were only in a greeting or a reference to the foundation of the Church. Other arguments could be drawn from the concluding chapters. Whoever studies Romans closely will be convinced that here the true Paul speaks, and will acknowledge that “the authenticity of the Epistle to the Romans can be contested only by those who venture to banish the personality of Paul from the pages of history” (Jülicher).
IV. INTEGRITY
Apart from individual uncertain texts, which occur also in the other Epistles and call for the attention of the textual investigator, the last two chapters have given rise to some doubts among critics. Not only did Marcion omit xvi, 25-27, but, as Origen-Rufinus express it, “cuncta dissecuit” from xiv, 23. Concerning the interpretation of these words there is indeed no agreement, for while the majority of exegetes see in them the complete rejection of the two concluding chapters, others translate “dissecuit” as “disintegrated”, which is more in accordance with the Latin expression. Under Chr. Baur’s leadership, the Tübingen School has rejected both chapters; others have inclined to the theory of the disintegration work of Marcion.
Against chapter xv no reasonable doubt can be maintained. Verses 1-13 follow as a natural conclusion from ch. xiv. The general extent of the consideration recommended in ch. xiv is in the highest degree Pauline. Furthermore xv, 7-13 are so clearly connected with the theme of the Epistle that they are on this ground also quite beyond suspicion. Though Christ is called the “minister of the circumcision” in xv, 8, this is in entire agreement with all that the Gospels say of Him and His mission, and with what St. Paul himself always declares elsewhere. Thus also, according to the Epistle, salvation is offered first to Israel conformably to Divine Providence (i, 16); and the writer of ix, 3-5, could also write xv, 8.
The personal remarks and information (xv, 14-33) are in entire agreement with the opening of the Epistle, both in thought and tone. His travelling plans and his personal uneasiness concerning his reception in Jerusalem are, as already indicated, sure proofs of the genuineness of the verses. The objection to ch. xv has thus found little acceptance; of it “not a sentence may be referred to a forger” (Jülicher).
Stronger objections are urged against ch. xvi. In the first place the concluding doxology is not universally recognized as genuine. The MSS. indeed afford some grounds for doubt, although only a negligibly small number of witnesses have with Marcion ignored the whole doxology. The old MSS., in other respects regarded as authoritative, insert it at the end of xiv; some have it after both xiv and xvi. In view of this uncertainty and of some expressions not found elsewhere in the writings of St. Paul (e. g. the only wise God, the scriptures of the prophets), the doxology has been declared a later addition (H. J. Holtzmann, Jülicher, and others), a very unlikely view in the face of the almost unexceptional testimony, especially since the thought is most closely connected with the opening of Romans, without however bvetraying any dependence in its language. The fullness of the expression corresponds completely with the solemnity of the whole Epistle. The high-spirited temperament of the author powerfully shows itself on repeated occasions. The object with which the Apostle writes the Epistle, and the circumstances under which it is written, offer a perfect explanation of both attitude and tone. The addresses, the impending journey to Jerusalem, with its problematic outcome (St. Paul speaks later of his anxiety in connexion therewith — Acts 20:22), the acceptance of his propaganda at Rome, on which, according to his own admission, his Apostolic future so much depended–all these were factors which must have combined once more at the conclusion of such an Epistle to issue in these impressively solemn thoughts. In view of this consideration, the removal of the doxology would resemble the extraction of the most precious stone in a jewel-case.
The critical references to xvi, 1- 24, of to-day are concerned less with their Pauline origin than with the inclusion in Romans. The doubt entertained regarding them is of a twofold character. In the first place it has been considered difficult to explain how the Apostle had so many personal friends in Rome (which he had not yet visited), as is indicated by the series of greetings in this chapter; one must suppose a real tide of emigration from the Eastern Pauline communities to Rome, and that within the few years which the Apostle had devoted to his missions to the Gentiles. Certain names occasion especial doubt: Epenetus, the “first fruits of Asia”, one would not expect to see in Rome; Aquila and Prisca, who according to I Corinthians have assembled about them a household community in Ephesus, are represented as having a little later a similar community in Rome. Further, it is surprising that the Apostle in an Epistle to Rome, should emphasize the services of these friends. But the chief objection is that this last chapter gives the Epistle a new character; it must have been written, not as an introduction, but as a warning to the community. One does not write in so stern and authoritative a tone as that displayed in xvi, 17-20, to an unknown community; and the words “I would” (xvi, 19) are not in keeping with the restraint evinced by St. Paul elsewhere in the Epistle. In consequence of these considerations numerous critics have, with David Schulz (1829), separated all or the greater portion of chapter xvi from the Epistle to the Romans (without however denying the Pauline authorship), and declared it an Epistle to the Ephesians–whether a complete epistle or only a portion of such is not determined. Verses 17-20 are not ascribed by some critics to the Epistle to the Ephesians; other critics are more liberal, and refer ch. ix-xi or xii-xiv to the imaginary Epistle.
We agree with the result of criticism in holding as certain that xvi belongs to St. Paul. Not only the language, but also the names render its Pauline origin certain. For the greater part the names are not of those who played any role in the history of primitive Christianity or in legend, so that there was no reason for bringing them into connexion with St. Paul. Certainly the idea could not have occurred to anyone in the second century, not merely to name the unknown Andronicus and Junias as Apostles, but to assign them a prominent position among the Apostles, and to place them on an eminence above St. Paul as having been in Christ before him. These considerations are supplemented by external evidence. Finally, the situation exhibited by historical research is precisely that of the Epistle to the Romans, as is almost unanimously admitted.
The “division hypothesis” encounters a great difficulty in the MSS. Deissmann endeavoured to explain the fusion of the two Epistles (Roman and Ephesian) on the supposition of collections of epistles existing among the ancients (duplicate-books of the sender and collections of originals of the receivers). Even if a possible explanation be thus obtained, its application to the present case is hedged in with improbabilities; the assumption of an Epistle consisting merely of greetings is open to grave suspicion, and, if one supposes this chapter to be the remnant of a lost epistle, this hypothesis merely creates fresh problems.
While St. Paul’s wide circle of friends in Rome at first awakens surprise, it raises no insuperable difficulty. We should not attempt to base our decision on the names alone; the Roman names prove nothing in favor of Rome, and the Greek still less against Rome. Names like Narcissus, Junias, Rufus, especially Aristobulus and Herodian remind one of Rome rather than Asia Minor, although some persons with these names may have settled in the latter place. But what of the “emigration to Rome”? The very critics who find therein a difficulty must be well aware of the great stream of Orientals which flowed to the capital even under Emperor Augustus (Jülicher). Why should not the Christians have followed this movement? For the second century the historical fact is certain; how many Eastern names do we not find in Rome (Polycarp, Justin, Marcion, Tatian, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and others)? Again for years Paul had turned his mind towards Rome (xv, 23; i, 13). Would not his friends have known of this and would he not have discussed it with Aquila and Prisca who were from Rome? Besides, it is highly probable that the emigration was not entirely the result of chance, but took place in accordance with the views and perhaps to some extent at the suggestion of the Apostle; for nothing is more likely than that his friends hurried before him to prepare the way. Three years later indeed he is met by “the brethren” on his arrival in Rome (Acts 28:15). The long delay was not the fault of St. Paul and had not, by any means, been foreseen by him.
The emphasizing of the services of his friends is easy to understand in an Epistle to the Romans; if only a portion of the restless charity and self-sacrificing zeal of the Apostle for the Gentiles becomes known in Rome, his active helpers may feel assured of a kind reception in the great community of Gentile Christians. The exhortation in xvi, 17-20, is indeed delivered in a solemn and almost severe tone, but in the case of St. Paul we are accustomed to sudden and sharp transitions of this kind. One feels that the writer has become suddenly affected with a deep anxiety, which in a moment gets the upper hand. And why should not St. Paul remember the well-known submissiveness of the Roman Church? Still less open to objection is the “I would” (xvi, 19), since the Greek often means in the writings of St. Paul merely “I wish”. The position of verse 4 between the greetings is unusual, but would not be more intelligible in an Epistle to the Ephesians than in the Epistle to the Romans.
V. DATE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF COMPOSITION
The contents of the Epistle show that the author has acquired a ripe experience in the apostolate. Paul believes his task in the East to be practically finished; he has preached the Faith as far as Illyricum, probably to the boundaries of the province (xv, 18- 24); he is about to bring back to Palestine the alms contributed in Galatia, Achaia, and Macedonia (15:25-28; cf. 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:1-9, 15; Acts 20:3-4; 24:17). The time of composition is thus exactly determined; the Epistle was written at the end of the third missionary journey, which brought the Apostle back from Ephesus finally to Corinth. The mention of the Christian Phebe of Cenchræ (xvi, 1) and the greeting on the part of his host Caius (xvi, 23) very likely the one whom Paul had baptized (1 Corinthians 1:14)–conduct us to Corinth, where the Epistle was written shortly before Paul’s departure for Macedonia. Its composition at the port of Cenchræ would be possible only on the supposition that the Apostle had made a long stay there; the Epistle is too elaborate and evinces too much intellectual labour for one to suppose that it was written at an intermediate station.
The year of composition can only be decided approximately. According to Acts, xxiv, 27, St. Paul’s imprisonment in Cæsarea lasted two full years until the removal of the procurator Felix. The year of this change lies between 58 and 61. At the earliest 58, because Felix was already many years in office at the beginning of Paul’s imprisonment (Acts 24:10); Felix scarcely came to Judea before 52, and less than four or five years cannot well be called “many”. At the latest 61, although this date is very improbable, as Festus, the successor of Felix, died in 62 after an eventful administration. Accordingly the arrival of St. Paul in Jerusalem and the composition of the Epistle to the Romans, which occurred in the preceding few months, must be referred to the years 56-59, or better 57-58. The chronology of St. Paul’s missionary activity does not exclude the suggestion of the years 56-57, since the Apostle began his third missionary journey perhaps as early as 52-53 (Gallio, proconsul of Achaia — Acts 18:12-17 — was, according to an inscription in Delphi, probably in office about 52).
VI. HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE
The Epistle gives us important information concerning the Roman Church and St. Paul’s early relations with it. We may recall the dangers and strained relations and the various groupings of the community referred to in xvi, 5, 14, 15, and perhaps in xvi, 10, 11. That Paul’s gaze was turned towards Rome for years, and that Rome was to be merely a stopping place on his way to Spain, we learn only from this Epistle. Did he ever reach Spain? All tradition affords only one useful piece of information on this point: “he went to the extremest west” (Clement of Rome, vi, 7); the Muratorian Fragment, 38 sq., is not sufficiently clear.
An interesting conception of the apostolate is contained in the words: “But now having no more place in these countries” (xv, 23). Paul thus limited his task to laying the foundation of the Gospel in large centres, leaving to others the development of the communities. The meaning of the words “unto Illyricum” (xv, 19) will always remain uncertain. Probably the Apostle had at this period not yet crossed the borders of the province. Whether the remark in Titus, iii, 12, concerning a proposed rersidence during the winter in Nicopolis (the Illyrian town is meant), is to be connected with a missionary journey, must remain unsettled.
The Epistle is instructive for its revelation of the personal feelings of the Apostle of the Gentiles towards his fellow-Jews. Some have tried to represent these feelings as hard to explain and contradictory. But a true conception of the great Apostle renders every word intelligible. On the one hand he maintains in this Epistle the position of faith and grace as distinct from the Law, and, addressing a people who appealed to their natural lineage and their observance of the Law to establish a supposed right (to salvation), he insists unswervingly on the Divine election to grace. But Paul emphasizes not less firmly that, according to God’s word, Israel is first called to salvation (i, 16; ii, 10), explicitly proclaiming the preference shown to it (ii, 1-2; ix, 4-5–the Divine promises, Divine sonship, the Covenant and the Law, and, greatest privilege of all, the origin of the Messias, the true God, in Israel according to the flesh–xv, 8). Paul willingly recognizes the zeal of the people for the things of God, although their zeal is misdirected (ix, 31 sq.; x, 2).
Such being his feelings towards the Chosen People, it is not surprising that Paul’s heart is filled with bitter grief at the blindness of the Jews, that he besieges God with prayer, that he is guided throughout his life of self-sacrificing apostolic labours by the hope that thereby his brethren may be won for the Faith (ix, 1-2; x, 1; xi, 13-14), that he would be prepared–were it possible–to forego in his own case the happiness of union with Christ, if by such a renunciation he could secure for his brethren a place in the heart of the Saviour.
These utterances can offer a stumbling-block only to those who do not understand St. Paul, who cannot fathom the depths of his apostolic charity. If we study closely the character of the Apostle, realize the fervour of his feelings, the warmth of his love and devotion to Christ’s work and Person, we shall recognize how spontaneously these feelings flow from such a heart, how natural they are to such a noble, unselfish nature. The mere recognition and confidence Paul won fromn the Gentiles in the course of his apostolate, the more bitter must have been the thought that Israel refused to understand its God, stood aloof peevish and hostile, and in its hatred and blindness even persecuted the Messias in His Church and opposed as far as possible the work of His Apostles. These were the hardest things for love to bear, they explain the abrupt, determined break with and the ruthless warfare against the destructive spirit of unbelief, when Paul sees that he can protect the Church of Christ in no other way. Hence he has no toleration for insistence on the practice of the Law within the Christian fold, since such insistence is in the last analysis the spirit of Judaism, which is incompatible with the spirit of Christ and the Divine election to grace, for such assistance would by practice of the law supplement or set a seal on Faith. But from the same apostolic love springs also the truly practical spirit of consideration which Paul preaches and exercises (1 Corinthians 9:20-22), and which he demands from others everywhere, so long as the Gospel is not thereby jeopardized. One can easily understand how such a man can at one moment become inflamed with bitter resentment and holy anger, showing no indulgence when his life’s work is threatened, and can later in a peaceful hour forget all, recognizing in the offender only a misguided brother, whose fault arises, not from malice, but from ignorance. In a soul which loves deeply and keenly one might expect the co-existence of such contrasts; they spring from a single root, a powerful, zealous, all-compelling charity–that certainty of St. Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles.
VII. THEOLOGICAL CONTENTS: FAITH AND WORKS
The theological importance of the Epistle to the Romans has in its treatment of the great fundamental problem of justification; other important questions (e. g., original sin–v, 12-21) are treated in connextion with and from the standpoint of justification. In the Epistle to the Galatians Paul had already defended his teaching against the attacks of the extreme Jewish Christians; in contrast with the Epistle to the Galatians, this to the Romans was not evoked by the excitement of a polemical warfare. The discussion of the question in it is deeper and wider. The fundamental doctrine which Paul proclaims to all desirous of salvation is as follows: In the case of all men the call to the Messianic salvation is absolutely dependent on the free election of God; no merit or ability of the individual, neither inclusion among the descendants of Abraham nor the practice of the Law, gives a title to this grace. God zealously watches over the recognition of this truth; hence the emphasizing of faith (i, 16 sq.; ii, 32, 24-30; iv, 2 sqq., 13-25; v, 1, etc.); hence the stress laid upon the redemptory act of Christ, which benefits us, the enemies of God (ii, 24 sq.; iv, 24 sq.; v, 6-10, 15-21; vii, 25; viii, 29 sqq.); we owe our whole salvation and the inalienable certainty of salvation to the propitiatory and sanctifying power of the Blood of Christ (viii, 35-39).
From this standpoint the second part (ix-xi) describes the action of Divine providence, which is more than once revealed under the Old Dispensation, and which alone corresponds with the grandeur and sovereign authority of God. Hence the irresponsive attitude of Israel becomes intelligible; the Jews blocked their own path by considereing themselves entitled to claim the Messianic Kingdom on the grounds of their personal justice. In view of this repugnant spirit, God was compelled to leave Israel to its own resources, until it should stretch out its hand after the merciful love of its Creator; then would the hour of salvation also strike for the People of the Covenant (ix, 30 sqq.; x, 3-21; xi, 32).
Securing of Salvation.–To the question how man obtains salvation, St. Paul has but one answer: not by natural powers, not by works of the Law, but by faith and indeed by faith without the works of the Law (iii, 28). At the very beginning of the Epistle Paul refers to the complete failure of natural powers (i, 18-32), and repeatedly returns to this idea but he lays the greatest emphasis on the inadequacy of the Law. From the Jews this statement met with serious opposition. What does the Apostle mean then when he preaches the necessity of faith?
Faith is for St. Paul often nothing else than the Gospel, i. e., the whole economy of salvation in Christ (Galatians 1:23; 3:23, 25, etc.); often it is the teaching of faith, the proclamation of the faith, and the life of faith (Romans 1:5; 12:6; 16:26; Galatians 3:2; Acts 6:7; Romans 1:8; 2 Corinthians 1:23; 11:15; 13:5; Acts 13:8; 14:21; 16:5). That according to all these conceptions salvation comes only by faith without the works of the Law, needs no demonstration. But to what faith was Abraham indebted for his justification? (4:3, 9, 13-22; Galatians 3:6). Abraham had to believe the word of God, that is hold it for certain. In the case of the Christian the same faith is demanded: “to believe that we shall live also together with Christ: knowing that Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more” (vi, 8-9); “If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (x, 9). This faith is undeniably belief on the authority of God (dogmatic faith). The same conception of faith underlies all the exhortations to submit ourselves in faith to God; submission presupposes the conviction of faith (i, 5; vi, 16-19; x, 16; xv, 18).
The faith described in the Epistle to the Romans, as elsewhere in St. Paul’s writings and in the New Testament in general, is furthermore a trusting faith, e. g., in the case of Abraham, whose trust is specially extolled (iv, 17- 21; cf. iii, 3, unbelief and the fidelity of God). So far is this confidence in God’s fidelity from excluding dogmatic faith that it is based undeniably on it alone and unconditionally requires it. Without the unswerving acceptance of certain truths (e. g., the Messiahship, the Divinity of Christ, the redemptory character of Christ’s death, the Resurrection, etc.), there is for St. Paul, as he never fails to make clear in his Epistles, no Christianity. Therefore, justifying faith comprises dogmatic faith as well as hope. Again, it would never have occurred to St. Paul to conceive baptism as other than necessary for salvation: Romans itself offers the surest guarantee that baptism and faith, viewed of course from different standpoints, are alike necessary for justification (6:3 sqq.; Galatians 3:26 sq.). The turning away from sin is also necessary for justification. Paul cannot proclaim sufficiently the incompatibility of sin and the Divine sonship. If the Christian must avoid sin, those who seek salvation must also turn aside from it. While St. Paul never speaks in his Epistle of penance and contrition, these constitute so self-evident a condition that they do not call for any special mention. Besides, chapters i-iii are only a grand exposition of the truth that sin separates us from God. For the nature of justification it is immaterial whether Paul is displaying before the eyes of the Christian the consequences of sin, or is making sentiments of contrition and a change to a Christian mode of life a necessary preliminary condition for the obtaining of grace. What sentiments he requires, he describes in the words: “For in Jesus Christ, neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision; but faith, which worketh by charity” (Galatians 5:6). It is merely a repetition of the sentence when the Apostle, after proclaiming freedom in Christ, seeks to remove the misconception that the condition of Christian freedom might endure anything and become synonymous with liberty to sin (Galatians 5:13-21; cf. Romans 12:1 sq.; 13:12 sqq.; 8:12 sqq.; 11:20 sqq.).
We thus see what Paul would have us understand by justifying faith. If he does not always describe it from every standpoint as in the present instance, but designates it as dogmatic or trusting faith, the reason is easily understood. He has no intention of describing all the stages along the road to justification; he is so far from desiring to give a strict definition of its nature, that he wishes merely to indicate the fundamental condition on the part of man. This condition is, from the standpoint of the supernatural character of justification, not so much the feeling of contrition or the performance of penitential works as the trusting acceptance of the promise of God. When a person has once taken this first step, all the rest, if he be consistent, follows of itself. To regard justifying faith as the work or outcome of natural man and to attribute grace to this work, is to misunderstand the Apostle. The free submission which lies in faith prepares the soul for the reception of grace. Provided that the teaching of St. Paul be studied in the context in which it is found in the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, it cannot be misunderstood. If, however, Paul in both Epistles forestalls an unjustified practical consequence that might be drawn therefrom, this is a proof of his deep knowledge of mankind, but in no way a limitation of his doctrine. The faith which justifies without the works of the Law and the Christian freedom from the Law continue unimpaired. The possibility of error would be afforded if one were to withdraw the words of the Apostle from their context; even shibboleths for libertinism might be extracted in that case from his teaching. This leads us to the well-known sentence in the Epistle of St. James concerning faith without works (ii, 20, 24). Was this written in premeditated opposition to St. Paul?
Paul and James
Two questions must be distinguished in our inquiry: (1) Is there an historical connexion between the statements in the Epistles? (2) How are the antitheses to be explained? Are they premeditated or not?
(1) The possibility of a direct reference in the Epistle of St. James to St. Paul (this hypothesis alone is tenable) depends on the question of the priority of the Epistle. For scholars (e. g., Neander, Beyschlag, Th. Zahn, Belser, Canerlynck, etc.) who hold that the Epistle of St. James was written before A. D. 50, the question is settled. But the grounds for the assigning of this date to the Epistle are not entirely convincing, since the Epistle fits in better with the conditions of the succeeding decades. An extreme attitude is adopted by many modern critics (e. g., Chr. Baur, Hilgenfeld, H. J. Hultzmann, von Soden, Jülicher), who assign the Epistle to the second century–a scarcely intelligible position in view of the historical conditions. If the Epistle of St. James were composed shortly after the year 60, it might, in view of the lively intercourse among the Christians, have been influenced by the misunderstood views of the teachings of St. Paul, and James may have combated the misused formula of St. Paul. The almost verbal connexion in the passages might thus be accounted for.
(2) Does there exist any real opposition between Paul and James? This question is answered in the affirmative in many quarters to-day. Paul, it is asserted, taught justification through faith without works, while James simply denied St. Paul’s teaching (Romans 3:28), and seeks a different explanation for the chief passage quoted by St. Paul (Genesis 15:6) concerning the faith of Abraham (Jülicher and others). But does James really treat of justification in the same sense as St. Paul? Their formulation of the question is different from the outset. James speaks of true justice before God, which, he declares, consists not alone in a firm faith, but in a faith supported and enlivened by works (especially of charity). Without works faith is useless and dead (ii, 17, 20). James addresses himself to readers who are already within the fold, but who may not lead a moral life and may appeal in justification of their conduct to the word of faith. To those who adopt this attitude, James can only answer: “But he that hath looked into the perfect law of liberty, and hath continued therein, not becoming a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed” (i, 25). Throughout his Epistle James aims at attaining the translation of faith to life and works; in speaking of a faith that worketh by charity (Galatians 5:6), Paul really teaches exactly the same as James.
But what of the argument of James and his appeal to Abraham? “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God” (ii, 21-23). Paul, like James, appealed to the same Abraham–both rightly from their individual standpoints. With entire right could Paul declare that Abraham owed his justice, not to circumcision, but to his faith; with complete right could James appeal to Abraham’s act of obedience and assert that faith accompanied it and by it faith was completed. And if James applies to this act the phrase: “It was reputed to him to justice”, he is quite entitled to do so, since Abraham’s obedience is rewarded with a new and glorious promise of God (Genesis 22:16 sqq.).
It is clear from the whole passage that James does not use the word “justify”, in the sense in which Paul speaks of the first justification, but in the sense of an increasing justification (cf. Romans 2:13; Revelation 22:11), as corresponds to the object or the Epistle. Of any contradiction between the Epistle to the Romans and that of St. James, therefore, there can be no question.
Finally, there is a difference in the use of the term faith. In the passage in question, James uses the term in a narrow sense. As shown by the reference to the faith of the demons (ii, 19), nothing more is here meant by faith than a firm conviction and undoubting acceptance, which is shared even by the damned, and has therefore in itself no moral value. Such a faith would never have been termed by St. Paul a justifying faith. That throughout the whole course of the Epistle of St. James St. Paul’s doctrine of justification is never called into question, and that St. Paul on his side shows nowhere the least opposition to St. James, calls for no further proof. The fundamental conceptions and the whole treatment in the two Epistles exclude all views to the contrary.
———————————–
Consult the Introduction by JACQUIER, CORNELY, BELSER, KAULEN, TH. ZAHN, HOLTZMANN, JÜLICHER, LIGHTFOOT, The Structure and Destination of the Epistle to the Romans in Jour. of Philolog., II (1869), reprinted in Biblical Essays (London, 1893-4), 285-374. Commentaries: ORIGEN -RUFINUS; EPHRAEM; CHRYSOSTUM; AMBROSIASTER; PELAGIUS; AUGUSTINE; THEOPHYLACTUS; ŒCUMENIUS; THOMAS AQUINAS; ERASMUS; CAJETAN; TOLET; ESTIUS; A LAPIDE; CALMET; REITHMAYR; ADALB. MAIER (1847); BISPING (2nd ed., Münster, 1860); MAC EVILLY (3rd ed., Dublin, 1875); SCHAEFER (Münster, 1891); CORNELY (Paris, 1896). Protestant Commentaries: LUTHER, Vorlesungen über den Römerbrief 1515-1516, ed. by Ficker (Leipzig, 1908); MELANCHTHON; BEZA; CALVIN; ZWINGLI; GROTIUS; BENGEL; WETTSTEIN; THOLUCK (5th ed., 1856); OLSHAUSEN (2ND ED., 1840); FRITSCHE (3 vols., 1836-43); MEYLERWEISS (9th ed., Göttingen, 1899, tr. Edinburgh, 187304); LIPSIUS, Holtzmann, Handkommentar (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1892); JÜLICHER (J. WEISS), Die Schriften des N. T., II (2nd ed., Göttingen, 1908); LEITZMANN, Handbuch zum N. T., III (Tübingen, 1906); ZAHN (Leipzig, 1901); GODET (2nd ed., 1883-90, tr. Edinburgh, 1881); GIFFORD, Speaker’s Commentary (1881), separate (1886); SANDAY-HEADLAM, The International Crit. Commentary (5th ed., Edinburgh, 1905). For further literature see CORNELY; SANDAY; WEISS. Theological Questions.–SIMAR, Die Theol. des hl. Paulus (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1883); PRAT, La théol. de s. P., I (Paris, 1908); HOLTZMANN, Lehrbuch d. neutest. Theol., II (Freiburg, 1908); new ed. being published); WEISS, Lehrbuch d. bibl. Theol. d. N. T. (7th ed., Stuttgart, 1903); FEINE, Theol. des N. T. (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1911); BARTMANN, St. P. u. St. J. über die Rechtfertigung in Bibl. Studien, XI (Freiburg, 1904), i.
A. MERK Transcribed by WGKofron With thanks to Fr. John Hilkert, Akron, Ohio
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIIICopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Romans, Epistle To The
This is naturally placed first among the epistles in the New Test., both on account of its comparative length and its importance. It claims our interest more than the other didactic epistles of Paul, because it is more systematic, and because it explains especially that truth which subsequently became the principle of the Reformation, viz. righteousness through faith. It has, however, been greatly misunderstood in modern times, as it seems to have been very early ( 2Pe 3:15-16).
I. Authorship. Internal evidence is so strongly in favor of the genuineness of the Epistle to the Romans that it has never been seriously questioned. Even the sweeping criticism of Baur did not go beyond condemning the last two chapters as spurious. But while the epistle bears in itself the strongest proofs of its Pauline authorship, the external testimony in its favor is not inconsiderable. The reference to Rom 2:4 in 2Pe 3:15 is indeed more than doubtful. In the Epistle of James, again (Jam 2:14), there is an allusion to perversions of Paul’s language and doctrine which has several points of contact with the Epistle to the Romans; but this may perhaps be explained by the oral rather than the written teaching of the apostle, as the dates seem to require. It is not the practice of the apostolic fathers to cite the New Test. writers by name, but marked passages from the Romans are found imbedded in the epistles of Clement and Polycarp (Rom 1:29-32 in Clem. Corinthians 35, and Rom 14:10; Rom 14:12, in Polyc. Phil. 6). It seems also to have been directly cited by the elder quoted in Irenaeus (4, 27, 2, ideo Paulum dixisse; comp. Rom 11:21; Rom 11:17), and is alluded to by the writer of the Epistle to Diognetus (c. 9; comp. Rom 3:21 fol.; 5:20), and by Justin Martyr (Dial. c. 23; comp. Rom 4:10-11, and in other passages). The title of Melito’s treatise On the Hearing of Faith seems to be an allusion to this epistle (see, however, Gal 3:2-3). It has a place, moreover, in the Muratorian Canon and in the Syriac and Old Latin versions. Nor have we the testimony of orthodox writers alone. The epistle was commonly quoted as an authority by the heretics of the subapostolic age: by the Ophites (Hippol. Adv. Hoer. p. 99; comp. Rom 1:20-26), by Basilides (ibid. p. 238; comp. Rom 8:19; Rom 8:22; Rom 5:13-14), by Valentinus (ibid. p. 195; comp. Rom 8:11), by the Valentinians Heracleon and Ptolemaeus (Westcott, On the Canon, p. 335, 340), and perhaps also by Tatian (Orat. c. 4; comp. Rom 1:20), besides being included in Marcion’s Canon. In the latter part of the 2d century the evidence in its favor is still fuller. It is obviously alluded to in the letter of the churches of Vienne and Lyons (Euseb. H.E. 5, 1; comp. Rom 8:18), and by Athenagoras (p. 13; comp. Rom 12:1; p. 37; comp. Romans 1, 24) and Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Autol. p. 79; comp. Rom 2:6 fol.; p. 126; comp. Rom 13:7-8); and is quoted frequently and by name by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria (see Kirchhofer, Quellen, p. 198, and especially Westcott, On the Canon, passim).
II. Integrity. This has not been so unanimously admitted as the genuineness. With the exception of Marcion’s authorities, indeed, who probably tampered with the manuscripts of the epistles as he did with those of the gospels, and who considered the last two chapters of this epistle spurious, all the manuscripts and versions contain the epistle as we have it: it is in modern times that doubts have been thrown upon the authenticity of the concluding portion. By Heumann the epistle was considered to have originally ended with ch. 11; ch. 12-15 being a distinct production, though likewise addressed to the Romans, and ch. 16 a sort of postscript to the two. Semler (1762) confined his doubts to ch. 15 and 16, the former of which he regarded as a private encyclical for the use of the brethren whom the bearers of the larger epistle should meet on their way to Rome, the latter as a catalogue of persons to be saluted on the same journey. Schulz (1829) supposed that ch. 16 was addressed to the Ephesians from Rome, and Schott that it is made up of fragments from a short epistle written by Paul when at Corinth to an Asiatic Church. Baur has more recently (1836) followed on the same side; but, as usual, on merely internal grounds, and in favor of his peculiar theory of the relation of the parties of Paul and Peter in the apostolic age. These various hypotheses have long passed into oblivion; and by all recent critics of note the last two chapters have been restored to their place as an integral part of the epistle.
With greater semblance of reason has the genuineness of the doxology at the end of the epistle been questioned. Schmidt and Reiche consider it not to be genuine. In this doxology the anacolouthical and unconnected style causes some surprise, and the whole has been deemed to be out of its place (Rom 16:26-27). The arguments against its genuineness on the ground of style, advanced by Reiche, are met and refuted by Fritzsche (Romans vol. 1, p. 35). Such defects of style may easily be explained from the circumstance that the apostle hastened to the conclusion, but would be quite inexplicable in additions of a copyist who had time for calm consideration. The same words occur in different passages of the epistle, and it must be granted that such a fluctuation sometimes indicates an interpolation. In the Codex I, in most of the Codices Minusculi, as well as in Chrysostom, the words occur at the conclusion of ch. 14. In the codices B, C, D, E, and in the Syrian translation, this doxology occurs at the conclusion of ch. 16. In Codex A it occurs in both places; while in Codex D** the words are wanting entirely, and they seem not to fit into either of the two places. If the doxology be put at the conclusion of ch. 14, Paul seems to promise to those Christians weak in faith, of whom he had spoken, a confirmation of their belief. But it seems unfit in this connection to call the Gospel an eternal mystery, and the doxology seems here to interrupt the connection between ch. 14 and 15; and at the conclusion of ch. 16 it seems to be superfluous, since the blessing had been pronounced already in Rom 16:24. We, however, say that this latter circumstance need not have prevented the apostle from allowing his animated feelings to burst forth in a doxology, especially at the conclusion of an epistle which treated amply on the mystery of redemption. We find an analogous instance in Eph. 23:27, where a doxology occurs after the mystery of salvation had been mentioned. We are therefore of opinion that the doxology is rightly placed at the conclusion of ch. 16, and that it was in some codices erroneously transposed to the conclusion of ch. 14, because the copyist considered the blessing in 16:24 to be the real conclusion of the epistle. In confirmation of this remark, we observe that the same codices in which the doxology occurs in ch. 16 either omit the blessing altogether or place it after the doxology. (See 4:7 below.)
III. Time and Place of Writing. The date of this epistle is fixed with more absolute certainty and within narrower limits than that of any other of Paul’s epistles. The following considerations determine the time of writing. First. Certain names in the salutations point to Corinth as the place from which the letter was sent.
(1.) Phoebe, a deaconess of Cenchreae, one of the port towns of Corinth, is commended to the Romans (Rom 16:1-2).
(2.) Gaius, in whose house Paul was lodged at the time (Rom 16:23), is probably the person mentioned as one of the chief members of the Corinthian Church in 1Co 1:14, though the name was very common.
(3.) Erastus, here designated the treasurer of the city (, 1Co 1:23, A.V. chamberlain), is elsewhere mentioned in connection with Corinth (2Ti 4:20; see also Act 19:22).
Secondly. Having thus determined the place of writing to be Corinth, we have no hesitation in fixing upon the visit recorded in Act 20:3, during the winter and spring following the apostle’s long residence at Ephesus, as the occasion on which the epistle was written. For Paul, when he wrote the letter, was on the point of carrying the contributions of Macedonia and Achaia to Jerusalem (15:25-27), and a comparison with Act 20:22; Act 24:17; and also 1Co 16:4; 2Co 8:1-2; 2Co 9:1 sq., shows that he was so engaged at this period of his life. (See Paley, Horoe Paulinoe, ch. 2, 1.) Moreover, in this epistle he declares his intention of visiting the Romans after he has been at Jerusalem (1Co 15:23-25), and that such was his design at this particular time appears from a casual notice in Act 19:21.
The epistle, then, was written from Corinth during Paul’s third missionary journey, on the occasion of the second of the two visits recorded in the Acts. On this occasion he remained three months in Greece (Act 20:3). When he left, the sea was already navigable, for he was on the point of sailing for Jerusalem when he was obliged to change his plans. On the other hand, it cannot have been late in the spring, because, after passing through Macedonia and visiting several places on the coast of Asia Minor, he still hoped to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost (Act 20:16). It was therefore in the winter or early spring of the year that the Epistle to the Romans was written. According to the most probable system of chronology, this would be the winter of A.D. 54-55.
The Epistle to the Romans is thus placed in chronological connection with the epistles to the Galatians and Corinthians, which appear to have been written within the twelve months preceding. The First Epistle to the Corinthians was written before Paul left Ephesus, the Second from Macedonia when he was on his way to Corinth, and the Epistle to the Galatians most probably either in Macedonia or after his arrival at Corinth, i.e. after the epistles to the Corinthians, though the date of the Galatian epistle is not absolutely certain. SEE GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE. We shall have to notice the relations existing between these contemporaneous epistles hereafter. At present it will be sufficient to say that they present a remarkable resemblance to each other in style and matter a much greater resemblance than can be traced to any other of Paul’s epistles. They are at once the most intense and most varied in feeling and expression if we may so say, the most Pauline of all Paul’s epistles. When Baur excepts these four epistles alone from his sweeping condemnation of the genuineness of all the letters bearing Paul’s name (Paulus, der Apostel), this is a mere caricature of sober criticism; but underlying this erroneous exaggeration is the fact that the epistles of this period Paul’s third missionary journey have a character and an intensity peculiarly their own, corresponding to the circumstances of the apostle’s outward and inward life at the time when they were written. For the special characteristics of this group of epistles, see a paper on the Epistle to the Galatians in the Journal of Class. and Sacr. Phil. 3, 289.
IV. Occasion and Object of Writing. These evidently grew out of the position and character of the persons addressed, and therefore involve a consideration of the Church at Rome and of the apostle’s purposes with relation to it.
1. The opinions concerning the general design of this letter differ according to the various suppositions of those who think that the object of the letter was supplied by the occasion, or the supposition that the apostle selected his subject only after an opportunity for writing was offered. In earlier times the latter opinion prevailed, as, for instance, in the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Melancthon, Calvin. In more recent times the other opinion has generally been advocated, as, for instance, by Hug, Eichhorn, and Flatt. Many writers suppose that the debates mentioned in ch. 14 and 15 called forth this epistle. Hug, therefore, is of opinion that the object of the whole epistle was to set forth the following proposition: Jews and Gentiles have equal claim to the kingdom of God. According to Eichhorn, the Roman Jews, being exasperated against the disciples of Paul, endeavored to demonstrate that Judaism was sufficient for the salvation of mankind; consequently Eichhorn supposes that the polemics of Paul were not directed against Judaizing converts to Christianity, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, but rather against Judaism itself. This opinion is also maintained by De Wette (Einleitung ins Neue Testament, 4th ed. 138). According to Credner (Einleitung, 141), the intention of the apostle was to render the Roman congregation favorably disposed before his arrival in the chief metropolis, and he therefore endeavored to show that the evil reports spread concerning himself by zealously Judaizing Christians were erroneous. This opinion is nearly related to that of Baur, who supposes that the real object of this letter is mentioned only in ch. 9-11. According to Baur, the Judaizing zealots were displeased that by the instrumentality of Paul such numbers of Gentiles entered the kingdom of God that the Jews ceased to appear as the Messianic people. Baur supposes that these Judaizers are more especially refuted in ch. 9-11, after it has been shown in the first eight chapters that it was in general incorrect to consider one people better than another, and that all had equal claims to be justified by faith. Against the opinion that the apostle, in writing the Epistle to the Romans, had this particular polemical aim, it has been justly observed by Ruckert (in the 2d ed. of his Commentar), Olshausen, and De Wette that the apostle himself states that his epistle had a general scope. Paul says in the introduction that he had long entertained the wish of visiting the metropolis, in order to confirm the faith of the Church, and to be himself comforted by that faith (Rom 1:12). He adds (Rom 1:16) that he was prevented from preaching in the chief city by external obstacles only. He says that he had written to the Roman Christians in fulfilment of his vocation as apostle to the Gentiles. The journey of Phoebe to Rome seems to have been the external occasion of the epistle. Paul made use of this opportunity by sending the sum and substance of the Christian doctrine in writing, having been prevented from preaching in Rome. Paul had many friends in Rome who communicated with him; consequently he was the more induced to address the Romans, although he manifested some hesitation in doing so (Rom 15:15). These circumstances exercised some influence as well on the form as on the contents of the letter; so that, for instance, its contents differ considerably from the Epistle to the Ephesians, although this also has a general scope.
2. The immediate circumstances under which the epistle was written were these. Paul had long purposed visiting Rome, and still retained this purpose, wishing also to extend his journey to Spain (Rom 1:9-13; Rom 15:22-29). For the time, however, he was prevented from carrying out his design, as he was bound for Jerusalem with the alms of the Gentile Christians, and meanwhile he addressed this letter to the Romans, to supply the lack of his personal teaching. Phoebe, a deaconess of the neighboring Church of Cenchrese, was on the point of starting for Rome (Rom 16:1-2), and probably conveyed the letter. The body of the epistle was written at the apostle’s dictation by Tertius (Rom 16:22); but perhaps we may infer from the abruptness of the final doxology that it was added by the apostle himself, more especially as we gather from other epistles that it was his practice to conclude with a few striking words in his own handwriting, to vouch for the authorship of the letter, and frequently also to impress some important truth more strongly on his readers.
3. The Origin of the Roman Church is involved in obscurity (see Mangold, Die Anfange der romischen Gemeinde [Marb. 1866]). If it had been founded by Peter, according to a later tradition, the absence of any allusion to him both in this epistle and in the letters written by Paul from Rome would admit of no explanation. It is equally clear that no other apostle was the founder. In this very epistle, and in close connection with the mention of his proposed visit to Rome, the apostle declares that it was his rule not to build on another man’s foundation (Rom 15:20), and we cannot suppose that he violated it in this instance. Again, he speaks of the Romans as especially falling to his share as the apostle of the Gentiles (Rom 1:13), with an evident reference to the partition of the field of labor between himself and Peter, mentioned in Gal 2:7-9. Moreover, when he declares his wish to impart some spiritual gift () to them, that they might be established (Rom 1:11), this implies that they had not yet been visited by an apostle, and that Paul contemplated supplying the defect, as was done by Peter and John in the analogous case of the churches founded by Philip in Samaria (Act 8:14-17). SEE PETER (the Apostle).
The statement in the Clementines (Horn. 1, 6) that the first tidings of the Gospel reached Rome during the lifetime of our Lord is evidently a fiction for the purposes of the romance. On the other hand, it is clear that the foundation of this Church dates very far back. Paul in this epistle salutes certain believers resident in Rome Andronicus and Junia (or Junianus?) adding that they were distinguished among the apostles, and that they were converted to Christ before himself (Rom 16:7), for such seems to be the meaning of the passage, rendered somewhat ambiguous by the position of the relative pronouns. It may be that some of those Romans, both Jews and proselytes, present on the day of Pentecost ( , , Act 2:10), carried back the earliest tidings of the new doctrine, or the Gospel may have first reached the imperial city through those who were scattered abroad to escape the persecution which followed on the death of Stephen (Act 8:4; Act 11:19). At all events, a close and constant communication was kept up between the Jewish residents in Rome and their fellow countrymen in Palestine by the exigencies of commerce, in which they became more and more engrossed as their national hopes declined, and by the custom of repairing regularly to their sacred festivals at Jerusalem. Again, the imperial edicts alternately banishing and recalling the Jews (comp. e.g. in the case of Claudius, Josephus, Ant. 19, 5, 3, with Suetonius, Claud. 25) must have kept up a constant ebb and flow of migration between Rome and the East, and the case of Aquila and Priscilla (Act 18:2; see Paley, Hor. Paul. c. 2, 2) probably represents a numerous class through whose means the opinions and doctrines promulgated in Palestine might reach the metropolis. At first we may suppose that the Gospel was preached there in a confused and imperfect form, scarcely more than a phase of Judaism, as in the case of Apollos at Corinth (Act 18:25), or the disciples at Ephesus (Act 19:1-3). As time advanced and better instructed teachers arrived, the clouds would gradually clear away, till at length the appearance of the great apostle himself at Rome dispersed the mists of Judaism which still hung about the Roman Church. Long after Christianity had taken up a position of direct antagonism to Judaism in Rome, heathen statesmen and writers still persisted in confounding the one with the other (see Merivale, Hist. of Rome, 6, 278, etc.).
4. A question next arises as to the composition of the Roman Church at the time when Paul wrote. Did the apostle address a Jewish or a Gentile community, or, if the two elements were combined, was one or other predominant so as to give a character to the whole Church? Either extreme has been vigorously maintained, Baur, for instance, asserting that Paul was writing to Jewish Christians, Olshausen arguing that the Roman Church consisted almost solely of Gentiles. We are naturally led to seek the truth in some intermediate position. Jowett finds a solution of the difficulty in the supposition that the members of the Roman Church, though Gentiles, had passed through a phase of Jewish proselytism. This will explain some of the phenomena of the epistle, but not all. It is more probable that Paul addressed a mixed Church of Jews and Gentiles, the latter perhaps being the more numerous.
There are certainly passages which imply the presence of a large number of Jewish converts to Christianity. The use of the second person in addressing the Jews (ch. 2 and 3) is clearly not assumed merely for argumentative purposes, but applies to a portion at least of those into whose hands the letter would fall. The constant appeals to the authority of the law may in many cases be accounted for by the Jewish education of the Gentile believers (so Jowett, 2, 22), but sometimes they seem too direct and positive to admit of this explanation (Rom 3:19; Rom 7:1). In ch. 7 Paul appears to be addressing Jews, as those who, like himself, had once been under the dominion of the law, but had been delivered from it in Christ (see especially Rom 7:4; Rom 7:6). And when in Rom 11:13 he says, I am speaking to you the Gentiles, this very limiting expression the Gentiles implies that the letter was addressed to not a few to whom the term would not apply. Again, if we analyze the list of names in ch. 16, and assume that this list approximately represents the proportion of Jew and Gentile in the Roman Church (an assumption at least not improbable), we arrive at the same result. It is true that Mary, or rather Mariam (Rom 16:6), is the only strictly Jewish name. But this fact is not worth the stress apparently laid on it by Mr. Jowett (2:27); for Aquila and Priscilla (Rom 16:3) were Jews (Act 18:2; Act 18:26), and the Church which met in their house was probably of the same nation. Andronicus and Junia (or Junias? Act 18:7) are called Paul’s kinsmen. The same term is applied to Herodion (Act 18:11). These persons, then, must have been Jews, whether kinsmen is taken in the wider or the more restricted sense. The name Apelles (Act 18:10), though a heathen name also, was most commonly borne by Jews, as appears from Horace (Sat. 1, 5, 100). If the Aristobulus of Act 18:10 was one of the princes of the Herodian house, as seems probable, we have also in the household of Aristobulus several Jewish converts. Altogether it appears that a very large fraction of the Christian believers mentioned in these salutations were Jews, even supposing that the others, bearing Greek and Latin names, of whom we know nothing, were heathens.
Nor does the existence of a large Jewish element in the Roman Church present any difficulty. The captives carried to Rome by Pompey formed the nucleus of the Jewish population in the metropolis. SEE ROME. Since that time they had largely increased. During the reign of Augustus we hear of above 8000 resident Jews attaching themselves to a Jewish embassy which appealed to this emperor (Josephus, Ant. 17, 11, 1). The same emperor gave them a quarter beyond the Tiber, and allowed them the free exercise of their religion (Philo, Leg. ad Catium, p. 568 M.). About the time when Paul wrote, Seneca, speaking of the influence of Judaism, echoes the famous expression of Horace (Ep. 2, 1, 156) respecting the Greeks Victi victoribus leges dederunt (Seneca, in Augustine, De Civ. Dei, 6, 11). The bitter satire of Juvenal and indignant complaints of Tacitus of the spread of the infection through Roman society are well known (Tacitus, Ann. 15, 44; Juvenal, Sat. 14, 96). These converts to Judaism were mostly women. Such proselytes formed at that period the point of coalescence for the conversion of the Gentiles.
Among the converts from Judaism to Christianity there existed in the days of Paul two parties. The congregated apostles had decreed, according to Acts 15 that the converts from paganism were not bound to keep the ritual laws of Moses. There were, however, many converts from Judaism who were disinclined to renounce the authority of the Mosaic law, and appealed erroneously to the authority of James (Gal 2:9; comp. Act 21:25); they claimed also the authority of Peter in their favor. Such converts from Judaism, mentioned in the other epistles, who continued to observe the ritual laws of Moses were not prevalent in Rome. Baur, however, supposes that this Ebionitic tendency prevailed at that time in all Christian congregations, Rome not excepted. He thinks that the converts from Judaism were then so numerous that all were compelled to submit to the Judaizing opinions of the majority (comp. Baur, Abhandlung uber Zweck und Veranlassung des Romerbriefs, in the Tubinger Zeitschrift, 1836). However, Neander has also shown that the Judaizing tendency did not prevail in the Roman Church (comp. Neander, Panzung der christlichen Kirche [3d ed.], p. 388). This opinion is confirmed by the circumstance that, according to ch. 16 Paul had many friends at Rome. Baur removes this objection only by declaring ch. 16 to be spurious. He appeals to ch. xiv in order to prove that there were Ebionitic Christians at Rome: it appears, however, that the persons mentioned in ch. 14 were by no means strictly Judaizing zealots, wishing to overrule the Church, but, on the contrary, some scrupulous converts from Judaism, upon whom the others looked down contemptuously. There were, indeed, some disagreements between the Christians in Rome. This is evident from Rom 15:6-9, and Rom 11:17-18, these debates, however, were not of so obstinate a kind as among the Galatians; otherwise the apostle could scarcely have praised the congregation at Rome as he does in ch. Rom 1:8; Rom 1:12, and Rom 15:14. From ch. Rom 16:17-20 we infer that the Judaizers had endeavored to find admittance, but with little success.
On the other hand, situated in the metropolis of the great empire of heathendom, the Roman Church must necessarily have been in great measure a Gentile Church; and the language of the epistle bears out this supposition. It is professedly as the apostle of the Gentiles that Paul writes to the Romans (Rom 1:5). He hopes to have some fruit among them, as he had among the other Gentiles (Rom 1:13). Later on in the epistle he speaks of the Jews in the third person, as if addressing Gentiles: I could wish that myself were accursed for my brethren, my kinsmen after the flesh, who are Israelites, etc. (Rom 9:3-4). Again: my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they might be saved (Rom 10:1; the right reading is , not , as in the Received Text). Comp. also Rom 11:23; Rom 11:25, and especially Rom 11:30, For as ye in times past did not believe God,… so did these also (i.e. the Jews) now not believe, etc. In all these passages Paul clearly addresses himself to Gentile readers.
These Gentile converts, however, were not, for the most part, native Romans. Strange as the paradox appears, nothing is more certain than that the Church of Rome was at this time a Greek, and not a Latin, Church. It is clearly established that the early Latin versions of the New Test. were made not for the use of Rome, but for the provinces, especially Africa (Westcott, Canon, p. 269). All the literature of the early Roman Church was written in the Greek tongue. The names of the bishops of Rome during the first two centuries are, with but few exceptions, Greek (see Milman, Latin Christianity, 1, 27). In accordance with these facts, we find that a very large proportion of the names in the salutations of this epistle are Greek names; while of the exceptions, Priscilla, Aquila, and Junia (or Junias), were certainly Jews; and the same is true of Rufus, if, as is not improbable, he is the same mentioned in Mar 15:21. Julia was probably a dependent of the imperial household, and derived her name accordingly. The only Roman names remaining are Amplias (i.e. Ampliatus) and Urbanus, of whom nothing is known, but their names are of late growth, and certainly do not point to an old Roman stock. It was therefore from the Greek population of Rome, pure or mixed, that the Gentile portion of the Church was almost entirely drawn. The Greeks formed a very considerable fraction of the whole people of Rome. They were the most busy and adventurous, and also the most intelligent of the middle and lower classes of society. The influence which they were acquiring by their numbers and versatility is a constant theme of reproach in the Roman philosopher and satirist (Juvenal, 3, 60-80; 6, 184; Tacitus, De Orat. 29). They complain that the national character is undermined, that the whole city has become Greek, Speaking the language of international intercourse, and brought by their restless habits into contact with foreign religions, the Greeks had larger opportunities than others of acquainting themselves with the truths of the Gospel; while, at the same time, holding more loosely to traditional beliefs, and with minds naturally more inquiring, they would be more ready to welcome these truths when they came in their way. At all events, for whatever reason, the Gentile converts at Rome were Greeks, not Romans; and it was an unfortunate conjecture on the part of the transcriber of the Syriac Peshito that this letter was written in the Latin tongue (). Every line in the epistle bespeaks an original.
When we inquire into the probable rank and station of the Roman believers, an analysis of the names in the list of salutations again gives an approximate answer. These names belong for the most part to the middle and lower grades of society. Many of them are found in the columbaria of the freedmen and slaves of the early Roman emperors (see Journal of Class. and Sacr. Phil. 4, 57). It would be too much to assume that they were the same persons; but, at all events, the identity of names points to the same social rank. Among the less wealthy merchants and tradesmen, among the petty officers of the army, among the slaves and freedmen of the imperial palace, whether Jews or Greeks, the Gospel would first find a firm footing. To this last class allusion is made in Php 4:22, they that are of Caesar’s household. From these it would gradually work upwards and downwards; but we may be sure that in respect of rank the Church of Rome was no exception to the general rule, that not many wise, not many mighty, not many noble, were called (1Co 1:26).
It seems probable, from what has been said above, that the Roman Church at this time was composed of Jews and Gentiles in nearly equal portions. This fact finds expression in the account, whether true or false, which represents Peter and Paul as presiding at the same time over the Church at Rome (Dionys. Cor. ap. Euseb. H.E. 2, 25; Irenaeus, 3, 3). Possibly, also, the discrepancies in the lists of the early bishops of Rome may find a solution (Pearson, Minor Theol. Works, 2, 449; Bunsen, Hippolytus, 1, 44) in the joint episcopate of Linus and Cletus the one ruling over the Jewish, the other over the Gentile, congregation of the metropolis. If this conjecture be accepted, it is an important testimony to the view here maintained, though we cannot suppose that in Paul’s time the two elements of the Roman Church had distinct organizations.
5. The heterogeneous composition of this Church explains the general character of the Epistle to the Romans. In an assemblage so various, we should expect to find not the exclusive predominance of a single form of error, but the coincidence of different and opposing forms. The Gospel had here to contend not specially with Judaism, nor specially with heathenism, but with both together. It was therefore the business of the Christian teacher to reconcile the opposing difficulties and to hold out a meeting point in the Gospel. This is exactly what Paul does in the Epistle to the Romans, and what, from the circumstances of the case, he was well enabled to do. He was addressing a large and varied community which had not been founded by himself, and with which he had had no direct intercourse. Again, it does not appear that the letter was specially written to answer any doubts, or settle any controversies, then rife in the Roman Church. There were therefore no disturbing influences, such as arise out of personal relations, or peculiar circumstances, to derange a general and systematic exposition of the nature and working of the Gospel. At the same time, the vast importance of the metropolitan Church, which could not have been overlooked even by an uninspired teacher, naturally pointed it out to the apostle as the fittest body to whom to address such an exposition. Thus the Epistle to the Romans is more of a treatise than of a letter. If we remove the personal allusions in the opening verses, and the salutations at the close, it seems not more particularly addressed to the Church of Rome than to any other Church of Christendom. In this respect it differs widely from the Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians, with which, as being written about the same time, it may most fairly be compared, and which are full of personal and direct allusions. In one instance alone we seem to trace a special reference to the Church of the metropolis. The injunction of obedience to temporal rulers (Rom 13:1) would most fitly be addressed to a congregation brought face to face with the imperial government, and the more so as Rome had recently been the scene of frequent disturbances, on the part of either Jews or Christians, arising out of a feverish and restless anticipation of the Messiah’s coming (Sueton. Claud. 25). Other apparent exceptions admit of a different explanation.
6. This explanation is, in fact, to be sought in its relation to the contemporaneous epistles. The letter to the Romans closes the group of epistles written during the second missionary journey. This group contains, besides, as already mentioned, the letters to the Corinthians and Galatians, written probably within the few months preceding. At Corinth, the capital of Achaia and the stronghold of heathendom, the Gospel would encounter its severest struggle with Gentile vices and prejudices. In Galatia, which, either from natural sympathy or from close contact, seems to have been more exposed to Jewish influence than any other Church within Paul’s sphere of labor, it had a sharp contest with Judaism. In the epistles to these two churches we study the attitude of the Gospel towards the Gentile and Jewish world respectively. These letters are direct and special. They are evoked by present emergencies, are directed against actual evils, are full of personal applications. The Epistle to the Romans is the summary of what he had written before, the result of his dealing with the two antagonistic forms of error, the gathering together of the fragmentary teaching in the Corinthian and Galatian letters. What is there immediate, irregular, and of partial application is here arranged and completed and thrown into a general form. Thus, on the one hand, his treatment of the Mosaic law points to the difficulties he encountered in dealing with the Galatian Church; while, on the other, his cautions against antinomian excesses (Rom 6:15, etc.), and his precepts against giving offense in the matter of meats and the observance of days (ch. 14), remind us of the errors which he had to correct in his Corinthian converts (comp. 1Co 6:12 sq.; 1Co 8:1 sq.). Those injunctions, then, which seem at first sight special, appear not to be directed against any actual known failings in the Roman Church, but to be suggested by the possibility of those irregularities occurring in Rome which he had already encountered elsewhere.
7. Viewing this epistle, then, rather in the light of a treatise than of a letter, we are enabled to explain certain phenomena in the text above alluded to ( 2). In the received text a doxology stands at the close of the epistle (Rom 16:25-27). The preponderance of evidence is in favor of this position, but there is respectable authority for placing it at the end of ch. 14. In some texts, again, it is found in both places, while others omit it entirely. The phenomena of the MSS. seem best explained by supposing that the letter was circulated at an early date (whether during the apostle’s lifetime or not it is idle to inquire) in two forms, both with and without the two last chapters. In the shorter form it was divested, as far as possible, of its epistolary character by abstracting the personal matter addressed especially to the Romans, the doxology being retained at the close. A still further attempt to strip this epistle of any special references is found in MS. G, which omits (Rom 1:7) and (Rom 16:15) for it is to be observed, at the same time, that this MS. omits the doxology entirely, and leaves a space after ch. 14. This view is somewhat confirmed by the parallel case of the opening of the Ephesian epistle, in which there is very high authority for omitting the words , and which bears strong marks of having been intended for a circular letter.
V. Scope, Contents, and Characteristics. The elaborate argument and logical order observed in this epistle give it a very systematic character. Nevertheless, the bearing of many of its parts has often been greatly obscured or imperfectly understood, especially under the influence of polemical bias. On this account, as well as because of the great interest always attached to the fundamental doctrines so formally treated in it, we give an unusually full outline of its contents, even at the risk of some repetition.
1. In describing the general purport of this epistle we may start from Paul’s own words, which, standing at the beginning of the doctrinal portion, may be taken as giving a summary of the contents: The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first and also to the Greek; for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith (Rom 1:16-17). Accordingly the epistle has been described as comprising the religious philosophy of the world’s history. The world in its religious aspect is divided into Jew and Gentile. The different positions of the two, as regards their past and present relation to God and their future prospects, are explained. The atonement of Christ is the center of religious history. The doctrine of justification by faith is the key which unlocks the hidden mysteries of the divine dispensation.
It belongs to the characteristic type of Paul’s teaching to exhibit the Gospel in its historical relation to the human race. In the Epistle to the Romans, also, we find that peculiar character of Paul’s teaching which induced Schelling to call Paul’s doctrine a philosophy of the history of man. The real purpose of the human race is in a sublime manner stated by Paul in his speech in Act 17:26-27; and he shows at the same time how God had, by various historical means, promoted the attainment of his purpose. Paul exhibits the Old Test. dispensation under the form of an institution for the education of the whole human race, which should enable men to terminate their spiritual minority and become truly of age (Gal 3:24; Gal 4:1-4). In the Epistle to the Romans, also, the apostle commences by describing the two great divisions of the human race, viz. those who underwent the preparatory spiritual education of the Jews. and those who did not undergo such a preparatory education. We find a similar division indicated by Christ himself (Joh 10:16), where he speaks of one flock separated by hurdles. The chief aim of all nations, according to Paul, should be the righteousness before the face of God, or absolute realization of the moral law. According to Paul the heathen also have their , law, as well religious as moral internal revelation (Rom 1:19; Rom 1:32; Rom 2:15). The heathen have, however, not fulfilled that law which they knew, and are in this respect like the Jews, who also disregarded their own law (ch. 2). Both Jews and Gentiles are transgressors, or, by the law, separated from the grace and sonship of God (Rom 2:12; Rom 3:20); consequently, if blessedness could only be obtained by fulfilling the demands of God, no man could be blessed. God, however, has gratuitously given righteousness and blessedness to all who believe in Christ (Rom 2:21-29). The Old Test. also recognizes the value of religious faith (ch. 4). Thus we freely attain to peace and sonship of God presently, and have before us still greater things, viz. the future development of the kingdom of God (Rom 5:1-11). The human race has gained in Christ much more than it lost in Adam (Rom 5:12; Rom 5:21). This doctrine by no means encourages sin (ch. 6); on the contrary, men who are conscious of divine grace fulfill the law much more energetically than they were able to do before having attained to this knowledge, because the law alone is even apt to sharpen the appetite for sin and leads finally to despair (ch. 7); but now we fulfill the law by means of that new spirit which is given unto us, and the full development of our salvation is still before us (Rom 8:1-27). The sufferings of the present time cannot prevent this development, and must rather work for good to those whom God from eternity has viewed as faithful believers; and nothing can separate such believers from the eternal love of God (Rom 8:28-39). It causes pain to behold the Israelites themselves shut out from salvation; but they themselves are the cause of this seclusion, because they wished to attain salvation by their own resources and exertions, by their descent from Abraham, and by their fulfilment of the law. Thus, however, the Jews have not obtained that salvation which God has freely offered under the sole condition of faith in Christ (ch. 9); the Jews have not entered upon the way of faith, therefore the Gentiles were preferred, which was predicted by the prophets. However, the Jewish race, as such, has not been rejected; some of them obtain salvation by a selection made not according to their works, but according to the grace of God. If some of the Jews are left to their own obduracy, even their temporary fall serves the plans of God, viz. the vocation of the Gentiles. After the mass of the Gentiles shall have entered in, the people of Israel, also, in their collective capacity, shall be received into the Church (ch. 11).
2. The following is a more detailed analysis of the epistle:
SALUTATION (Rom 1:1-7). The apostle at the outset strikes the keynote of the epistle in the expressions called as an apostle, called as saints. Divine grace is everything, human merit nothing.
I. PERSONAL explanations. Purposed visit to Rome (Rom 1:5-15).
II. DOCTRINAT, discussion (Rom 1:16; Rom 11:36).
The general proposition. The Gospel is the salvation of Jew and Gentile alike. This salvation comes by faith (Rom 1:16-17).
The rest of this section is taken up in establishing this thesis, and drawing deductions from it, or correcting misapprehensions.
(a.) All alike were under condemnation before the Gospel: The heathen (Rom 1:18-32). The Jew (Rom 2:1-29). Objections to this statement answered (Rom 3:1-8). The position itself established from Scripture (Rom 3:9-20).
(b.) A righteousness (justification) is revealed under the Gospel, which being of faith, not of law, is also universal (Rom 3:21-26).
Boasting is thereby excluded (Rom 3:27-31). Of this justification by faith Abraham is an example (Rom 4:1-25). Thus, then, we are justified in Christ, in whom alone we glory (Rom 5:1-11). This acceptance in Christ is as universal as was the condemnation in Adam (Rom 5:12-19).
(c.) The moral consequences of our deliverance.
The law was given to multiply sin (Rom 5:20-21). When we died to the law, we died to sin (Rom 6:1-14). The abolition of the law, however, is not a signal for moral license (Rom 6:15-23). On the contrary, as the law has passed away, so must sin, for sin and the law are correlative; at the same time, this is no disparagement of the law, but rather a proof of human weakness (Rom 7:1-25). So henceforth in Christ we are free from sin, we have the Spirit, and look forward in hope, triumphing over our present afflictions (Rom 8:1-39).
(d.) The rejection of the Jews is a matter of deep sorrow (Rom 9:1-5).
Yet we must remember
(1.) That the promise was not to the whole people, but only to a select seed (Rom 9:6-13). And the absolute purpose of God in so ordaining is not to be canvassed by man (Rom 9:14-19).
(2.) That the Jews did not seek justification aright, and so missed it. This justification was promised by faith, and is offered to all alike, the preaching to the Gentiles being implied therein. The character and results of the Gospel dispensation are foreshadowed in Scripture (Rom 10:1-21).
(3.) That the rejection of the Jews is not final. This rejection has been the means of gathering in the Gentiles, and through the Gentiles they themselves will ultimately be brought to Christ (Rom 11:1-36).
III. PRACTICAL exhortations (Rom 12:1; Rom 15:13).
(a.) To holiness of life and to charity in general, the duty of obedience to rulers being inculcated by the way (Rom 12:1; Rom 13:14).
(b.) More particularly against giving offense to weaker brethren (Rom 14:1; Rom 15:13).
IV. PERSONAL matters.
(a.) The apostle’s motive in writing the letter, and his intention of visiting the Romans (Rom 15:14-33).
(b.) Greetings (Rom 16:1-23).
Conclusion. The letter ends with a benediction and doxology (Rom 16:24-27).
3. While this epistle contains the fullest and most systematic exposition of the apostle’s teaching, it is at the same time a very striking expression of his character. Nowhere do his earnest and affectionate nature, and his tact and delicacy in handling unwelcome topics, appear more strongly than when he is dealing with the rejection of his fellow countrymen the Jews. SEE PAUL.
VI. The Commentaries on this epistle are very numerous, as might be expected from its importance. For convenience, we divide them chronologically into two classes.
1. Of the many patristic expositions, but few are now extant. The work of Origen is preserved entire only in a loose Latin translation of Rufinus (Orig. [ed. De la Rue] 4, 458); but some fragments of the original are found in the Philocalia, and more in Cramer’s Catena. The commentary on Paul’s epistles printed among the works of Ambrose (ed. Ben. 2, App. p. 21), and hence bearing the name Ambrosiaster. is probably to be attributed to Hilary the deacon. Chrysostom is the most important among the fathers who attempted to interpret this epistle. He enters deeply and with psychological acumen into the thoughts of the apostle, and expounds them with sublime animation (ed. Montf. 9, 425, edited separately by Field, and transl. in the Library of the Fathers [Oxf. 1841], vol. 7). Besides these are the expositions of Paul’s epistles by Pelagius (printed among Jerome’s works [ed. Vallarsi], vol. 11, pt. 3, p. 135), by Primasius (Magn. Bibl. Vet. Patr. vol. 6, pt. 2, p. 30), and by Theodoret (ed. Schulze, 3, 1). Augustine commenced a work, but broke off at 1, 4. It bears the name Inchoata Expositio Epistoloe ad Rom. (ed. Ben. 3, 925). Later he wrote Expositio quarundam Propositionum Epistoloe ad Rom., also extant (ed. Ben. 3, 903). To these should be added the later Catena of Ecumenius (10th century), and the notes of Theophylact (11th century), the former containing valuable extracts from Photius. Portions of a commentary of Cyril of Alexandria were published by Mai (Nov. Patr. Bibl. 3, 1). The Catena edited by Cramer (1844) comprises two collections of Variorum notes, the one extending from 1, 1 to 9, 1, the other from 7, 7 to the end. Besides passages from extant commentaries, they contain important extracts from Apollinarius, Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Severianus, Gennadius, Photius, and others. There are also the Greek Scholia, edited by Matthai, in his large Greek Test. (Riga, 1782), from Moscow MSS. The commentary of Euthymius Zigabenus (Tholuck, Einl. 6) exists in MS., but has never been printed. Abelard wrote annotations on this epistle (in Opp. p. 489), likewise Hugo Victor (in Opp. 1), and Aquinas (in Opp. 6). SEE COMMENTARY.
2. Modern exegetical helps (from the Reformation to the present time) on the entire epistle separately are the following, of which we designate the most important by an asterisk prefixed: Titelmann, Collectiones (Antw. 1520, 8vo); Melancthon, Adnotationes (Vitemb. 1522, and often, 4to); Bugenhagen, Interpretatio (Hag. 1523, 1527, 8vo); OEcolampadius, Adnotationes (Basil. 1526, 8vo); Sadoleto [Rom. Cath.], Commentarii (Lugd. 1535, fol.); Haresche [Rom. Cath.], Commentarii (Par. 1536, 8vo); *Calvin, Commentarius (in Opp.; in English by Sihon, Lond. 1834, 8vo; by Rodsell and Beveridge, Edinb. 1844, 8vo; by Owen, ibid. 1849, 8vo; in German, Frankf. 1836-38, 2 vols. 8vo); Sarcer, Scholia (Francf. 1541, 8vo); Grandis [Rom. Cath.], Commentarius (Par. 1546, 8vo); Soto [Rom. Cath.], Commentarius (Antw. 1550; Salm. 1551, fol.); Hales, Disputationes (Vitemb. 1553, 8vo); Musculus, Commentarius (Basil. 1555, 1572, fol.); Valdes [Socinian], Commentaria (Ven. 1556, 8vo); Naclanti [Rom. Cath.], Enarrationes (ibid. 1557, 4to); Martyr, Commentarius (Basil. 1558, fol., and later; in English, Lond. 1568, fol.); Viguer [Rom. Cath.], Commentaria (Par. 1558, fol., and later); Ferus [Rom. Cath.], Exegesis (ibid. 1559, 8vo, and later); Bucer, Metaphrasis (Basil. 1562, fol.); Malthisius [Rom. Cath. ], Commentarius (Colon. 1562, fol.); Cruciger, Commentarius (Vitemb. 1567, 8vo); Brent, Commentarius (Tub. 1571, 8vo); Hesch, Commentarius (Jen. 1572, 8vo; also [with other epistles] Lips. 1605, fol.); Hemming, Commentarius (ibid. 1572, 8vo); Olevian, Notoe (Genev. 1579, 8vo); Wigand, Adnotationes (Francf. 1580, 8vo); Comer, Commentarius (Heidelb. 1583, 8vo); De la Cerda [Rom. Cath.], Commentarius (Mussi 1583. fol.); Mussi [Rom. Cath.], Commentarius (Ven. 1588, 4to); Pollock, Analysis (Edinb. 1594; Genev. 1596, 1608, 8vo); Pantusa [Rom. Cath.], Commentarius (Ven. 1596, 8vo); Hunn, Expositio (Marp. 1587; Francf. 1596; Vitemb. 1607, 8vo); Pasqual (R.) [Rom. Cath.], Commentaria (Barc. 1597, fol.); Chytraeus, Explicatio (s. l. 1599, 8vo); Feuardent [Rom. Cath.], Commentarius (Par. 1599, 8vo); Toletus [Rom. Cath.], Adnotationes (Rom. 1602, 4to, and later); Pererius, Disputationes (Ingolst. 1603, 4to); Rung, Disputationes [includ. 1 Cor.] (Vitemb. 1603, 4to); Fay, Commentarius (Genev. 1608, 8vo); Pareus, Commentarius (Francf. 1608, 4to, and later); Mann, Notationes (ibid. 1614, 8vo); Wilson, Commentary (Lond. 1614, 4to; 1627, 1653, fol.); *Willet, Commentaria (Lond. 1620, fol.); Coutzen [Rom. Cath.], Commentarius (Colon. 1629, fol.); Parr, Exposition [on parts] (Lond. 1632, fol. ); Crell [Socinian], Commentarius (Racov. 1636, 8vo); Heger, Exegesis (Francf. 1645, 8vo; 1651, 4to); Cundis, Exercitationes (Jen. 1646, 4to), De Dieu, Animadversiones [includ. other epistles] (L.B. 1646, 4to); Rudbeck, Disputationes (Aros. 1648, 4to); Brown (Sr.), Explanation (Edinb. 1651, 1759, 4to); Ferma, Analysis (ibid. 1651, 12mo; in English, ibid. 1849, 8vo); Elton, Treatises [on portions] (Lond. 1653, fol.), Weller, Adnotationes (Brunsw. 1654, 4to); Wandalin (Sr.), Paraphrasis (Slesw. 1656, 4to); Feurborn, Commentarius (Giess. 1661, 4to); Hipsted, Collationes (Brem. 1665, 4to); Gerhard, Adnotationes (Jen. 1666, 1676, 4to); De Brais, Notoe (Salm. 1670; Lips. 1726, 4to); Groenwegen, Vytlegginge (Gor. 1671, 4to); Mommas, Meditationes [includ. Gal.] (Hag. 1678, 8vo); Wittich, Investigatio (L. B. 1685, 4to); Alting, Commentarius (in Opp. vol. 3, iv; Amst. 1686, fol.); Van Leeuwen, Verhandeling (ibid. 1688, 1699, 4to); Schmid, Paraphrasis [in portions] (Hamb. 1691-94, 4to); Van Peene, Nasporing (Leyd. 1695, 4to; in German, Fr.-a.-M. 1697, 4to); Varen, Exegesis (Hamb. 1696, 8vo); Possalt, Erklrung (Zittau, 1696, 4to); Fibus [Rom. Cath.], Interpretatio (Col. Ag. 1696, fol.); Zierold, Exegesis (Starg. 1701, 1719, 4to); Locke, Notes (Lond. 1707, 4to); Dannhauer, Disputationes (Gryph. 1708, 4to); Fischbeck, Explanatio (Goth. 1720, 8vo); Streso, Meditatien (Amst. 1721, 4to); Van Til, Verklaring [includ. Phil.] (Haarlem, 1721, 4to); Wirth, Erklrung (Nuremb. 1724, 8vo); Hasevoert, Verklaring (Leyd. 1725, 4to); Vitringa, Verklaringe (Franeck. 1729, 4to); Rambach, Erklrung (Brem. 1738, 4to); also Introductio (Hal. 1727, 8vo); Turretin, Proelectiones [on 1-11] (Lausan. 1741, 4to); Wandalin (Jr.), Proelectiones (Haf. 1744, 4to); Taylor [Unitarian], Notes (Load. 1745, 1747, 1754, 1769, 4to; in German, Zur. 1774, 4to); Anton, Anmerkungen (Frankf. 1746, 8vo); Baumgarten, Auslegung (Hal 1749, 4to ); Carpzov, Stricturoe (Helmst. 1750, 1758, 8vo); Edwards, Annotations [includ. Gal.] (Lond. 1752, 4to); Semler, Notoe (Hal. 1767, 8vo); Mosheim, Einleitung (ed. Boysen, Quedlinb. 1771, 4to); Moldenhauer, Erluterung (Hamb. 1775, 8vo); Richter, Erklrung (Frankf. 1775, 8vo); Cramer, Auslegung (Leips. 1784, 8vo); Schoder, Anmerk. (Frankf. 1785, 4to); Fuchs, Erluterung (Steud. 1789, 8vo); Herzog, Erluterung (Halle, 1791, 8vo); Reuss, Anmerk. (Giess. 1792, 8vo); Wunibald, Annotationes (Heidelb. 1792, 8vo); Francke, Anmerk. (Gotha, 1793, 8vo); Morus, Proelectiones (Lips. 1794, 8vo); Jones [Unitarian], Analysis (Lond. 1801, 8vo); Mobius, Bemerk. (Jen. 1804, 8vo); Bohme, Commentarius (Lips. 1806, 8vo); Stock, Lectures (Dubl. 1806, 8vo); Weingart, Commentarius (Goth. 1816, 8vo); Fry, Lectures (Lond. 1816, 8vo); *Tholuck, Auslegung (Berl. 1824, 1828, 1831, 1836, 1856, 8vo; in English, Edinb. 1842, 2 vols. 8vo; Phila. 1844, 8vo); Horneman, Commentar (Copenh. 1824, 8vo); Cox, Notes (Lond. 1824, 8vo); Flat, Vorlesungen (Tub. 1825, 8vo); Bowles, Sermons (Bath, 1826, 12mo); Terrot, Notes (Lond. 1828, 8vo); Stenerson, Commentarius (Lips. 1829, 8vo); Klee [Rom. Cath.], Commentar (Mainz, 1830, 8vo); Maitland, Discourses (Lond. 1830, 8vo); Moysey, Lectures (ibid. 1830, 8vo); *Ruckert, Commentar (Leips. 1831, 1839, 2 vols. 8vo); Benecke, Erluterung (Heidelb. 1831, 8vo; in English, Lond. 1854, 8vo); Paulus, Erluterung (Heidelb. 1831, 8vo); Ritchie, Lectures (Edinb. 1831, 2 vols. 8vo); Geissler, Erluterung (Nuremb. 1831-33, 2 vols. 8vo); *Stuart, Commentary (Andover, 1832, 1835; Lond. 1857, 8vo); Parry, Lectures (ibid. 1832, 12mo ); Reiche, Erklrung (Gott. 1833-34, 2 vols. 8vo); Glockler, Erklrung (Frankf. 1834, 8vo); Kollner, Commentar (Darmst. 1834, 8vo); *Hodge, Commentary (Phila. 1835, 1864, 8vo; also abridged, ibid. 1836); *De Wette, Erklrung (Leips. 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 8vo); Wirth, Erluterung (Regensb. 1836, 8vo); Lossius, Erklrung (Hamb. 1836, 8vo); Stengel [Rom. Cath.], Commentar (Freib. 1836, 8vo); *Fritzsche, Commentarius (Hal. 1836-43, 3 vols. 8vo); Chalmers, Lectures (Glasg. 1837, 4 vols. 8vo, and later; N.Y. 1840, 8vo); Anderson, Exposition (Lond. 1837, 12mo); Bosanquet, Paraphrase (ibid. 1840, 8vo); Haldane, Exposition (ibid. 1842, 1852, 3 vols. 12mo; N.Y. 1857, 8vo; in German, Hamb. 1839-43, 3 vols. 8vo); Sumner, Exposition [includ. 1 Cor.] (Lond. 1843, 8vo); Allies, Sermons (Oxf. 1844, 8vo); Reithmayr [Rom. Cath.], Commentar (Regensb. 1845, 8vo); Walford, Notes (Lond. 1846, 8vo); *Philippi, Commentar (Frankf. 1848, 1852, 3 vols. 8vo; Erlang. 1855, 1867, 2 vols. 8vo); Vinke, Verklaring (Utr. 1848, 1860. 8vo); Whitwell, Notes (Lond. 1848, 8vo); Krehl. Auslegung (Leips. 1849, 8vo); Marriott, Reflections (Lond. 1849, 12mo); Ewbank, Commentary (ibid. 1850-51, 2 vols. 8vo); Steinhofer, Erklrung (Nrdl. 1851, 8vo); Pridham, Notes (Bath, 1851, 12mo); *Turner, Commentary (N.Y. 1853, 8vo); Knight, Commentary (Lond. 1854, 8vo); Beelen [Rom. Cath.], Commentarius (ibid. 1854, 8vo); *Hengl, Interpretatio (Lips. 1854-59, 2 vols. 8vo); Jowett, Notes [includ. Gal. and Thess.] (Lond. 1855, 1859, 2 vols. 8vo); Livermore [Unitarian], Commentary (Bost. 1855, 12mo); Purdue, Commentary (Dubl. 1855, 8vo); Umbreit, Auslegung (Goth. 1856, 8vo); Ewald, Erluterung (Gott. 1857, 8vo); Brown (J., Jr.), Exposition (Edinb. and N.Y. 1857, 8vo); Bromehead, Notes (Lond. 1857, 8vo); Stephen, Lectures (Aberdeen, 1857, 12mo); Five Clergymen, Revision (Lond. 1857, 8vo); Cumming, Readings (ibid. 1857, 12mo); Mehring, Erklrung (Stet. 1858-59, 2 vols. 8vo); Vaughan, Notes, (Lond. 1859, 1861, 8vo); Crawford, Translation (ibid. 1860. 4to); Brown (D.), Commentary (ibid. 1860, 8vo); Wardlaw, Lectures (ibid. 1861, 3 vols. 8vo); Colenso, Notes (ibid. 1861, 8vo); Ford, Illustration (ibid. 1862, 8vo); Hinton, Exposition (ibid. 1865, 8vo); Marsh, Exposition (ibid. 1865, 12mo); Wangemann, Erklrung (Berl. 1866, 8vo); Ortloph, Auslegung (Erlang. 1866, 8vo); Prichard, Commentary (Lond. 1866, 8vo); Forbes, Commentary [on parallelisms] (ibid. 1868, 8vo); Horton, Lectures (ibid. 1868 sq., 2 vols. 8vo); *Delitzsch, Erluterung (Leips. 1870, 8vo); Chamberlain, Notes (Lond. 1870, 12mo); Plumer, Commentary (N.Y. and Edinb. 1871, 8vo); Best, Commentary (Lond. 1871, 8vo); O’Connor, Commentary (ibid. 1871, 8vo); Robinson, Notes (ibid. 1871, 2 vols. 8vo); Phallis, Notes (ibid. 1871, 8vo); Gartner, Erklrung (Stuttg. 1872, 8vo); Colet, Notes (Lond. 1873, 8vo); Strong, Analysis (N.Y. 1873, 8vo); Neil, Notes (Lond. 1877, 8vo). SEE EPISTLES.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Romans, Epistle to the
This epistle was probably written at Corinth. Phoebe (Rom. 16:1) of Cenchrea conveyed it to Rome, and Gaius of Corinth entertained the apostle at the time of his writing it (16:23; 1 Cor. 1:14), and Erastus was chamberlain of the city, i.e., of Corinth (2 Tim. 4:20).
The precise time at which it was written is not mentioned in the epistle, but it was obviously written when the apostle was about to “go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints”, i.e., at the close of his second visit to Greece, during the winter preceding his last visit to that city (Rom. 15:25; comp. Acts 19:21; 20:2, 3, 16; 1 Cor. 16:1-4), early in A.D. 58.
It is highly probable that Christianity was planted in Rome by some of those who had been at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:10). At this time the Jews were very numerous in Rome, and their synagogues were probably resorted to by Romans also, who in this way became acquainted with the great facts regarding Jesus as these were reported among the Jews. Thus a church composed of both Jews and Gentiles was formed at Rome. Many of the brethren went out to meet Paul on his approach to Rome. There are evidences that Christians were then in Rome in considerable numbers, and had probably more than one place of meeting (Rom. 16:14, 15).
The object of the apostle in writing to this church was to explain to them the great doctrines of the gospel. His epistle was a “word in season.” Himself deeply impressed with a sense of the value of the doctrines of salvation, he opens up in a clear and connected form the whole system of the gospel in its relation both to Jew and Gentile. This epistle is peculiar in this, that it is a systematic exposition of the gospel of universal application. The subject is here treated argumentatively, and is a plea for Gentiles addressed to Jews. In the Epistle to the Galatians, the same subject is discussed, but there the apostle pleads his own authority, because the church in Galatia had been founded by him.
After the introduction (1:1-15), the apostle presents in it divers aspects and relations the doctrine of justification by faith (1:16-11:36) on the ground of the imputed righteousness of Christ. He shows that salvation is all of grace, and only of grace. This main section of his letter is followed by various practical exhortations (12:1-15:13), which are followed by a conclusion containing personal explanations and salutations, which contain the names of twenty-four Christians at Rome, a benediction, and a doxology (Rom. 15:14-ch. 16).
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Romans, Epistle To The
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
1. Time, occasion, and character.The letter to the Romans belongs to the central groupwhich includes also Galatians, and the two letters to the Corinthiansof St. Pauls Epistles. Marcions orderGal., Cor., Rom.Is not unlikely to be the order of writing. A comparison of the data to be found in the letter, with statements in Acts, suggests that Rom. was written from Corinth at the close of the so-called third missionary journey (i.e. the period of missionary activity described in Act 18:23-28). After the riots in Ephesus (Act 19:23-40) St. Paul spent three months in Greece (Act 20:3), whither Timothy had preceded him. He was thus carrying out a previous plan somewhat sooner than he had originally intended. Act 19:21-22 informs us that the Apostle wished to make a tour through Macedonia and Achaia, and afterwards, having first visited Jerusalem once more, to turn his steps towards Rome. From the letter itself we learn that he was staying with Gains (Act 16:23), who is probably to be identified with the Gains of 1Co 1:14. At the time of writing, Paul and Timothy are together, for the latters name appears in the salutation (1Co 16:21). Sosipater, whose name also appears there, may he identified with the Sopater mentioned in Act 20:4. Phbe, the bearer of the letter, belongs to Cenchre, one of the ports of Corinth. The allusions in the letter all point to the stay in Corinth implied in Act 20:1-38. Above all, the letter itself, apart from such important passages as Act 1:10-11 and Act 15:22; Act 15:30, is ample evidence of St. Pauls plans to visit Rome,the plans mentioned in Act 19:21-22. It is then more than probable that the letter was written from Corinth during the three months stay in Greece recorded in Act 20:3.
A comparison of Rom 15:22; Rom 15:30 with Act 19:21-22 brings out one of the most striking of Paleys undesigned coincidences. The parallel references to Jewish plots in Rom 15:31 and Act 20:3 are also noteworthy. It should, however, be mentioned that if on critical grounds ch. 16 has to be detached from the original letter, and regarded as part of a lost letter to the Ephesians, much of the evidence for the place and date of Romans is destroyed, though the remaining indications suffice to establish the position laid down above.
The date to which the letter is to be assigned depends on the chronology of St. Pauls life as a whole. Mr. Turner (Hastings DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] , s.v. Chronology of NT) suggests a.d. 5556. But for further treatment of this subject, readers must consult the general articles on Chronology of NT and Paul.
The immediate occasion for the letter is clearly the prospective visit to Rome. St. Paul is preparing the way for his coming. This explains why he writes to the Romans at all; it does not explain why he writes the particular letter we now possess. A shorter letter would have been sufficient introduction to his future hosts. How are we to account for the lengthy discussion of the central theme of the gospel which forms the larger part of the letter? Some suspect a controversial purpose. The Church at Rome contained both Jews and Gentiles; through Priscilla and Aquila and others St. Paul must have known the situation in Rome; he could, and doubtless did, accommodate his message to the condition of the Church. The objections he discusses may be difficulties that have arisen in the minds of his readers. But the style of the letter is not controversial. St. Paul warns the Romans against false teachers, as against a possible rather than an actual danger (Act 16:17-20). Similarly, the discussion of the reciprocal duties of strong and weak (ch. 14) is marked by a calm conciliatory tone which suggests that the writer is dealing with problems which are probable rather than pressing. In fact, St. Paul seems to be giving his readers the result of his controversial experiences in Corinth and Galatia, not so much because the Church in Rome was placed in a similar situation, as because he wished to enable her members to profit from the mistakes of other Churches. If the letter is not controversial, it is not, on the other hand, a dogmatic treatise. Comprehensive as the letter is, it is incomplete as a compendium of theology. The theory that St. Paul is here putting his leading thoughts into systematic form does not account for the omission of doctrines which we know Paul held and valuedhis eschatology and his Christology, for instance (Garvie). Romans is a true letter, and the selection of topics must have been influenced by the interest of the Church to which he was writing.
But apart from the position of the Roman Christians, and apart from the wish of the Apostle to prepare the way for his visit to them, the form and character of the letter were probably determined by the place Rome held in the Apostles mind. St. Paul was proud of his Roman citizenship. He was the first to grasp the significance of the Empire for the growth of the Church. The missionary statesmanship which led him to seize on the great trade-centres like Ephesus and Corinth found its highest expression in his passionate desire to see Rome. Rome fascinated him; he was ambitious to proclaim his gospel there, departing even from his wonted resolve to avoid the scenes of other mens labours.
It should be noted that the Church at Rome was not an Apostolic foundation. The Christian community came into existence there before either St. Paul or St. Peter visited the city.
He explains his gospel at some length, because it is all-important that the capital of the Empire should understand and appreciate its worth. He is anxious to impart some spiritual gift to the Roman Christians, just because they are in Rome, and therefore, lest Jewish plots thwart his plans, he unfolds to them the essentials of his message. Indeed, his Roman citizenship helped to make St. Paul a great catholic. The influence of the Eternal City may be traced in the doctrine of the Church developed in Ephesians, which was written during the Roman captivity. The very thought of Rome leads St. Paul to reflect on the universality of the gospel, and this is the theme of the letter. He is not ashamed of the gospel or afraid to proclaim it in Rome, because it is as world-wide as the Empire. It corresponds to a universal need: it is the only religion that can speak to the condition of the Roman people. It is true he is not writing for the people at large. His readers consist of a small band of Christians with strong Jewish sympathies, and perhaps even tending towards Jewish exclusiveness. His aim is to open their eyes to the dignity of the position, and to the world-wide significance of the gospel they profess.
Jlicher further points out that Rome was to be to St. Paul the starting-point for a missionary campaign in the West. Consequently the letter is intended to win the sympathy and support of the Roman Church for future work. It is to secure fellow-workers that the Apostle explains so fully the gospel which he is eager to proclaim in Spain and in neighbouring provinces.
2. Argument and content.Romans, like most of the Pauline letters, falls into two sections: doctrinal (chs. 111) and practical (chs. 1216). In the doctrinal section, it is usual to distinguish three main topics: justification (chs. 14), sanctification (chs. 58), and the rejection of the Jews (chs. 911). It is not easy to draw any sharp line between the first two. The following is a brief analysis of the argument:
The salutation is unusually long, extending to seven verses, in which St. Paul emphasizes the fact that he has been set apart for the work of an Apostle to all the Gentiles. Then follows a brief introduction. The Apostle first thanks God for the faith of the Roman Christians, and then expresses his earnest desire to visit them and to preach the gospel in Rome. For he is confidentand here he states is central themethat the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all men, if they will only believe (Rom 1:1-17).
Salvation for all through the gospelthat is the thought to be developed. And first it is necessary to show that such a saving power is a universal need. The evidence for this is only too abundant. Nowhere have men attained Gods righteousness: everywhere are the signs of Gods wrath. The wilful ignorance which denies the Creator has led to the awful punishment of moral decay with which St. Paul had grown sadly familiar in the great cities of the Empire. Indeed, so far has corruption advanced that the consciences of many have been defiled. They not only commit sin without shame; they openly applaud the sinner (Rom 1:18-32). Nor can any one who still perceives this failure hold himself excused. The very fact that he recognizes sin as such, condemns him in so far as he commits it. His keener conscience, if it leaves him unrepentant, will evoke the heavier penalty. God will judge all men according to their deeds. Both Jew and Gentile will be judged alike, the conscience in the Gentile corresponding to the Law in the case of the Jew (Rom 2:1-16). This passage is usually referred to the Jews, whose habit of judging and condemning others is rebuked in Mat 7:1. It may have a wider application. The remainder of the chapter deals with the Jews. The principle of judgment according to deeds will be applied without distinction of persons. The privileges of the Jew will not excuse him in the eyes of God. Neither the Law nor circumcision will cover transgression. The true Jew must be a Jew inwardly: the actual Jews have by their crimes caused the name of God to be blasphemed. A Gentile who does not know the Law and yet obeys it is better than the Jew who knows and disobeys (Rom 2:17-23). But is not this condemnation a denial of the Jews privileges? No, the privileges are real, though the Jews are unworthy of them; and the mercy of God is magnified by their ingratitude. Yet even so, if Gods mercy is brought to the light by their sin, why are they condemned? The full discussion of this difficulty is reserved to chs. 911. Here St. Paul only lays down the broad truth that God must judge the world in righteousness, and apparently he further replies to Jewish objectors by a tu quoque argument. Why do they condemn him if, as they say, his lie helps to make the truth clearer? (Rom 3:1-8). St. Paul now returns to his main point, the universality of sin, which he re-states and re-enforces in the language of the OT. The whole world stands guilty in the sight of God, and the Law has but intensified the conviction of sin (Rom 3:9-20).
To meet this utter failure of men, God has revealed in Christ Jesus a new way of righteousness, all-embracing as the need. Here too is no distinction of persons; all have sinned, and salvation for all stands in the free mercy of God, sealed to men in the propitiatory sacrifice of His Son, whereby we know that our past sins are forgiven, and we enter the new life, justified in the sight of God. The righteousness of God is thus assured to men who will receive it in faith. Faith is not defined, but it seems to mean a humble trust in the loving God revealed in Jesus. There can no longer be any question of establishing a claim on God by merit, or of superiority over our fellows. All need grace, and none can be saved except by faith. Jew and Gentile here stand on the same level (Rom 3:21-30).
Does not this righteousness through faith make void the Law? St. Paul scarcely answers the general question, but at once goes on to prove that the father of the race, Abraham, was justified by faith, i.e. by humble trust in God, in whose sight he could claim no merit. His trust in God was reckoned unto him for righteousness. His blessedness was the blessedness of the man whose sins are hidden, St. Paul here introducing the only beatitude found in his letters. This blessing came to Abraham before circumcision, on which clearly it did not depend. Similarly, the promise of inheriting the earth was given to him apart from the Law, and the seed to whom the promise descends are the faithful who follow their spiritual ancestor in believing God even against nature, as Abraham and Sarah believed Him. Surely it was for our sakes that the phrase was reckoned unto him for righteousness was used in the story of Abraham. It enables us to believe in salvation through our faith in Him who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 3:31 to Rom 4:25).
At this point opens the second main stage in the doctrinal section of the letter. The fact of justification by faith has been established. It remains to say something of the life which must be built on this foundation. Jesus has brought us into touch with the grace of God. His death is the unfailing proof of Gods love to us sinful men. What can lie before us save progress to perfection? Reconciled to God while yet enemies, for what can we not hope, now that we are His friends? Christ is indeed a second Adam, the creator of a new humanity. His power to save cannot be less than Adams power to destroy. Cannot be less? Nay, it must be greater, and in what Jlicher rightly calls a hymn, St. Paul strives to draw out the comparison and the contrast between the first Adam and the Second. Grace must reign till the kingdom of death has become the kingdom of an undying righteousness (Rom 5:1-21).
Does this trust in the grace of God mean that we are to continue in sin? Far from it. The very baptismal immersion in which we make profession of our faith symbolizes our dying to sin and our rising with Christ into newness of life. If we have become vitally one with Him, we must share His life of obedience to God. The fact that we are under grace means that sins dominion is ended. If we do not strive to live up to this we fail to understand what is involved in the kind of teaching we have accepted. If we are justified by faith, we have been set free from sin that we may serve God, that we may win the fruit of our faith in sanctification, and enjoy the free gift of eternal life (Rom 6:1-23). The new life likewise brings with it freedom from the Law; it is as complete a break with the past as that which comes to a wife when her husband dies. So we are redeemed from the Law which did but strengthen our passions (Rom 7:1-6). Not that the Law was sin; but as a matter of experience it is through the commandment that sin deceives and destroys men (Rom 7:7-12). Is, then, the holy Law the cause of death? No, but the exceeding sinfulness of sin lies in its bringing men to destruction through the use of that which is good. And then in a passage of intense earnestness and noble self-revelation St. Paul describes his pre-Christian experience. He recalls the torturing consciousness of the hopeless conflict between spirit and flesh, a consciousness which the Law only deepened and could not heal. The weakness of the flesh, sold under sin, brought death to the higher life. But from this law too, the law of sin and of death, Christ has set him free (Rom 7:13-25). For the Christian is not condemned to endure this hopeless struggle. God, in sending His Son, has condemned sin in the flesh. The alien power, sin, is no longer to rule. The reality and the strength of the Spirit of God have come into our lives with Jesus, so that the body is dead, to be revived only at the bidding of the indwelling Spirit (Rom 8:1-12). We are no longer bound to sin. God has put it into our hearts to call Him Abba, Father. We are His little ones already. How glorious and how certain is our inheritance! That redemption for which creation groans most surely awaits us, far more than recompensing our present woes; and patience becomes us who have already received the first-fruits of the Spirit. The Spirit of God prays for us in our weakness, and we know that we stand in Gods foreknowledge and calling. All must be well (Rom 8:12-31). And then in a final triumph-song St. Paul asks, If God be for us, who can be against us? The victory of the Christian life requires a new word: we are more than conquerors. Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 8:31-37).
Almost abruptly St. Paul turns to his third main question. The rejection of the Jews, by which the grace of God has come to the Gentile, grieves him to the heart. How is Gods treatment of the Jews to be justified? There was from the first an element of selectiveness in Gods dealings with the race of Abraham. The promise was not the necessary privilege of natural descent. It was to Isaac and not to Ishmael, to Jacob and not to Esau (Rom 9:1-13). Gods mercy is inscrutable and arbitrary but it must be just. Whom He wills, He pities: whom He wills, He hardens. If it be said, Then God cannot justly blame men; how can the clay resist the potter?, St. Paul does not really solve the problem, but he asserts most emphatically that Gods right to choose individuals for salvation cannot be limited by human thought (Rom 9:14-21). The justice of Gods rejection of the Jews cannot be questioned a priori. But what are the facts? The Jews, in seeking to establish their own righteousness, have failed to find the righteousness of God. They have failed, because the coming of Christ puts an end to legal righteousness, a fact to which Moses himself bears testimony. They ought to have realized this, and they cannot be excused on the ground that they have had no preachers. They are responsible for their own rejection: they have heard and known and disobeyed (Rom 9:30 to Rom 10:21). But though God has the right to reject His people, and though the Jews are themselves responsible for, their refusal to accept the gospel, yet St. Paul cannot believe that it is final. Even now a remnant has been saved by grace; and the present rejection of Israel must have been inteoded to save the Gentiles. What larger blessing will not God bestow when He restores His people? The Gentiles must see in the fall of Israel the goodness of God towards themselves, and the possibilities of mercy for the Jews. This is enforced by the illustration of the wild olive and the natural branches (Rom 11:17-24). The Jews are enemies now, in order that God may bless the Gentiles. But they are still beloved, for the sake of the fathers. No, God has not deserted His people. If they are at present under a cloud, it is Gods mercy and not His anger that has willed it so. And the same unsearchable mercy will one day restore them to His favour (Rom 11:25-36).
With the thought of the infinite mercies of God so strikingly evidenced, St. Paul begins his practical exhortation. Self-surrender to God is demanded as mans service. Thou must love Him who has loved thee so. A great humility becomes us, a full recognition of the differing gifts which God bestows on us. A willingness to bear wrong will mark the Christian. He must he merciful, since his confidence is in the mercy of God. The conclusion of ch. 11 underlies the whole of ch. 12. St. Paul goes on to urge his readers to obey the governing powers; to pay to all the debt of love, which alone fulfils the Law; to put off all sloth and vice, since the day is at hand (ch. 13). The duties of strong and weak towards each other will call for brotherly love. We must not surrender the principle of individual responsibility. Each standeth and falleth to the Lord. We have no right to judge, and we must not force our practices on our fellows. On the other hand, we must not push our individual liberty so far as to offend our brothers. Let us give up things we feel to be right, if we cause strife and doubt by asserting our liberty. The strong must bear the infirmities of the weak. Even Christ pleased not Himself. May we find our joy and peace in following Him! (Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:12).
St. Paul then concludes by explaining why he was so bold as to write to them at all, and by unfolding his plans and hopes for the future (Rom 15:13-33). The last chapter contains a recommendation of Phbe who brings the letter, and a number of detailed salutations to individual members of the Church, and to some house-churches. A brief warning against teachers who cause division, greetings from St, Pauls companions, and an elaborate doxology bring the letter to a close (ch. 16).
The theology and leading ideas of the letter cannot be treated here. In a sense, however, the importance of Romans lies rather in its religious power than in its theological ideas. The letter is bound together by St. Pauls central experience of the mercy of God. In Gods grace he has found the strength which can arrest the decay of a sinful, careless world. In Gods grace he has found also the secret of overcoming for the man who is conscious of the awfulness of sin, and of his own inability to save his life from destruction. The problem of the rejection of the Jews is really raised, not so much by their previous privileges as by Gods present mercy. St. Paul cannot be satisfied till he has grasped the love of God, which he feels must he at the heart of the mystery. The reality and nearness of Gods mercy determine the Christian character and render it possible. It is noteworthy that, though St. Paul seldom refers to the sayings of Jesus, he arrives at the mind of Christ through the gospel of the grace of God. A comparison of the Sermon on the Mount with Rom 12:1-21; Rom 13:1-14; Rom 14:1-23 makes the antithesis, Jesus or Paul, appear ridiculous. Above all, the glowing earnestness with which in chs. 48 he seeks to share with the Roman Christians(note the use of we throughout that section)the highest and holiest inspirations he has learnt from Christ, reveals a heart in which the love of God is shed abroad. As Deissmann suggests, we do not recognize the special characteristic of St. Paul if we regard him as first and foremost the theologian of primitive Christianity. Romans is the passionate outpouring of one who has come into living touch with his heavenly Father.
3. Some textual points: integrity and genuineness.The omission in manuscript G of the words en Rm in Rom 1:7; Rom 1:15 is an interesting indication of the probability that a shortened edition of Romans, with the local references suppressed, may have been circulated in quite early times. The letter to the Ephesians seems to have been treated in the same way. This shorter edition may have concluded at Rom 14:23, where the final doxology (Rom 16:25-27) is placed in several MSS (ALP, etc.). But the shifting position of this doxology in our authorities perhaps indicates that it is not part of the original letter at all (see Denney, in the EGT [Note: Expositors Greek Testament.] ). But there is further evidence to show that some early editions of the letter omitted chs. 15 and 16. Marcion apparently omitted these chapters. Tertullian, Irenus, and Cyprian do not quote them. There is also some internal evidence for thinking that ch. 16 at least may be part of a letter to Ephesus. The reference to Epnetus in Rom 16:5 would be more natural in a letter to Ephesus than in a letter to Rome. In view of Act 18:2 it is difficult to suppose that Aquila and Priscilla had returned from Ephesus to Rome. Moreover, it is not likely that St. Paul would have so many acquaintances in a church he had not visited. On the other hand, none of these considerations affects or explains ch. 15, and the two chapters cannot be separated very easily. Further, Sanday and Headlam have collected an imposing array of evidence to prove the presence at Rome of persons with such names as are mentioned in ch. 16 (Romans in ICC [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] xxxiv f.). The question must still be regarded as open.
But while there is some probability that ch. 16 is part of a distinct letter, the theories of dismemberment, or rather the proofs of the composite character of Romans advanced by some Dutch scholars, cannot be considered convincing. The views of the late Prof. W. C. van Manen have received perhaps undue attention, owing to the fact that the art. on Romans in the EBi [Note: Encyclopdia Biblica.] is from his pen. His criticism was certainly arbitrary, and his premises frequently inaccurate. Thus he quotes with approval Evansons statement that there is no reference in Acts to any project of St. Pauls to visit Romea statement made in direct contradiction of Act 19:21 (EBi [Note: Encyclopdia Biblica.] , vol. iv. col. 4137). The year a.d. 120 is regarded as the probable date of Romans, in face of the external evidence of 1 Clement (ib. col. 4143). The general argument against the genuineness of Romans, which weighs most with van Manen, lies in the fact that it has learned to break with Judaism, and to regard the standpoint of the law as once for all past and done with. This is a remarkable forward step, a rich and farreaching reform of the most ancient type of Christianity; now, a man does not become at one and the same moment the adherent of a new religion and its great reformer (ib. col. 4138). Of this disproof of Pauline authorship it is quite sufficient to say with Prof. Schmiedel, Perhaps St. Paul was not an ordinary man. Indeed, Prof. Schmiedels article on Galatians (ib. vol. ii. col. 1620f.) is a final refutation of the Dutch school represented by van Manen. They have advanced as yet no solid reason for doubting the genuineness of Romans.
H. G. Wood.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Romans, Epistle to The
1.Its Genuineness
2.Its Integrity
3.The Approximate Date
4.The Place of Writing
5.The Destination
6.The Language
7.The Occasion
8.Some Characteristics
9.Main Teachings of the Epistle
(1)Doctrine of Man
(2)Doctrine of God
(3)Doctrine of Son of God – Redemption; Justification
(4)Doctrine of the Spirit of God
(5)Doctrine of Duty
(6)Doctrine of Israel
LITERATURE
This is the greatest, in every sense, of the apostolic letters of Paul; in scale, in scope, and in its wonderful combination of doctrinal, ethical and administrative wisdom and power. In some respects the later Epistles, Ephesians and Colossians, lead us to even higher and deeper arcana of revelation, and they, like Romans, combine with the exposition of truth a luminous doctrine of duty. But the range of Roman is larger in both directions, and presents us also with noble and far-reaching discussions of Christian polity, instructions in spiritual utterance and the like, to which those Epistles present no parallel, and which only the Corinthian Epistles rival.
1. Its Genuineness:
No suspicion on the head of the genuineness of the Epistle exists which needs serious consideration. Signs of the influence of the Epistle can be traced, at least very probably, in the New Testament itself; in 1 Peter, and, as some think, in James. But in our opinion Jas was the earlier writing, and Lightfoot has given strong grounds for the belief that the paragraph on faith and justification (Jas 2) has no reference to perversions of Pauline teaching, but deals with rabbinism. Clement of Rome repeatedly quotes Romans, and so do Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin. Marcion includes it in his list of Pauline Epistles, and it is safe to say in general Romans has been recognized in the Christian church as long as any collection of Paul’s Epistles has been extant (A. Robertson, in HDB, under the word). But above all other evidences it testifies to itself. The fabrication of such a writing, with its close and complex thought, its power and marked originality of treatment, its noble morale, and its spiritual elevation and ardor, is nothing short of a moral impossibility. A mighty mind and equally great heart live in every page, and a soul exquisitely sensitive and always intent upon truth and holiness. Literary personation is an art which has come to anything like maturity only in modern times, certainly not before the Renaissance. In a fully developed form it is hardly earlier than the 19th century. And even now who can point to a consciously personated authorship going along with high moral principle and purpose?
2. Its Integrity:
The question remains, however, whether, accepting the Epistle in block as Pauline, we have it, as to details, just as it left the author’s hands. Particularly, some phenomena of the text of the last two chapter invite the inquiry. We may – in our opinion we must – grant those chapters to be Pauline. They breathe Paul in every sentence. But do they read precisely like part of a letter to Rome? For example, we have a series of names (Rom 16:1-15), representing a large circle of personally known and loved friends of the writer, a much longer list than any other in the Epistles, and all presumably – on theory that the passage is integral to the Epistle – residents at Rome. May not such a paragraph have somehow crept in, after date, from another writing? Might not a message to Philippian, Thessalonian or Ephesian friends, dwellers in places where Paul had already established many intimacies, have fallen out of its place and found lodgment by mistake at the close of this letter to Rome? It seems enough to reply by one brief statement of fact. We possess some 300 manuscripts of Romans, and not one of these, so far as it is uninjured, fails to give the Epistle complete, all the chapters as we have them, and in the present order (with one exception, that of the final doxology). It is observable meanwhile that the difficulty of supposing Paul to have had a large group of friends living at Rome, before his own arrival there, is not serious. To and from Rome, through the whole empire, there was a perpetual circulation of population. Suppose Aquila and Priscilla (e.g.) to have recently returned (Act 18:2) to Rome from Ephesus, and suppose similar migrations from Greece or from Asia Minor to have taken place within recent years; we can then readily account for the greetings of Rom 16.
Lightfoot has brought it out in an interesting way (see his Philippians, on Phi 4:22) that many of the names (e.g. Amplias, Urbanus, Tryphena) in Rom 16 are found at Rome, in inscriptions of the early imperial age, in cemeteries where members of the widely scattered household of Caesar were interred. This at least suggests the abundant possibility that the converts and friends belonging to the household who, a very few years later, perhaps not more than three, were around him at Rome when he wrote to Philippi (Phi 4:22), and sent their special greeting (chiefly they) to the Philipplans, were formerly residents at Philippi, or elsewhere in Macedonia, and had moved thence to the capital not long before the apostle wrote to the Romans. A. Robertson (ut supra) comes to the conclusion, after a careful review of recent theories, that the case for transferring this section … from its actual connection to a lost Epistle to Ephesus is not made out.
Two points of detail in the criticism of the text of Romans may be noted. One is that the words at Rome (Rom 1:7, Rom 1:15) are omitted in a very few manuscripts, in a way to remind us of the interesting phenomenon of the omission of at Ephesus (Eph 1:1 margin). But the evidence for this omission being original is entirely inadequate. The fact may perhaps be accounted for by a possible circulation of Romans among other mission churches as an Epistle of universal interest. This would be much more likely if the manuscripts and other authorities in which the last two chapters are missing were identical with those which omit at Rome, but this is not the case.
The other and larger detail is that the great final doxology (Rom 16:25-27) is placed by many cursives at the end of Romans 14, and is omitted entirely by three manuscripts and by Marcion. The leading uncials and a large preponderance of ancient evidence place it where we have it. It is quite possible that Paul may have reissued Romans after a time, and may only then have added the doxology, which has a certain resemblance in manner to his later (captivity) style. But it is at least likely that dogmatic objections led Marcion to delete it, and that his action accounts for the other phenomena which seem to witness against its place at the finale.
It is worth noting that Hort, a singularly fearless, while sober student, defends without reserve the entirety of the Epistle as we have it, or practically so. See his essay printed in Lightfoot’s Biblical Studies.
3. The Approximate Date:
We can fix the approximate date with fair certainty within reasonable limits. We gather from Rom 15:19 that Paul, when he wrote, was in the act of closing his work in the East and was looking definitely westward. But he was first about (Rom 15:25, Rom 15:26) to revisit Jerusalem with his collection, mainly made in Macedonia and Achaia, for the poor saints. Placing these allusions side by side with the references in 1 and 2 Corinthians to the collection and its conveyance, and again with the narrative of Acts, we may date Romans very nearly at the same time as 2 Corinthians, just before the visit to Jerusalem narrated in Acts 20, etc. The year may be fixed with great probability as 58 AD. This estimate follows the lines of Lightfoot’s chronology, which Robertson (ut supra) supports. More recent schemes would move the date back to 56 AD.
The reader’s attention is invited to this date. Broadly speaking, it was about 30 years at the most after the Crucifixion. Let anyone in middle life reflect on the freshness in memory of events, whether public or private, which 30 years ago made any marked impression on his mind. Let him consider how concrete and vivid still are the prominent personages of 30 years ago, many of whom of course are still with us. And let him transfer this thought to the 1st century, and to the time of our Epistle. Let him remember that we have at least this one great Christian writing composed, for certain, within such easy reach of the very lifetime of Jesus Christ when His contemporary friends were still, in numbers, alive and active. Then let him open the Epistle afresh, and read, as if for the first time, its estimate of Jesus Christ – a Figure then of no legendary past, with its halo, but of the all but present day. Let him note that this transcendent estimate comes to us conveyed in the vehicle not of poetry and rhetoric, but of a treatise pregnant with masterly argument and admirable practical wisdom, tolerant and comprehensive. And we think that the reader will feel that the result of his meditations on date and circumstances is reassuring as to the solidity of the historic basis of the Christian faith (from the present writer’s introduction to the Epistle in the Temple Bible; see also his Light from the First Days: Short Studies in 1 Thessalonians).
4. The Place of Writing:
With confidence we may name Corinth as the place of writing. Paul was at the time in some city (Rom 16:23). He was staying with one Gaius, or Caius (same place) , and we find in 1Co 1:14 a Gaius, closely connected with Paul, and a Corinthian. He commends to the Romans the deaconess Phoebe, attached to the church at Cenchrea (Rom 16:1), presumably a place near that from which he was writing; and Cenchrea was the southern part of Corinth.
5. The Destination:
The first advent of Christianity to Rome is unrecorded, and we know very little of its early progress. Visiting Romans (, epidemountes), both Jews and proselytes, appear at Pentecost (Act 2:10), and no doubt some of these returned home believers. In Act 18:2 we have Aquila and Priscilla, Jews, evidently Christians, lately come from Italy, and probably from Rome. But we know practically nothing else of the story previous to this Epistle, which is addressed to a mission church obviously important and already spiritually advanced. On the other hand (a curious paradox in view of the historical development of Roman Christianity), there is no allusion in the Epistle to church organization. The Christian ministry (apart from Paul’s own apostleship) is not even mentioned. It may fairly be said to be incredible that if the legend of Peter’s long episcopate were historical, no allusion whatever to his work, influence and authority should be made. It is at least extremely difficult to prove that he was even present in Rome till shortly before his martyrdom, and the very ancient belief that Peter and Paul founded the Roman church is more likely to have had its origin in their martyrdoms there than in Peter’s having in any sense shared in the early evangelization of the city.
As to Rome itself, we may picture it at the date of the Epistle as containing, with its suburbs, a closely massed population of perhaps 800,000 people; a motley host of many races, with a strong oriental element, among which the Jews were present as a marked influence, despised and sometimes dreaded, but always attracting curiosity.
6. The Language:
The Epistle was written in Greek, the common dialect, the Greek of universal intercourse of that age. One naturally asks, why not in Latin, when the message was addressed to the supreme Latin city? The large majority of Christian converts beyond doubt came from the lower middle and lowest classes, not least from the slave class. These strata of society were supplied greatly from immigrants, much as in parts of East London now aliens make the main population. Not Latin but Greek, then lingua franca of the Mediterranean, would be the daily speech of these people. It is remarkable that all the early Roman bishops bear Greek names. And some 40 years after the date of this Epistle we find Clement of Rome writing in Greek to the Corinthians, and later again, early in the 2nd century, Ignatius writing in Greek to the Romans.
7. The Occasion:
We cannot specify the occasion of writing for certain. No hint appears of any acute crisis in the mission (as when 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, or Colossians were written). Nor would personal reminiscences influence the writer, for he had not yet seen Rome. We can only suggest some possibilities as follows:
(1) A good opportunity for safe communication was offered by the deaconess Phoebe’s proposed visit to the metropolis. She doubtless asked Paul for a commendatory letter, and this may have suggested an extended message to the church.
(2) Paul’s thoughts had long gone toward Rome. See Act 19:21 : I must see Rome, words which seem perhaps to imply some divine intimation (compare Act 23:11). And his own life-course would fall in with such a supernatural call. He had always aimed at large centers; and now his great work in the central places of the Levant was closing; he had worked at Ephesus, Thessalonica, Corinth; he was at last to think of the supreme center of all. Rome must always have had a dominant interest for the Apostle of the Nations, and any suggestion that his Lord’s will tended that way would intensify it to the highest degree.
(3) The form of the Epistle may throw further light on the occasion. The document falls, on the whole, into three parts. First we have Romans 1 through 8 inclusive, a prolonged exposition of the contrasted and related phenomena of sin and salvation, with special initial references to the cases of Jew and non-Jew respectively. Then come Romans 9 through 11, which deal with the Jewish rejection of the Jewish Messiah, developing into a prophetic revelation of the future of Israel in the grace of God. Lastly we have Romans 12 through 16. Some account of the writer’s plans, and his salutations to friends, requests for prayer, etc., form the close of this section. But it is mainly a statement of Christian duty in common life, personal, civil, religious. Under the latter head we have a noble treatment of problems raised by varying opinions, particularly on religious observances, among the converts, Jew and Gentile.
Such phenomena cast a possible light on the occasion of writing. The Roman mission was on one side, by its locality and surroundings, eminently gentile. On the other, there was, as we have seen, a strong Judaic element in Roman life, particularly in its lower strata, and no doubt around the Jewish community proper there had grown up a large community of worshippers (, sebomenoi) or, as we commonly call them, proselytes (adherents, in the language of modern missionary enterprise), people who, without receiving circumcision, attended Jewish worship and shared largely in Jewish beliefs and ideals. Among these proselytes, we may believe, the earliest evangelists at Rome found a favorable field, and the mission church as Paul knew of it contained accordingly not only two definite classes, converts from paganism, converts from native Judaism, but very many in whose minds both traditions were working at once. To such converts the problems raised by Judaism, both without and within the church, would come home with a constant intimacy and force, and their case may well have been present in a special degree in the apostle’s mind alike in the early passages (Romans 1 through 3) of the Epistle and in such later parts as Romans 2 through 11; 14; 15. On the one hand they would greatly need guidance on the significance of the past of Israel and on the destiny of the chosen race in the future. Moreover, discussions in such circles over the way of salvation would suggest to the great missionary his exposition of man’s reconciliation with a holy God and of His secrets for purity and obedience in an unholy world. And meanwhile the ever-recurring problems raised by ceremonial rules in common daily life – problems of days and seasons, and of forbidden food – would, for such disciples, need wise and equitable treatment.
(4) Was it not with this position before him, known to him through the many means of communication between Rome and Corinth, that Paul cast his letter into this form? And did not the realization of the central greatness of Rome suggest its ample scale? The result was a writing which shows everywhere his sense of the presence of the Judaic problem. Here he meets it by a statement, massive and tender, of heaven’s easy, artless, unencumbered plan of redemption, grace, and glory, a plan which on its other side is the very mystery of the love of God, which statement is now and forever a primary treasure of the Christian faith. And then again he lays down for the too eager champions of the new liberty a law of loving tolerance toward slower and narrower views which is equally our permanent spiritual possession, bearing a significance far-reaching and benign.
(5) It has been held by some great students, notably Lightfoot and Hort, that the main purpose of Romans was to reconcile the opposing schools in the church, and that its exposition of the salvation of the individual is secondary only. The present writer cannot take this view. Read the Epistle from its spiritual center, so to speak, and is not the perspective very different? The apostle is always conscious of the collective aspect of the Christian life, an aspect vital to its full health. But is he not giving his deepest thought, animated by his own experience of conviction and conversion, to the sinful man’s relation to eternal law, to redeeming grace, and to a coming glory? It is the question of personal salvation which with Paul seems to us to live and move always in the depth of his argument, even when Christian polity and policy is the immediate theme.
8. Some Characteristics:
Excepting only Ephesians (the problem of the authorship of which is insoluble, and we put that great document here aside), Romans is, of all Paul has written, least a letter and most a treatise. He is seen, as we read, to approach religious problems of the highest order in a free but reasoned succession; problems of the darkness and of the light, of sin and grace, fall and restoration, doom and remission, faith and obedience, suffering and glory, transcendent hope and humblest duty, now in their relation to the soul, now so as to develop the holy collectivity of the common life. The Roman converts are always first in view, but such is the writer, such his handling, that the results are for the universal church and for every believer of all time. Yet all the while (and it is in this a splendid example of that epistolary method of revelation which is one of the glories of the New Testament) it is never for a moment the mere treatise, however great. The writer is always vividly personal, and conscious of persons. The Epistle is indeed a masterpiece of doctrine, but also always the unforced, unartificial utterance of a friend to friends.
9. Main Teachings of the Epistle:
Approaching the Epistle as a treatise rather than a letter (with the considerable reserves just stated), we indicate briefly some of its main doctrinal deliverances. Obviously, in limine, it is not set before us as a complete system either of theology or of morals; to obtain a full view of a Pauline dogma and ethics we must certainly place Ephesians and Colossians, not to speak of passages from Thessalonians, beside Romans. But it makes by far the nearest approach to doctrinal completeness among the Epistles.
(1) Doctrine of Man.
In great measure this resolves itself into the doctrine of man as a sinner, as being guilty in face of an absolutely holy and absolutely imperative law, whether announced by abnormal revelation, as to the Jew, or through nature and conscience only, as to the Gentile. At the back of this presentation lies the full recognition that man is cognizant, as a spiritual being, of the eternal difference of right and wrong, and of the witness of creation to personal eternal power and Godhead as its cause, and that he is responsible in an awe-inspiring way for his unfaithfulness to such cognitions. He is a being great enough to be in personal moral relation with God, and able to realize his ideal only in true relation with Him; therefore a being whose sin and guilt have an unfathomable evil in them. So is he bound by his own failure that he cannot restore himself; God alone, in sovereign mercy, provides for his pardon by the propitiation of Christ, and for his restoration by union with Christ in the life given by the Holy Spirit. Such is man, once restored, once become a saint (a being hallowed), a son of God by adoption and grace, that his final glorification will be the signal (in some sense the cause?) of a transfiguration of the whole finite universe. Meanwhile, man is a being actually in the midst of a life of duty and trial, a member of civil society, with obligations to its order. He lives not in a God-forsaken world, belonging only to another and evil power. His new life, the mind of the Spirit in him, is to show itself in a conduct and character good for the state and for society at large, as well as for the brotherhood.
(2) Doctrine of God.
True to the revelation of the Old Testament, Paul presents God as absolute in will and power, so that He is not only the sole author of nature but the eternal and ultimately sole cause of goodness in man. To Him in the last resort all is due, not only the provision of atonement but the power and will to embrace it. The great passages which set before us a fore-defining (, proorisis, predestination) and election of the saints are all evidently inspired by this motive, the jealous resolve to trace to the one true Cause all motions and actions of good. The apostle seems e.g. almost to risk affirming a sovereign causation of the opposite, of unbelief and its sequel. But patient study will find that it is not so. God is not said to fit for ruin the vessels of wrath. Their woeful end is overruled to His glory, but nowhere is it taken to be caused by Him. All along the writer’s intense purpose is to constrain the actual believer to see the whole causation of his salvation in the will and power of Him whose inmost character is revealed in the supreme fact that, for us all, he spared not his Son.
(3) Doctrine of Son of God – Redemption; Justification.
The Epistle affords materials for a magnificently large Christology. The relation of the Son to creation is indeed not expounded in terms (as in Col), but it is implied in the language of Romans 8, where the interrelation of our redemption and the transfiguration of Nature is dealt with. We have the Lord’s manhood fully recognized, while His Godhead (as we read in Rom 9:5; so too Robertson, ut supra) is stated in terms, and it is most certainly implied in the language and tone of e.g. the close of Romans 8. Who but a bearer of the Supreme Nature could satisfy the conception indicated in such words as those of Rom 8:32, Rom 8:35-39, coming as they do from a Hebrew monotheist of intense convictions? Meantime this transcendent Person has so put Himself in relation with us, as the willing worker of the Father’s purpose of love, that He is the sacrifice of peace for us (Romans 3), our propitiatory One (, hilasterion, is now known to be an adjective), such that (whatever the mystery, which leaves the fact no less certain) the man who believes on Him, i.e. (as Romans 4 fully demonstrates) relies on Him, gives himself over to His mercy, is not only forgiven but justified, justified by faith. And justification is more than forgiveness; it is not merely the remission of a penalty but a welcome to the offender, pronounced to be lawfully at peace with the eternal holiness and love. See JUSTIFICATION; PROPITIATION.
In closest connection with this message of justification is the teaching regarding union with the Christ who has procured the justification. This is rather assumed than expounded in Romans (we have the exposition more explicitly in Eph, Col, and Gal), but the assumption is present wherever the pregnant phrase in Christ is used. Union is, for Paul, the central doctrine of all, giving life and relation to the whole range. As Lightfoot has well said (Sermons in Paul’s, number 16), he is the apostle not primarily of justification, or of liberty, great as these truths are with him, but of union with Christ. It is through union that justification is ours; the merits of the Head are for the member. It is through union that spiritual liberty and power are ours; the Spirit of life is from the Head to the member. Held by grace in this profound and multiplex connection, where life, love and law are interlaced, the Christian is entitled to an assurance full of joy that nothing shall separate him, soul and (ultimately) body, from his once sacrificed and now risen and triumphant Lord.
(4) Doctrine of the Spirit of God.
No writing of the New Testament but John’s Gospel is so full upon this great theme as Romans 8 may be said to be the locus classicus in the Epistles for the work of the Holy Ghost in the believer. By implication it reveals personality as well as power (see especially Rom 8:26). Note particularly the place of this great passage, in which revelation and profoundest conditions run continually into each other. It follows Romans 7, in which the apostle depicts, in terms of his own profound and typical experience, the struggles of conscience and will over the awful problem of the bondage of indwelling sin. If we interpret the passage aright, the case supposed is that of a regenerate man, who, however, attempts the struggle against inward evil armed, as to consciousness, with his own faculties merely, and finds the struggle insupportable. Then comes in the divine solution, the promised Spirit of life and liberty, welcomed and put into use by the man who has found his own resources yam. In Christ Jesus, in union with Him, he by the Spirit does to death the practices of the body, and rises through conscious liberty into an exulting hope of the liberty of the glory of the sons of God – not so, however as to know nothing of groaning within himself, while yet in the body; but it is a groan which leaves intact the sense of sonship and divine love, and the expectation of a final completeness of redemption.
(5) Doctrine of Duty.
While the Epistle is eminently a message of salvation, it is also, in vital connection with this, a treasury of principle and precept for the life of duty. It does indeed lay down the sovereign freedom of our acceptance for Christ’s sake alone, and so absolutely that (Rom 6:1, Rom 6:2, Rom 6:15) the writer anticipates the inference (by foes, or by mistaken friends), Let us continue in sin. But the answer comes instantly, and mainly through the doctrine of union. Our pardon is not an isolated fact. Secured only by Christ’s sacrifice, received only by the faith which receives Him as our all, it is ipso facto never received alone but with all His other gifts, for it becomes ours as we receive, not merely one truth about Him, but Him. Therefore, we receive His Life as our true life; and it is morally unthinkable that we can receive this and express it in sin. This assumed, the Epistle (Romans 12 and onward) lays down with much detail and in admirable application large ranges of the law of duty, civil, social, personal, embracing duties to the state, loyalty to its laws, payment of its taxes, recognition of the sacredness of political order, even ministered by pagans; and also duties to society and the church, including a large and loving tolerance even in religious matters, and a response to every call of the law of unselfish love. However we can or cannot adjust mentally the two sides, that of a supremely free salvation and that of an inexorable responsibility, there the two sides are, in the Pauline message. And reason and faith combine to assure us that both sides are eternally true, antinomies whose harmony will be explained hereafter in a higher life, but which are to be lived out here concurrently by the true disciple, assured of their ultimate oneness of source in the eternal love.
(6) Doctrine of Israel.
Very briefly we touch on this department of the message of Romans, mainly to point out that the problem of Israel’s unbelief nowhere else in Paul appears as so heavy a load on his heart, and that on the other hand we nowhere else have anything like the light he claims to throw (Romans 11) on Israel’s future. Here, if anywhere, he appears as the predictive prophet, charged with the statement of a mystery, and with the announcement of its issues. The promises to Israel have never failed, nor are they canceled. At the worst, they have always been inherited by a chosen remnant, Israel within Israel. And a time is coming when, in a profound connection with Messianic blessing on the Gentiles, all Israel shall be saved, with a salvation which shall in turn be new life to the world outside Israel. Throughout the passage Paul speaks, not as one who will not give up a hope, but as having had revealed to him a vast and definite prospect, in the divine purpose.
It is not possible in our present space to work out other lines of the message of Romans. Perhaps enough has been done to stimulate the reader’s own inquiries.
Literature.
Of the Fathers, Chrysostom and Augustine are pre-eminent as interpreters of Romans: Chrysostom in his expository Homilies, models of eloquent and illuminating discourse, full of sanctified common sense, while not perfectly appreciative of the inmost doctrinal characteristics; Augustine, not in any continuous comm., but in his anti-Pelagian writings, which show the sympathetic intensity of his study of the doctrine of the Epistle, not so much on justification as on grace and the will. Of the Reformers, Calvin is eminently the great commentator, almost modern in his constant aim to ascertain the sacred writer’s meaning by open-eyed inference direct from the words. On Romans he is at his best; and it is remarkable that on certain leading passages where grace is theme he is much less rigidly Calvinistic than some of his followers. In modern times, the not learned but masterly exposition of Robert Haldane (circa 1830) claims mention, and the eloquent and highly suggestive expository lectures (about the same date) of Thomas Chalmers. H. A. W. Meyer (5th edition, 1872, English translation 1873-1874) among the Germans is excellent for carefulness and insight; Godet (1879, English translation 1881) equally so among French-writing divines; of late English interpreters I. A. Beet (1877, many revisions), Sanday and Headlam (1895, in the International series) and E. H. Gifford (admirable for scholarship and exposition; his work was printed first in the Speaker’s (Bible) Comm., 1881, now separately) claim particular mention. J. Denney writes on Romans in The Expositor’s Greek Test. (1900).
Luther’s lectures on Romans, delivered in 1516-1517 and long supposed lost, have been recovered and were published by J. Ficker in 1908. Among modern German commentators, the most important is B. Weiss in the later revisions of the Meyer series (9th edition, 1899), while a very elaborate commentary has been produced by Zahn in his own series (1910). Briefer are the works of Lipsius (Hand-Kommentar, 2nd edition, 1892, very scholarly and suggestive); Lietzmann (Handbuch zum NT, interest chiefly linguistic), and Julicher (in J. Weiss, Schriften des NTs, 2nd edition, 1908, an intensely able piece of popular exposition).
A. E. Garvie has written a brilliant little commentary in the (New) Century series (no date); that of R. John Parry in the Cambridge Greek Testament, 1913, is more popular, despite its use of the Greek text. F. B. Westcott’s Paul and Justification, 1913, contains a close grammatical study with an excellent paraphrase.
The writer may be allowed to name his short commentary (1879) in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and a fuller one, in a more homiletic style, in the Expositor’s Bible, 1894.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Romans, Epistle to the
This may justly be called the fundamental epistle of Christian doctrine. Its value and importance are seen in that its doctrine lays in the soul a moral foundation by the presentation of God in qualities or attributes which the state of things existing in the world appears to call in question. Thus God is justified in the eyes of the believer, and this being the case, the purposes of His love are made known to him.
In looking at all that is around us in the world, everything appears to be out of order: the presence and domination of sin, a broken law, and the corrupt and violent will in man, all call in question the righteousness of God; while the scattering of God’s people Israel raises the question of His faithfulness to His promises.
Now in Christ all this finds its full and complete answer. The Son of God, by whom all were created, has Himself come in the likeness of sinful flesh, and, by offering Himself a sacrifice for sin, has completely vindicated God’s righteousness, while revealing His love. At the same time the man, or order of man, that has sinned against God has been judicially removed by His death from before the eye of God, so that God can present Himself to man in grace.
The moral perfection of the offerer of necessity brought in resurrection, in which all the pleasure of God’s grace in regard to man is set forth in righteousness; and Christ risen is the deliverer who is to come forth from Zion to turn away ungodliness from Jacob. Thus God’s faithfulness to His covenant is established in Zion. God is proved to be faithful and righteous: we have here the first elements of the knowledge of God.
But it way be desirable to open up the epistle a little in detail. After the introduction, in which the fact may be noticed that the glad tidings are said to be concerning God’s Son, a picture is given us of the moral condition of man in the world, whether heathen, philosopher, or Jew. In the heathen we see the unchecked development of sin (Rom. 1). In the philosopher the fact that light in itself does not control evil (Rom. 2); and in the Jew that law is proved to be powerless to bring about subjection to God, or to secure righteousness for man. The conclusion is that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God – all are proved to be justly under the sentence and judgement of death which God had imposed at the outset. Rom. 3.
In the latter part of Rom. 3 we have the declaration of God’s righteousness, in regard of man’s state, in the blood of Christ, who on the cross took vicariously the place of man, and suffered what was due to man: God’s righteousness is thus witnessed to, both in respect of past forbearance and present grace; and His consequent attitude towards all men, without difference, is seen; while Rom. 4 shows that the principle of justifying man, or accounting him righteous apart from works, had been conspicuous in regard to the men to whom in time past God had made promises, namely, Abraham and David. This was and is the pleasure of God, as now set forth in our Lord Jesus, who has been delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification. While God had Himself been glorified in Christ’s death, His pleasure as to man is set forth in Christ’s resurrection.
Rom. 5 brings fully into view the dominion of grace established through our Lord Jesus Christ, and unfolds in detail the terms on which God is with those who have been justified in His grace, beginning with peace and going on to reconciliation, the love of God being shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost. The subject is brought to a conclusion at the close of the chapter by the unfolding of the position of Christ as the last Adam; and of the effects of His moral perfectness in not only removing all that had come in by the sin of the first man Adam, but, in bringing in the justification of life. The bearing of this is that, for God, but one typical Man subsists, and that what attaches to Him as such belongs to those who are morally of His line or order. This principle was true in Adam, and is now true in Christ. In Christ the question of good and evil has been solved; death has been annulled, and the blessing of eternal life brought into view.
The righteousness of God having been vindicated, and the truth brought out of what His mind is towards believers, the three following chapters take up the question of the state of the believer, and develop the divinely established way of deliverance for him from principles to which man’s soul is naturally in bondage; that thus he may be responsive to the love in which it has pleased God to make Himself known, and may be brought into the sense of being the object of God’s purpose.
There are three principles to which man is in bondage, namely, sin, the law, and the flesh; and a way has been opened by which the believer may be free from the control of each of these principles. As to sin , the dominating principle in the world (Rom. 6), the way of deliverance is indicated in baptism, in identification with the death of Christ; and freedom is found in realising the truth of that which is set forth in baptism, that is, in reckoning ourselves dead indeed to sin, and alive to God in Christ Jesus. The knowledge which the soul has acquired of God in grace enables it to take this ground.
As regards law (Rom. 7), the bond, where it existed, has been dissolved in the death of Christ, so that Christ who is risen from the dead should be law to the believer; hence he lives by the faith of the Son of God who loved him and gave Himself for him.
As regards flesh, which is found to be hopelessly perverse, deliverance is in the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8). This is the power within the believer, and the consequences of it are momentous. It involves, in the consciousness of the believer’s soul, the transfer from one stock to another. He is not only transplanted, but grafted into Christ, so that he acquires all the nourishment and vigour of the new stock. Thus he is led into the consciousness of all that is involved in the Spirit that dwells within him; and is able more distinctly to accept the position of death to sin, and to appreciate the truth of Christ being law to him – and in the enjoyment of deliverance he has the consciousness by the Spirit of that to which God has called him, namely, to be conformed to the image of His Son, and the persuasion that nothing can separate him from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
We now arrive at another section of the epistle, which includes Rom. 9, Rom. 10, and Rom. 11, the object of which would appear to be to vindicate the faithfulness of God as to His promises to the fathers, in face of the fact of Israel having been set aside to make way for the church. It is shown that the principle of sovereignty lay underneath the whole of God’s dealings in regard to Israel, and was expressed in the way of election, and of rejection at critical points in their history, and that the position of Israel had been formed on this. A crucial test had come in by the presentation of Christ, and Israel had stumbled at the stumbling stone; and, while saving a remnant, God had in His sovereignty also called an election from the Gentiles, who had submitted to the righteousness of God which Israel had refused. In this connection the apostle vindicates his world-wide gospel.
God had not, however, given up finally His thought in regard to Israel, for even in the gospel to the Gentiles He had them ultimately in view. The nations had now by the gospel their opportunity, and if they failed to continue in the goodness of God, their defection would make the way for the resumption of God’s ways with Israel, and both Gentiles and Jews would manifestly come in on the ground of mercy. Thus God would be everything, and man nothing. This result calls forth the doxology at the close of Rom. 11.
Thus we have in the epistle a full vindication of God, both as to righteousness and faithfulness.
The hortatory part of the epistle follows in Rom. 12 – Rom. 15. The compassions of God are urged as an incentive to the believer to be here for the will of God. Transformed by the renewing of his mind, he is to be here in anticipation of another age. This is to be seen both in his service and, morally, in his character. His obligation is then shown in respect of the powers allowed of God in the world, and of man generally; and then in respect of the kingdom of God, by the influence of which he is to be ruled in his conduct toward those weak in the faith.
The apostle closes by a reference to the distinctiveness of his own service, carrying out his special mission to the Gentiles – and the expression of his purpose in due course to reach Rome.
The salutations at the close of the epistle are remarkable for the number of persons mentioned by name, and for the touches by which they are individually identified.
The epistle was written by Paul when at Corinth, about A.D. 58: cf. Act 20:1-3. It is an exhaustive dissertation, and evinces the energy and wisdom of the Spirit of God in each point discussed. It is apposite that such an epistle should have been addressed to the saints at the then metropolis of the civilised world, not, however, that that metropolis should be in any way a centre of the church of God. Paul had not introduced the gospel there, and there is no evidence that Peter did so. It may have been carried to that city by some who were converted at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.