Romans 15
Romans 15
3. Christian Unity, 15:1–13
1We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. 2Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. 3For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.”a 4For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
5May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, 6so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
7Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. 8For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jewsb on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs 9so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy, as it is written:
“Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles;
I will sing hymns to your name.”c
10Again, it says,
“Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.”d
11And again,
“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles,
and sing praises to him, all you peoples.”e
12And again, Isaiah says,
“The root of Jesse will spring up,
one who will arise to rule over the nations;
the Gentiles will hope in him.”f
13May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
There is no break in sense as Paul carries on with his treatment of the strong and the weak, but in this section of his argument he puts somewhat more stress on the importance of unity among Christians. He does not use the word “love”, but the conduct and the attitude for which he looks are best understood as the outworking of that love of which he has written so feelingly in the earlier part of the letter. There is something of a change at the end of verse 6, and some scholars see a new division of the letter as beginning there, with the example of Christ before us in the earlier verses and the relation of Jews and Gentiles in those that follow. Such a division is certainly in order, but the whole passage is concerned in one way or another with the unity that ought to be characteristic of believers.
1. Paul continues with his subject.1 His we is emphatic2 and indicates both that the strong have a significant role and that Paul numbers himself among the strong. It is true that he has the habit of classing himself with those of whom he is speaking (see the note on 3:5), but the language here makes it clear that he regards himself as one of the strong. He is concerned that the strong should take up the right attitude toward the weak. His terminology changes a little and he refers to the “able” and the “unable”3 rather than to the “strong” and the “weak”, but there is no reason to think that he has moved to a consideration of two different groups. Here he is concerned that the strong take seriously their obligation4 to use their God-given strength in the service of the God who gave it and therefore in that of their weaker fellows (cf. Gal. 6:2). In every age it has been easy for the strong to find reasons why they should take little notice of the weak.5 Indeed, it is a constant in the infinite variety of human cultures that the strong tend to use their strength as a means of easing their burdens and making the weak bear them as well as their own. Even in the Christian church they all too easily see it as unfair that their conduct should be modified on account of considerations that seem of no importance to them, even though those considerations form insurmountable problems for their weak brothers. They do not realize that their strength is given them in order that it may be used to help others.
But they are to bear with the failings of the weak.6 This means, of course, that they should tolerate rather than criticize the weak, that they should endure the irritation caused by the practices of the weak. But it means more. It means that they should “carry” the weak. This is more than that they “ought to help the weak to carry their burdens” (GNB). They are to support and sustain the weak (cf. Moffatt, “We who are strong ought to bear the burdens that the weak make for themselves and us”). There may well be a reference (as, e.g., Michel thinks) to Isaiah 53:4;7 whether this is so or not, the strong are to take firm action to assist the weak. This is very important in the Christian church, for the church is a very inclusive body, made up of people old and young, rich and poor, intellectually able and handicapped, of every race and class. It is not easy to maintain a sense of “family” in such a group, and the strong bear a heavy responsibility for bringing it about.8 We should also bear in mind that “strong” and “able” are relative terms; in the Christian church we are all “strong” in some respects and in some situations. What Paul is saying is not something we can easily set aside, regarding it as advice for someone else.
The negative side of carrying the weak is that we are not to please ourselves. This does not mean that we are never to do anything that we want to do, but that we are never to do what pleases us regardless of its effects on others. Consideration for weaker Christians takes precedence over what we ourselves would like to do.9 Elsewhere Paul can cite his own example; he practises what he preaches (1 Cor. 10:33; cf. Rom. 8:8; Phil. 2:4). Selfishness is always a barrier to effective Christian work10 and of course it breaks up Christian unity, which is such an important consideration throughout this discussion.11
2. As Paul continues his exhortation, he does not use a connecting particle. Us could mean “us Christians” or “us strong people”, but probably the former, for each seems to make it universal in its Christian application and, further, the duty he lays down is something the weak should do as well as the strong. Us again puts Paul in the same class; he is not standing aloof. The neighbor makes the application very wide (GNB seems in error with “our brothers”; Paul is not limiting the application of this principle to the Christian brotherhood). But he immediately limits it with for his good. This principle must be applied with care, for great harm is done when Christians assume that in all circumstances they know what is good for other people. It must be done with humility. But it is necessary, for we may find it very easy to please people by doing or permitting something that is really harmful in the long run.12 The point is that we must constantly seek to do what is for the good of others rather than what is for our own good. This does not mean that the weak control the church—that they have only to express a scruple and all rush to conform. That would mean that the church would be permanently tied to the level of the weak and that life and growth would cease. Paul is not laying down a rule of conduct but enunciating a principle of tender concern. The strong must respect the weak; they must not hurt them and at all times they must strive for what is for their good. A genuine concern for the weak will mean an attempt to make them strong by leading them out of their irrational scruples so that they, too, will be strong. Moreover, Paul can repudiate quite vigorously actions that can be understood as “pleasing men” (Gal. 1:10; Eph. 6:6). He is not writing about seeking human approval but about subordinating our own profit to the good of others. His good will mean something like “his spiritual profit” (some think “his salvation”; cf. 14:16).
The meaning of good is further brought out with the addition of to build him up or “with a view to edification.”13 Christians must always have in mind the importance of building one another up in the faith, and the attitude of the strong to the weak is to be guided by this consideration. For “edification” see the note on 14:19. It is an important concept.
3. A powerful incentive to this kind of conduct is that Christ is our example.14 He did not please himself, which points to the way he set the interests of others before his own. The verb is a constative aorist, which means that the whole of Jesus’ earthly life is in view (cf. BDF 332[1]: “in his whole earthly life”). The Gospels show that Christ lived to do the will of the Father (cf.“not my will, but yours be done”, Luke 22:42), which meant the service of others. The line of argument is like that in Philippians 2:4–5, where Paul speaks of the importance of acting in the interests of others and goes on: “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus”. Hodge remarks that Christ’s example “is constantly held up, not merely as a model, but a motive.”
It is significant for the way Paul’s mind works that he does not appeal to any of the incidents in Jesus’ life which illustrate his point, but simply quotes Scripture. For him the Bible ends all argument. If there is a relevant passage, then he need do no more than draw attention to it, and that is what he does now.15 The Psalm was uttered by a godly man of old who found people insulting God and who became the victim of those insults himself.16 So with Christ. People insulted God, and it was those insults that Christ bore as he suffered for his people. Paul could have drawn attention to what is more significant, that Christ bore the wrath of God in bringing us salvation. But the wrath was not apparent to those who saw what was happening while the insults were heard by all who were there (cf. Matt. 27:39–44). Paul will have in mind the evil deeds that were done against Jesus, the insults in act as well as in word, and that throughout his life. In the Psalm the godly man has a consuming zeal for the house of God, and this means that he is the butt of those who do not obey God. It was like this in the life and death of Jesus,17 and Paul sees him as the pattern and motive for Christians. In the light of what Jesus has done, can the strong in Christ’s church insist on having their meat and the weak keep up their condemnation of their fellows?18
4. Paul explains why he can appeal to Scripture in this way. Everything that was written in the past means “all that was written in Scripture”; it is not an endorsement of every piece of literature that comes down from earlier ages. But we should bear in mind that everything19 is comprehensive: Paul is not saying that there are some good things in the Bible, but that all of it was written for20 our21 instruction (cf. 4:23–24). “Our” evidently has some emphasis: although it was written in earlier ages it was intended for our instruction (cf. 1 Cor. 9:9–10).22 The reason23 for their being written was that we might have hope. The present tense of the verb points to continuous possession, and the article before hope seems to show that it is not the general hope of mankind of which Paul is writing, but the specifically Christian hope, the hope that is given by what Christ has done in winning our salvation, the hope that leaves no doubts and sustains Christ’s people in the darkest days (see the note on 4:18).24
Paul speaks of two things important in bringing this about: endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures. It is not clear whether we should take both endurance and encouragement as deriving from the Scriptures (as GNB, “through the patience and encouragement which the Scriptures give us”) or whether we should see Paul as specifically linking only encouragement with the Scriptures (as Moffatt, “by remaining stedfast and drawing encouragement from the scriptures”).25 Of course the Christian’s endurance and encouragement both come from God, and it may well be said that Scripture has a part in producing both. The question here is whether Paul is linking them both with the Bible or only one; his construction seems to show that only encouragement is here said to derive from the Bible. The apostle often speaks of endurance26 and of encouragement.27 Both are important. We need steadfastness in our Christian life and we need the encouragement the Bible can give; our life is a very poor thing without either.
5. Now comes a characteristic Pauline interjection of a short prayer; Paul often interrupts his argument in this way to pray. He speaks of “the God of steadfastness” (or “endurance”), which probably means that God is the source of steadfastness in his people (which accounts for NIV’s insertion of gives) rather than that he himself is characterized by this quality (though that, of course, is true). Parry points out that the use of the genitive after “God” (i.e., “the God of —”) is “confined to S. Paul (exc. Heb. xiii.20; 1 Pet. v.10) and to prayers”. Paul has expressions like “the God of love and peace” (2 Cor. 13:11), “the God of peace” (Phil. 4:9; 1 Thess. 5:23), and “the God of hope” (v. 13). With this is linked encouragement (cf. 2 Cor. 1:3, where God is the God “of all encouragement”). The implication of all this is that God is the giver of steadfastness and encouragement to believers. Paul is not exhorting believers to pull themselves together and manifest these qualities, but rejoicing in God who gives them. In the Christian understanding of things they are always the gift of God, not the result of human achievement.
Paul proceeds to pray that God will give28 what NIV calls a spirit of unity. More literally it is “to mind the same thing”, but NIV gives the sense of it, for it is not so much identity of opinion of which he is writing here (the strong and the weak do not agree on a number of things but they can still be prayed for in this way) as harmony among themselves.29
As you follow Christ Jesus is another paraphrase, for the Greek means something like “according to Christ Jesus”.30 Paul is not saying that Christian unity is a general community product. He is not looking for unanimity in itself, for people sometimes agree in error. He is praying for the unity that accords with Christ, and that is a unity that God alone can give. Hence it is the object of this prayer.
6. There is a purpose in this unity.31 Paul prays that with one heart32 and mouth33 his correspondents may glorify God. There were certainly tensions in the Roman church, and the presupposition that the strong and the weak were having some difficulty in getting along with each other underlies this whole section of the letter. But when the church gives itself over to glorifying God there is a deep and satisfying unity. That is what Paul looks for.34 Glorify, of course, means “ascribe glory to” or “praise”; this is the creature taking up the appropriate position over against the Creator.
God is here called the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ or, as KJV has it, “God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, an expression that recurs elsewhere (2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3).35 The question is whether God can properly be called “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Some think that this is improper. They prefer to understand Paul as speaking of our God, who is also the Father of our Lord (cf. O’Neill). But in his genuine humanity there is a sense in which God is rightly understood as the God of Jesus, and indeed on the cross Jesus addressed the Father with the words “My God, my God…” (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34). So also the risen Lord spoke to Mary Magdalene of “my God and your God” (John 20:17). We also come across the expression “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1:17). So there is no reason why we should not follow the natural sense of the Greek and understand Paul to be referring here to God as the God as well as the Father of Jesus Christ. This brings out the genuine humanity of Jesus and reminds Christians that it is Jesus who has brought us the perfect revelation of God. We know him as the Father of Jesus Christ, and unless we know him in this way we do not know God as he really is.
7. Accept one another is surely addressed to the whole community. Paul is not now dividing his readers into the strong and the weak. Käsemann points out that in this section “the tensions and debates vanish completely from view” and that Paul is proceeding to show that his doctrine of justification is seen in God’s having mercy on the Gentiles (p. 384). The verb rendered accept36 means wholehearted acceptance. David H. C. Read has a sermon in which he emphasizes this point and refuses even such a word as “welcome” as a translation. He reminds us that “Acceptance is never easy”, but also that “we have been accepted”.37 That is Paul’s point. Just as38 Christ accepted us, we are to accept other believers. When Christ has accepted someone, are we to say that we will not take him as a Christian brother? Our attitude to others must flow from the transformation wrought in us by Christ. There is a textual difficulty as to whether we should read “you” or “us” after “received”.39 Most accept “you” as the harder reading, but not much depends on our decision. But perhaps we should say that earlier Paul has been speaking as one of the strong, whereas here he stands off, so to speak, and addresses the whole community. His point is that all are to accept those who differ from them. This follows well on Paul’s prayer, for “Nothing glorifies God as much as the unity of His children, which alone is in harmony with His essential will of love” (Leenhardt). And it leads well into what follows, for Paul sees the purpose of Christ’s accepting of them as “the glory of God”. God’s glory was promoted when Christ received us sinners, and it is further advanced when we who are by nature sinners and wrapped up in our own concerns instead receive our brothers and sisters in Christ with warmth and love.40
8. For I tell you41 introduces a reason for the foregoing, namely that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth. The verb has become should apparently be taken as in the perfect tense,42 indicating a permanent state: Christ continues in his capacity as “a servant of circumcision”.43 His function as the Jewish Messiah is permanent. “Servant” is the word used for a deacon in the church and more widely for lowly service in general. The word order puts some emphasis on “servant”; in his coming to bring salvation Christ did not appear in might or in glory, as might have been expected, but he came as a servant (cf. Mark 10:45; Luke 22:27; Gal. 4:4–5). “Circumcision” here means that he served the Jews (cf. Matt. 15:24), but we should not overlook the fact that circumcision was the sign of the covenant. This way of putting it brings out the fact that Christ was the minister of the covenant of which circumcision was the seal (so Murray), that covenant with Abraham which Paul earlier argued was of such relevance to the Gentiles (ch. 4). Paul is reasoning that Jews and Gentiles comprise the totality of the Christian church. Christ took the lowly place (became a “servant”) to bring salvation not to the one or the other but to both. Both are precious. Believers are warned that no member of the church may safely be despised.44 On behalf of God’s truth45 is not the easiest of expressions, and a variety of translations have been suggested: “in the interest of God’s truth”, “in order to prove God’s honesty”, “to show God’s truthfulness”, “in vindication of God’s truth”, and others. The problem is the preposition; BAGD say that here it means “in order to show that God’s promises are true” (1b). Clearly Paul is saying that the work of Christ in some way advanced God’s truth, but his form of words allows of too many possibilities for us to pin him down to one precise meaning.
To confirm46 the promises made to the patriarchs47 sums up what Jesus did with respect to the Jews. Paul has had a good deal to say in the earlier chapters of this letter on the way God worked out his purposes in and through the patriarchs, and he has made it clear both that the promises God made are of permanent validity and that they find their fulfilment in Christ. This he reiterates at this point.
9. The Greek at this point is difficult.48 But however we resolve the grammatical problems, Paul is bringing out the truth that God’s mercy has brought the Gentiles salvation and that this leads them to praise him. Some scholars emphasize the oneness in God’s action to the two groups. They see the fulfilment of the promises to the patriarchs and the mercy shown to the Gentiles as not two acts, but one: “the confirmation of the promises comes by the call of the Gentiles” (CGT). It is also to be borne in mind that Israel’s salvation, just as much as that of the Gentiles, depends on the mercy of God. Others suggest that we have here a pair of contrasts: the patriarchs are set over against the Gentiles and faithfulness to the promises corresponds to mercy. It would seem that there is more to be said for the former view, for Paul has often argued that the coming of the gospel to the Gentiles is not in contradiction of the Old Testament but in fulfilment of it. Mercy for the Gentiles is involved in the Old Testament.49
Paul now launches into a series of quotations from the Old Testament which are surely meant to support what he has said in verses 8–9 (and not simply in v. 9). He quotes from the law, the prophets, and twice from the Psalms, so that he calls all the recognized divisions of Scripture to witness to the point he is making, that the Gentiles have their place in God’s salvation. There is something of a progression. The first quotation has the note of confession, as the Psalmist praises God among the Gentiles. The second calls on the Gentiles to rejoice with Israel. In the third the Gentiles praise God independently of Israel. And in the fourth we find that the cause of it all is the “root” of Jesse, the only one on whom sinners can hope.
The first quotation is from Psalm 18:49, almost exactly as LXX. The Psalmist says he will “confess” to God,50 which means that he will praise him. It would be natural for a Hebrew singer to praise his God, but this one wants to do it among the nations. The Psalm is a song of victory which looks for the praises of God to be sung throughout the world. Evidently the mention of the Gentiles is what attracts Paul. The Psalm goes on to say, I will sing hymns to your name.51 Delling regards the Psalm as relevant to Paul’s aim: “The praise of Gentile Christians for God’s mercy to them in Christ is provided here with scriptural support” (TDNT, VIII, p. 499).
10. Calvin holds that Paul is here quoting from Psalm 67:5, but most interpreters agree that the passage he has in mind is Deuteronomy 32:43 (cited from LXX).52 The passage stresses the note of joy as Moses calls on the nations to join in happy praise of God on account of his greatness and his defeat of all his enemies. But for Paul the significant thing is not the cause of the rejoicing but the call to Gentiles to rejoice along with Israel. God has brought the blessings of salvation to both, and it is well accordingly that they rejoice together.53
11. Now comes a quotation from Psalm 117:1 (again from LXX) This time there is no reference to Israel and the words are simply a call to the Gentiles to praise God. The two lines are parallel and express much the same thought. We should not look for great differences in meaning between the two verbs for praise, nor between Gentiles and peoples.54
12. Now Paul moves to the prophets with a quotation which he tells us is from Isaiah (11:10; again from LXX). This speaks of the (not “a”, as KJV) root of Jesse, a way of referring to Jesus as the descendant of the great king David (and hence of David’s father). We would normally use root for the origin (“the root of Jesse” would be that from which Jesse derived his being), but manifestly the word is not used in this way either in Isaiah or here in Romans. Rather, it points to one who springs from Jesse, one for whom Jesse is the origin. We may perhaps discern the reason for this way of speaking when we reflect that in Palestine drought would threaten the life of a plant, so that its root system would be its best guarantee of survival. The root came then to be used not only of the root itself but also of that which springs from the root.55 So from a household that looked far from royal there would emerge God’s Messiah, and the point of this particular prophecy and of Paul’s quotation of it is that that Messiah would be one on whom the Gentiles could set their hope. For Gentiles as for Jews it was the descendant of Jesse who would be the Savior.
That the root of Jesse will arise56 to rule over the nations means that he will be a mighty king. But he will not be a tyrant; the Gentiles57 will hope in him. Throughout this section of the epistle the note of hope is strong, and it is fitting that Paul should choose this to characterize the blessed state of the Gentiles in question.
13. As in verses 5–6 Paul interjects a little prayer as he comes to the end of his argument. In this case it is all the more fitting in that we have now come to the end of the massive argument of the epistle as a whole (the rest of the letter is taken up with personal matters of one sort or another). We should not think of Paul as primarily a controversialist; he was a deeply pious man and it is characteristic that he finishes not with some equivalent of Q.E.D. nor a shout of triumph over the antagonists he has confronted but with prayer.
There is a connective (KJV “Now”)58 which NIV does not translate but which marks a transition to something new, something distinguished in some way from the preceding. It is a mark of the importance attaching to hope in the New Testament59 that Paul characterizes God as the God of hope (cf. v. 5). This means both that he is the origin of hope and the object of hope (“who inspires hope and imparts it to his children”, Harrison). Becoming a Christian means leaving a whole way of life and in faith starting a new one. Not having been along that way before, the beginner cannot know to what it will lead; he can only go ahead in hope and in the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul prays that God will fill60 his correspondents with all joy and peace. Joy is one of Paul’s great concepts, the term occurring in his writings 21 times whereas no other New Testament writing has it more than John’s nine times. It is linked with faith (Phil. 1:25) and is part of “the fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22–23).61 For peace see the note on 1:7; it is linked with joy in 14:17 and in the list of the fruit of the Spirit as well as here. The two go together. Peace here is the inward state of peace that God gives his people rather than the peace with God that is its prerequisite. Paul adds, as you trust in him;62 faith is basic to the Christian way. The specifically Christian joy and peace are impossible apart from trust in Christ.
Paul goes on to the purpose63 of his prayer, namely that you may overflow with hope. He looks for a full measure of hope in his readers, not a tentative step in that direction. This is the third mention of hope since the end of verse 12, and it is all the more significant in that we have just heard of “the God of hope”. There is a strong emphasis on hope, an emphasis we should not miss in an age so lacking in hope. Perhaps Leenhardt draws our attention to the basic reason that hope is in short supply in our modern world when he says, “No one can really hope unless by faith he turns away from the past, that is, from himself, to offer himself to God who is the Creator and Dispenser of the world to come.” Whether this is the basic reason or not, there is no denying that hope is fundamental to the Christian life and that it is always to be understood in connection with faith. It is also to be understood in connection with the power of the Holy Spirit (for power see the note on 1:16). The believer’s experience of hope is always connected with the Holy Spirit and never a personal achievement of his own (cf. 14:17).
VII. CONCLUSION, 15:14–16:27
Paul’s great treatment of justification has ended. He has shown something of its necessity, of what Christ has done to bring it about, of the necessity of trust in him, of what it means in terms of Jew and Gentile, of the importance of living day by day as those who have been justified by faith. Now the apostle turns to matters like his reason for writing the letter, his travel plans, and sending greetings to people he knows. At the beginning of this concluding section there are some resemblances to what he wrote in 1:8–15; clearly his mind went over these things again.
A. The Minister of the Gentiles, 15:14–22
14I myself am convinced, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another. 15I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me 16to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
17Therefore I glory in Christ Jesus in my service to God. 18I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done— 19by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. 20It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. 21Rather, as it is written:
“Those who were not told about him will see,
and those who have not heard will understand.”a
22This is why I have often been hindered in coming to you.
14. I … am convinced translates a perfect tense which points to a continuing state of confidence in the Roman Christians.64 Paul is giving his considered opinion. His warmth toward his correspondents comes out in his address my brothers (which seems to mean more than the general address “brothers”), and he follows this with I myself, which is strongly emphatic.65 Chrysostom understands the significance of this approach in this way: “ ‘I myself,’ that is, I that rebuke, that accuse you”, and this is probably the point of it. Since Paul has written some very weighty things, it might well be that the Romans on reading them would feel that Paul thought them deficient in their understanding of the Christian way. But at the beginning of his letter he had said that their faith was well known (1:8), and his words here show that he is in full agreement with that assessment. There are to be no doubts about his warm approval of the Roman church. Actually the letter itself is evidence of the same thing—it is not a letter for people who do not take their faith seriously or are not prepared to think deeply about it. And Romans differs markedly from the Corinthian correspondence in that there are no rebukes for the recipients, no indication of a deficient understanding or practice of the Christian way.
So Paul goes on to speak of the Romans as full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another. This is a courteous introduction to this section, and in view of the opinion held in some circles that Paul was a rather abrasive person it is worth noticing that this is typical.66 When he says that they are full of goodness he is not speaking of an occasional virtuous action; full means plentiful supply. The Romans were outstandingly good.67 It is not easy to distinguish between full and complete.68 But knowledge takes us on to the intellectual understanding of the Christian faith. Paul is not referring to knowledge in general, but that genuine comprehension of Christian teaching which is allied with a deep concern to do what is good. That is the way the problem of the weak and the strong will be solved (and many other problems as well; it is perhaps significant that when he writes to the Corinthians Paul compliments his readers on their knowledge, but does not mention goodness, 1 Cor. 1:5). The Romans also have the ability69 to instruct one another, where instruct means more than “teach”; it has rather the idea of “admonish” with the thought of correcting what is amiss.70 Here it points to “the reciprocal brotherly ministry of the members exercising pastoral oversight with a sense of congregational obligation” (Behm, p. 1022).
15. The Roman congregation, then, is in good shape. But if they are so good, why write? Paul proceeds to the answer. He recognizes that what he has written71 is audacious,72 adding on some points, an expression that may be taken in more ways than one. Paul may mean that on some points he has written boldly (as against others which are less controversial); this takes on some points with I have written. But we may instead take it with boldly to give the meaning “somewhat too boldly” (Hodge) or with remind, where the meaning would be “partly by way of reminding you” (CGT).73 Paul’s verb for remind is unusual.74 There is the tactful assumption that the Romans are knowledgeable in the faith and that Paul has not been putting novel teachings before them. He does not specify what it is of which he has been reminding them, but it will surely be the great truths of the gospel and of the way the Christian life should be lived. Barrett sees this as “more than tact; the believer who has accepted the Gospel knows the essence of the truth, but he may—and generally does—need many reminders.” It is probable that Paul’s treatment of the great things in this epistle brought before the Romans many things they had not realized before (as has happened to Christians in every century since!). But the essence of it all in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is something that has always been basic in Christian experience, that of the Romans as of all other believers. Paul was enlarging their horizons but he was also reminding them of things they already knew. This he says he does because of the grace God gave me. He is fond of the idea of grace (see the note on 1:5) and he has already spoken of God’s special gift of grace to him, the grace of apostleship (cf. 1:5; 12:3). The aorist points to a gift at a definite time, and that time will be that of his call to be an apostle.
16. Paul proceeds to the purpose75 of that grace, namely that he should be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. The word for minister76 is one that is elsewhere used of the service Christ renders (Heb. 8:2), but also of that performed by Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25). Paul took very seriously his call to minister to the Gentiles (cf. 11:13; Gal. 2:9). He never renounced his Jewish heritage; rather, he gloried in it, but never in such a way that he forgot that his calling was to be God’s minister to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 22:21). He goes on to refer to this service in priestly terms,77 a most unusual way of referring to Christian service (here only in the New Testament; Paul uses a different piece of sacrificial imagery about himself in Phil. 2:17). But it is interesting and significant that Paul does not use the expression in connection with any liturgical practice but explicitly with the gospel of God. It is a striking way of affirming that the proclamation of the gospel is a solemn and sacred act.78 The genitive of God means that the gospel originates with God,79 another way of bringing out its sacredness.
The purpose80 of this is that the Gentiles might become an offering. Paul uses the word for offering81 again only in Ephesians 5:2; it is not a common word with him. It is used in LXX for the sacrifice offered on the altar. The expression here is “the offering of the Gentiles”, where the genitive is appositional and signifies “the offering which is the Gentiles”. The imagery is unusual for Paul (or for that matter for any of the other New Testament writers). It is his way of saying that he preaches the gospel to the Gentiles so that they come to offer themselves to God (cf. 12:1); instead of some slain animal ascending to God in the flames of a physical altar there is the spiritual ascent to him as Gentile people offer themselves, their souls and bodies, as a reasonable sacrifice to God (a kind of fulfilment of Isa. 66:20).82 It points to the thoroughgoing commitment which Paul demanded of his Gentile converts.
This offering is said to be acceptable83 to God. The Old Testament knew of sacrifices that God would not accept (e.g., Isa. 1:11ff.), and Paul is distancing the offering of the Gentiles from such offerings. With this he links sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Paul’s Jewish opponents would have regarded all Gentiles as “unclean”, so his use of the term sanctified is very significant. Most agree with NIV in seeing this as meaning by the Holy Spirit, but Lenski rejects this in favor of “in union with the Holy Spirit”. It may be that we should think of the union with the Spirit as showing the sanctification, but there is no great difference.84 The point is that the Gentiles are accepted by God and are holy in the fullest sense. We ought to notice here the way the three Persons of the Trinity are introduced. This is not yet the full doctrine of the Trinity, but it was from such expressions as these that the church in due time came to formulate this doctrine.
17. Therefore85 introduces the consequence. Because of what God has done in him towards the Gentiles Paul has reason for exultation (or boasting).86 NIV has I glory, but Paul uses the noun, not the verb, and links it with “have” (“I have boasting”). This construction puts some emphasis on “the durative action” (CGT).87 Glory (or boasting, or exultation) is in Christ Jesus; all that Paul has done he has done in the strength of Christ, which means that Paul is not boasting in his own achievement but in what God has done through him. And what has been done has been done in my service to God, which is NIV’s rendering of an unusual Greek expression.88 Paul is claiming, then, that he has matter for exultation in what he has done in Christ in the things that refer to God.
18. He adds an explanation,89 saying that he will not dare90 to speak of certain things. Because the Greek is awkward, commentators differ as to the best way of understanding it. It may be that he is saying here that he “has no intention of presuming to refer to anything other than what Christ has wrought through him” (Cranfield). Or the awkwardness may be due to the combination of two thoughts “(i) I would not dare to speak of this if it were not Christ’s work (rather than mine); (ii) I would not dare to speak of this if it were not Christ’s work through me (rather than anyone else)” (Barrett; cf. CGT). Whichever way we take it, the main thrust is clear enough: Paul will glory only in what Christ has done through him. He is sure that Christ has done91 great things through him,92 and he is glad that he can draw attention to those things. But he is not trying to attract adulation. It is what Christ has done that is his theme.
What Christ has done has been to bring about “the obedience of the Gentiles”,93 that is, obedience to the command implied in the gospel (in 1:5 Paul had spoken of “the obedience of faith”). This obedience meant that they had left their former way of life and committed themselves to the service of Christ. “By word and deed” will refer to what Paul said and did (as NIV), not to any activity of the Gentiles.94 Christ accomplished his purpose through the apostle’s words and his deeds.
19. This is further elaborated. Christ acted in the power95 of signs and miracles,96 a rare combination in Paul (it is frequent in Acts). He uses it of himself on one other occasion (2 Cor. 12:12), of the “counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders” of the man of lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:9), and that is all. Here he says that his ministry among the Gentiles was accompanied by miraculous events. He regards them as “the signs of an apostle” (2 Cor. 12:12), and this is well attested in Acts (cf. Acts 13:6–12; 14:3, 8–10; 19:11, etc.). With this Paul joins through97 the power of the Spirit. This may be another way of referring to the miracles; it is the fact that the Spirit is at work to make them “signs” that gives them their significance. But the Spirit’s power is not confined to the miracles, and Paul may well be referring to the spiritual efficacy of his whole evangelistic activity.98
So99 introduces the result, but there is some uncertainty as to Paul’s precise meaning in the following words. Paul claims to have preached the gospel from Jerusalem all the way around100 to Illyricum. Paul’s great work started when he was sent out from Antioch (Acts 13:1–3), so the reference to Jerusalem is puzzling. As far as we know, he did not do any considerable work in the Jerusalem area. He may possibly be referring to his early preaching in that city (Acts 9:28–29), but that was not concerned with Gentiles and it is the Gentiles of whom he is speaking here. He had a vision in the temple associated with his call to preach to the Gentiles (Acts 22:19–21), and in Jerusalem he was given the right hand of fellowship for his work among Gentiles (Gal. 2:9). But Jerusalem was regarded as the starting point of all Christian preaching (cf. Luke 24:47), and it may be this that is in mind. Illyricum is modern Yugoslavia and Albania. As far as is known, Paul had not preached there. But since he seems to have done little in Jerusalem either, perhaps the best solution is to see these as excluded: he had preached from the boundary of Jerusalem to the boundary of Illyricum. He is stating the limits of his preaching so far, not claiming to have preached in both.
In the area he has defined Paul claims to have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ.101 Since Paul had done no more than preach in a number of the larger cities, this can scarcely mean that he felt that the whole of the area named had been evangelized. He is saying that he has done what he, the apostle of the Gentiles, was required to do. He had preached in strategic centers throughout the area named and established churches. No doubt there was much still to be done, both by way of preaching to those not yet converted and of building up in the faith those who had come to believe. But that was not Paul’s responsibility as a pioneer evangelist.102
20. NIV omits the first two words of this verse,103 which qualify and explain what Paul has just said. He is not claiming that he has “fully proclaimed” the gospel in an absolute sense but in the sense that accorded with his ambition to preach it where Christ was not named. The reference to ambition is interesting.104 The verb is used by Paul on two other occasions and by no one else in the New Testament. He says that he “makes it his ambition to have no ambition” (1 Thess. 4:11; alternatively “seek restlessly to be still”) and that it is his ambition to be pleasing to the Lord (2 Cor. 5:9). Clearly he is not ambitious in the sense in which the world normally uses the term. Whether we understand the verb in the sense of ambition or of eager striving, Paul is saying that his constant aim was the lowly one of being a pioneer evangelist. He wanted to preach the gospel only where Christ was not “named”.105 This means more than “utter the name”; it refers rather to accepting what the name stands for, acknowledging Christ (“named as Saviour”, Olshausen).
The purpose106 of this was to avoid building on someone else’s foundation.107 We should be clear on what this means. It is Paul’s own personal calling that is in view: he is not saying that this is what all Christians should do. He is well aware of differentiation of function in the service of God. There will be those who plant and those who water, and they are both working together and working together with God (1 Cor. 3:6–9). There are those who lay the foundation and those who build (1 Cor. 3:10ff.). He is simply saying that his own calling is to plant the seed or to lay the foundation. This necessarily involves others working later, but it differentiates Paul from them, at least in the way of regular labor. He does not mean that on occasion he will not do anything to build up people whom others have won for Christ. This whole letter is proof of the contrary; Paul did not found the church at Rome, but he had no hesitation in trying to help the Roman Christians (1:11, 13). He is saying that his essential calling is to found new churches, and this means going into areas where others have not been. He is to preach the gospel to those who have not heard; to go to those who have already heard would be to renounce the calling God has given him.
21. Characteristically Paul finds a passage of Scripture that expresses this (Isa. 52:15, LXX).108 We should interpret Those who were not told109 will see in some such sense as “understand”, as the next line makes clear with its use of precisely that verb.110 It is not clear why we have an aorist of the proclamation in the first line and a perfect of the hearing in the second. There can scarcely be a difference.
22. This is why111 will refer not to the immediately preceding, but to what was said in verse 20 or earlier (Cranfield refers it to v. 19, and Lagrange to everything from v. 17 on). It was on account of his determination to obey God’s call to him that Paul had been unable to go to Rome earlier. Though he had wanted to make the journey, evidently there had always been the demand that he preach in some new area and he could not deny the compulsion to follow God’s leading in such a matter. So Paul says he had often112 been hindered113 from coming to you (cf. 1:13). Parry sees a reference to Paul’s “delicacy; he will not seem either to have neglected the Church in Rome; or to force himself upon them.”114
B. Paul’s Plans, 15:23–33
23But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to see you, 24I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while. 25Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there. 26For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. 27They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings. 28So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this fruit, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way. 29I know that when I come to you, I will come in the full measure of the blessing of Christ.
30I urge you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me. 31Pray that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea and that my service in Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there, 32so that by God’s will I may come to you with joy and together with you be refreshed. 33The God of peace be with you all. Amen.
Paul enlarges on his desire to go to Spain, which would mean passing through Rome. That will give him the opportunity of visiting the church in that city on the way and perhaps making it his base. But before he can do that he is taken up with his collection of money from the Gentile churches to assist the poor Christians in Jerusalem. It is clear that he saw this as very important. In the end trouble at Jerusalem led to his arrest, so that when he got to Rome it was as a prisoner making his appeal to Caesar, something very different from what he envisaged.
23. But now begins a sentence which is broken off and never completed (NIV inserts some words at the beginning of v. 24 to smooth the construction). This opening draws attention to changed circumstances. Paul no longer sees a place115 to work in the regions116 where he then was. This does not mean that he could not find a place where he could preach a sermon or two or where he could help build up the faithful. He means that there is no scope for his specific ministry of planting churches where the gospel had never previously been preached. Some have drawn this into an argument that Paul expected that he would cover all the nations of the world and that the parousia would then come. This, however, is not implied in anything he says, and it comes up against the fact that the apostle must have been conscious that there were many nations, such as the Parthians and the German tribes, where he had not been and had no prospect of going. He was not doing something to bring about the parousia but discharging his obligation to plant churches in virgin territory. With this he links his longing over many years to see the Roman Christians.117
24. I plan to do so is NIV’s insertion to smooth out a difficulty; there is nothing corresponding to any of this in the Greek. Paul simply goes on, when118 I go to Spain.119 He expresses the hope that in passing through120 he will be able to visit the Roman Christians.121 He also hopes that the Romans will assist him on his journey. Paul does not explain what this means, but his verb is one which can be used for sending one forward on a journey with a variety of pieces of assistance.122 Some think that Paul was looking for prayers and good wishes only, and this may indeed be the case. But it seems somewhat more likely that he hoped to have Rome as his base for his work in the western regions. Until now Antioch had functioned as his base, but this was too far from places like Spain. It would be a very great help to Paul if the Christians at Rome could see their way clear to acting as his home church, so to speak, while he went forward into unknown territory (in the spiritual sense) in the regions to the west.
After I have enjoyed your company for a while is a tactful and paradoxical expression123 that combines two thoughts: (1) to be in Rome among the Christians will be a great pleasure to Paul, and (2) he does not plan to stay long. Paul makes it clear that his visit would not be a boring interlude which he would have to endure—he would enjoy it. He could never have his fill of the company of the Christians. But he did not intend to impose on the Romans—he was on his way.
25. There is some emphasis on Now, however.124 Those are the plans, but now—there is something else to be done. He pictures himself as already on the way to Jerusalem (the present tense is used for the future to give greater certainty). Paul speaks of going there in the service125 of the saints there.126 The expression is quite general and could refer to service of any kind, but no doubt Paul is speaking of the collection he had caused to be taken up among the Gentile churches for the poor Christians in the holy city. His other references to it show that he attached the greatest significance to it (Gal. 2:10; 1 Cor. 16:1–4; 2 Cor. 8–9). Curiously Luke has but one casual reference to it in his account of what went on when Paul got to Jerusalem (Acts 24:17), but Paul saw it as very important, though he never tells us precisely why. Evidently the Jerusalem Christians (or some of them) were very poor, and their need would be a significant factor. Dodd reminds us that the Jerusalem church had been poor from the beginning when the few wealthy believers sold their possessions to give to the poor. This he considers a “partial and voluntary communism.” He proceeds, “But they carried it out in the economically disastrous way of realizing capital and distributing it as income (Acts ii.44–45, iv.34–v.5). So far as we can gather, no practical steps were taken to replace the capital thus dissipated; and when hard times came, the community had no reserves of any kind.” This may be part of the story, but we must bear in mind that Jerusalem was not a wealthy place so that the Jews in the Dispersion were in the habit of sending money to relieve the needs of their compatriots in Jerusalem. The Christians, of course, would be excluded from this largesse, so that in a city characterized by poverty they would tend to be poorer than the poor. This would only be made worse by the persecutions they experienced (e.g., Acts 8:1). All in all, the Christians in Jerusalem were a very needy group. Paul, in association with Barnabas, had been involved in an earlier aid project in a time of famine (Acts 11:27–30; 12:25).
But there was more to it than that. Paul evidently saw the offering as symbolizing the unity of believers. It was a token of fellowship between Christians in the heartland of the Jewish way and Gentile believers. Some early Christians held that all converts ought to be circumcised and to live according to the Jewish law; Paul had a continuing controversy with people who held such opinions. His collection would show that those who rejected this hard-line conservatism were nevertheless bound to Jewish believers in ties of Christian love.
Bruce detects eschatological significance in the offering. He draws attention to prophecy in which the Gentiles escort Jews from the Dispersion to Jerusalem as an “offering … to Yahweh” (Isa. 66:20; cf. Zeph. 3:10). But Paul had in mind “something more magnificent and surprising”, for “the offering which he will present to the Lord consists not merely of Jews from the Gentile lands but of Gentiles themselves.”127 Jerusalem was the place where this offering should be made. The Gentiles could not be taken en masse to that city, but the collection could be taken there as a symbol of the offering of the people who gave it.
There may well have been other considerations. But the New Testament tells us enough to let us see that for Paul the taking of this money to Jerusalem was not a routine piece of financial administration. It had deep significance, and it was important that it be done rightly. It was worth postponing his longed-for visit to Rome until he had done all that was necessary for the proper presentation of the money.
26. Macedonia and Achaia of course means the Christians in those provinces; the usage is not common, but the meaning is plain enough. Paul’s collection was apparently from his Gentile churches generally, and it certainly included others than those from these two areas (cf. 1 Cor. 16:1–2). It is not clear why he singles them out for mention here. Be that as it may, he says that they were pleased to help, which points to more than stolid acquiescence.128 These Christians were happy to help. They made a contribution, where Paul’s choice of word129 points to something more than money. The term is the ordinary one for “fellowship” (and is used, e.g., of “the fellowship of the Holy Spirit”, 2 Cor. 13:14) and will indicate here that the money was not a soulless gift, but the outward expression of the deep love that binds Christian believers in one body, the church130 (it is used similarly in 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:13). The gift was for “the poor of the saints131 who were in Jerusalem”, where the form of expression indicates that not all the Jerusalem saints were poor. But there were enough of them to make the gift worthwhile.
27. Paul repeats that the Gentile Christians were pleased to do it,132 putting emphasis on the goodwill that found expression in the gift. He himself had brought some pressure to bear, as we gather from the Corinthian correspondence, but that does not mean that the gift was not made with a willing mind. After all, there was no compulsion apart from moral obligation: the Christians could not be made to contribute.133 The fact that they did shows their pleasure at being able to help needy brothers and sisters. Paul goes on to say134 that there was in fact an element of debt; the Gentile believers were the “debtors”135 of believing Jews. Paul introduces his explanation of this with a conditional clause, For if the Gentiles have shared… , where the implication is that the condition has been fulfilled.136 What they shared137 is put in general terms, spiritual blessings, but there is no doubting that Paul means the gospel above everything else. That was the supreme privilege; nothing in all this world is to be compared to the gift of God in the gospel, and the gospel came first to the Jews. When the Gentiles received it, it was because Jewish missionaries proclaimed it to them and invited them to share in its blessings. It is reasonable, then, that the Gentiles should serve138 the Jews with their material blessings.139
28. Taking the collection to Jerusalem was the immediate task, but Paul looks for its consummation140 and sequel. He speaks of “having sealed to them this fruit”, which NIV understands in the sense made sure that they have received it. This may be the way to take it, but the meaning of “sealing” in this context remains doubtful. It is known that produce such as wheat and barley was put in sacks and sealed; this was the last thing done and indicated that everything was in order. It may be that that is the way we should understand it: Paul’s seal meant that the money was there in full amount. A somewhat similar view is that which starts from the seal as a mark of personal authentication; Paul’s seal was his guarantee that all had been done well. It has been held that Paul’s very presence certified the gift and set the seal on his apostleship. Knox holds that when the money has been given and received in the right spirit “Paul will have ended his divinely appointed work in Asia Minor and Greece; the ‘fruit’ of his mission will have been ‘sealed.’ ” There are other views, and at this distance in time we cannot be sure of the precise significance of the sealing. But it is clear that in some way it pointed to official assurance that all was well.
Once the money is delivered, Paul says, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way. More accurately he says, “I will go off to Spain through you.” His verb is the usual verb for going away, and we have already had occasion to notice his plan to make Spain his next place of mission. But “go away through you” is not what we would have expected, though, of course, it is quite intelligible.141
29. Paul closes this part of his letter on a note of quiet certainty (I know); his certainty is one of faith, but none the less certain for that. He looks to the time when he will come to the Romans,142 and he expresses his confidence that that will be in the full measure of the blessing of Christ.143 He was engaged in the service of a Christ who was faithful, one on whom Paul could place the utmost reliance. So whatever happened, he was sure of the blessing of the Lord. It is pointed out that these words are a mark of authenticity, for no one who knew how Paul in fact arrived at Rome would have put it quite that way. We may well feel that in the providence of God the divine blessing rested on the apostle even in his time as a prisoner in Rome, but it is certainly unlikely that anyone else writing after the event would have chosen to put it in these words. It is not quite clear whether Paul thought that the blessing in question would rest on him or whether he meant that the work he would do would be a blessing to the Roman Christians. Probably neither is out of mind and there is truth in both.144
30. It is not uncommon for Paul to request prayer from his correspondents (2 Cor. 1:11; Eph. 6:19; Col. 4:3; 1 Thess. 5:25; 2 Thess. 3:1), so this passage is quite in character. On this occasion something of what the collection for the saints meant to the apostle comes through in a very impassioned exhortation to pray. I urge you (or perhaps “I implore you”, NEB) is normal enough in a pressing request, but by our Lord Jesus Christ is not.145 Cranfield may well be right when he says that the expression (together with its immediate sequel) “indicates the authority invoked and the ground of appeal in Paul’s urgent entreaty.” A second by leads to the thought of the love of the Spirit, an expression which might mean the love the Spirit enkindles in believers, the love the Spirit has for them, or even love the believers have for the Spirit. Not many hold to this third view (cf. Barrett, “the genitive cannot be objective”), but either of the other two is possible. Murray holds to the second view, but the New Testament more often refers to the love the Spirit brings about in Christians (cf. Gal. 5:22), and that seems to be the most likely understanding of the words here.
Paul is not looking for a formal and tepid prayer but for a wholehearted involvement, which he describes in terms of conflict: to join me in my struggle.146 There is a very real struggle going on between the forces of good and evil, and a most significant part of that struggle is prayer. Thus E. Stauffer can say, “the form of the battle is prayer. In prayer there is achieved unity between the will of God and that of man, between human struggling and action and effective divine operation. In prayer, too, there is fulfilled the fellowship of conflict and destiny between man and man. In prayer one man becomes the representative of the other, so that there is here opened up the possibility of one standing in the breach for all and all for one” (TDNT, I, p. 139). It is this kind of powerful praying for which the apostle looks.
He specifies that he wants prayer to God and for me; neither is strictly necessary, but they help fill in the picture. We should not leave this verse without noticing once again the mention of the three Persons of the Trinity. This natural placing of the three together would lead in time to the enunciation of the doctrine of the Trinity.
31. Paul moves to the content of the prayer for which he looks,147 namely that he may be rescued from148 the unbelievers in Judea.149 Paul was evidently well aware of the fact that there were fanatical Jews in Judea who would oppose him vigorously (cf. Acts 20:22–23; 21:11), and in due course events proved his fears well founded. In obedience to God he would go up to Jerusalem despite the danger, but he did not plan to thrust himself into peril and he prayed to be delivered from it.
With this he joins the prayer that his service in Jerusalem150 may be151 acceptable to the saints there. From our standpoint it is difficult to see why there should be a problem: the saints in Jerusalem were in need, the Gentile Christians had taken up a collection specifically to meet that need, so why should not the money be welcomed with enthusiasm and gratitude? But we must bear in mind that the Jerusalem church appears to have been very conservative. That was where the view was most strongly held that Gentile believers must be circumcised and taught to observe the law of Moses. Paul was regarded by some members of the Jerusalem church as a dangerous innovator, a man who was disobeying God by taking lightly the obligation to obey the law that God had given through his servant Moses. The money Paul brought might be seen by some who held views like this as a bribe wherewith the apostle hoped to buy a condonation of his breaches of the law. The Jerusalemites would think that by accepting the money they would be endorsing what Paul had done among the Gentiles; in other words, they would be countenancing his work.152 Perhaps also they did not want to be helped by people like Gentiles. Such reluctance would be somewhat curious because the Jerusalem people had asked Paul to help the poor (Gal. 2:10), and that was exactly what he was doing. When in due course Paul reached Jerusalem he was welcomed by “the brothers”, specifically by James and his fellow elders (Acts 21:17–25), but these leaders showed concern about the reaction of the rank and file. The church at Jerusalem as a whole does not appear to have been very helpful and, for example, no assistance of any sort is recorded after the apostle’s arrest.
32. It seems that Paul is here recording what he hoped would be the answer to the prayers of the Romans. So that indicates purpose.153 Paul looks forward to coming to the Romans with joy by God’s will. Leenhardt understands this to mean that “he does not propose to proceed on his way to Rome unless he can do so with the joy of having found a kind welcome at Jerusalem.” But this seems to be reading too much into the expression. It is unlikely that Paul would leave himself so dependent on men when he felt that God was calling him on. It is more probable that his determination to proceed to Spain was firm and that this included a stop in Rome. He calls for prayer that his service in Jerusalem might be acceptable so that his coming to Rome would be a happy one (with joy immediately follows so that). He looks for refreshment with the Roman Christians;154 he anticipated no difficulties or dangers when he came among them.
33. Now comes a little benediction such as is not uncommon in Paul’s letters (cf. vv. 5–6, 13; 9:5, etc.). He describes God as The God of peace (16:20; 2 Cor. 13:11; Phil. 4:9; 1 Thess. 5:23). True peace is associated with God so fully that Paul can characterize God by it. Paul expresses the wish that the God of peace be with all the Roman Christians. It is characteristic of Paul to make his wish all-embracing. Amen is probably added on general principles. There is no need for it where there is no congregational response. But it was evidently conventional at the end of a prayer, and this wish falls into that category.155