INTRODUCTION to The Epistle to the Romans

NEW

TESTAMENT

COMMENTARY

By

WILLIAM HENDRIKSEN

Exposition

of

Paul’s Epistle

to the Romans

BAKER BOOK HOUSE

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

Formerly published in two volumes,

Romans 1–8 and Romans 9–16

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 82–71911

ISBN: 0–8010-4265–8

12 volume set, first available 2002

ISBN 0–8010-2606–7

FOREWORD

A heart-warming book is Romans. It is filled with instruction touching both life and doctrine. It imparts comfort in life and, as every faithful pastor knows, and ever so many other people have testified, also in the hour of death.

However, this book is very controversial. On many passages high-ranking interpreters differ. In connection with issues in dispute I have not tried to avoid taking a position. Among them, as concern chapters 1–8, are the following:

1. Paul writes, “to all in Rome who are beloved of God” (1:7). Were those addressed predominantly Jews or Gentiles? See pp. 20–23.

2. When the apostle uses the verb to justify or the noun justification in such passages as 3:24; 4:25; 5:1, 16, 18, is he using these words in (a) a causative sense, or (b) a declarative (forensic) sense? See pp. 130, 245.

3. In 5:1 did Paul say: (a) “We have peace,” (b) “Let us have (or: continue to have) peace,” or (c) “Let us enjoy the peace we have”? See pp. 168, footnote 140.

4. Who is the person described in Rom. 7:14–25? Is he: (a) an unbeliever, (b) an immature believer, or (c) Paul himself, the believer, and by extension, the believer generally? See pp. 225–230.

5. When, in 8:26b, the apostle states that “the Spirit himself (αὐτὸ τὸ πνευ=μα) intercedes for us with unspoken groanings,” does he mean that it is indeed the Spirit who groans, or does he mean that we groan, repeating the thought of verse 23? See pp. 273–277.

It will become clear that here and there I differ with those for whom I have the highest respect, and whose writings I warmly recommend. May the cause of the gospel prosper even through differences in interpretation!

William Hendriksen

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A. Book Abbreviations

A.R.V. American Standard Revised Version

A.V. Authorized Version (King James)

Gram. N.T. A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research

Gram. N.T. (Bl.-Debr.) F. Blass and A. DeBrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

Grk. N.T. (A-B-M-W) The Greek New Testament, edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren

I.S.B.E. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

L.N.T. (Th.) Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

L.N.T. (A. and G.) W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

M.M. The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan

N.A.S. (N.T.) New American Standard Bible (New Testament)

N.E.B. New English Bible

N.I.V. New International Version

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

R.S.V. Revised Standard Version

S.BK. Strack and Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch

S.H.E.R.K. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge

Th.D.N.T. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, and translated from the German by G. W. Bromiley

B. Periodical Abbreviations

EQ Evangelical Quarterly

ET Expository Times

GTT Gereformeerd theologisch tijdschrift

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

ThG Theologie und Glaube

ThZ Theologische Zeitschrift

Please Note

In order to differentiate between the second person plural (see Rom. 1:11: “I am yearning to see you”) and the second person singular (see Rom. 2:1: “Therefore you have no excuse”), the letters in “you pl.” are spaced, those in “you sing.” are not.

INTRODUCTION

to

The Epistle to the Romans

I. ITS APPLICABILITY ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE

The church of Rome consisted of Jews and Gentiles. Which group pre-dominated? See Section IV of this Introduction; also see on the following passages: 1:5, 6, 13; 2:17ff.; 7:1–6; 11:13; 15:15f. There was the danger that one group would look down with disdain on the other: the Jews on the Gentiles (2:1f.), the Gentiles on the Jews (11:18). Paul therefore emphasizes that “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all” (10:12).

Today, too, this truth needs to be stressed, for the fact that, in a certain sense, “before God all men are equal” is by no means universally acknowledged. Even the church, sad to say, has not always taken to heart the full implications of this principle.

The people addressed in this epistle were also being exposed to another evil, namely, the heresy of concluding that since salvation is not dependent upon works, but rests entirely on grace, therefore the performance of good deeds is unnecessary; in fact, might even become an obstacle to full spiritual development. If salvation is the product of grace, why not, by means of living in sin, offer grace ample scope to operate? Why not “continue In sin that grace may bound”? See 6:1.

Most decisively does Paul refute this line of reasoning. He argues that for those who “have become united with Christ” (6:5) such a course is simply impossible, and that those who think otherwise are laboring under a pernicious delusion, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (6:23).

Today, too, especially in certain fundamentalistic circles, a kind of antinomianism is being propagated. We are being told that the believer is not under the law in any sense whatever. Therefore, as long as he trusts in Christ as his personal Savior he can more or less do whatever he pleases. Works are of no account. Did not Paul say, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this not of yourselves; (it is) the gift of God; not of works, lest anyone should boast”?

The answer is: Shortquoting Paul is unjustified. Paul continues, “For his handiwork are we, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” He who quotes Eph. 2:8, 9 should also quote verse 10. He who appeals to Titus 3:5a must accord equal weight to verses 5b, 14.

Here in Romans Paul’s denunciation of antinomianism is scorching, withering, “We who died to sin, how can we any longer live in it?” (6:2). And as to not being in any sense under the law, Rom. 13:8, 9 teaches the opposite. So do I Cor. 9:21; Gal. 5:14.

The Greek and Roman world of Paul’s day was indeed a hopeless world. It was a realm filled with despair. According to the Greek (and afterward also the Roman) conception, at the moment of death there is no hope for the body, nor even for the soul. Reluctantly the latter departs from the body either with the dying breath or through open wounds. It enters the very dismal realm of the shades. Or else it simply ceases to exist. The Stoics mostly thought that it is the rational universe that persists; individuals do not. The Iliad ends with funeral rites.

Today among many people a somewhat similar attitude prevails. With respect to any life after this life, uncertainty reigns supreme. And with respect to mankind’s future here on earth, pessimism is more and more gaining the upper hand. There is little talk now of “making the world safe for democracy” or of “waging a war to end all wars.” Even in certain religious circles concerted Christian action in order to promote the glory of God in every sphere is frowned upon.

Also in this respect the study of the book of Romans is rewarding. This book offers hope. In fact, the subject of hope—for which see also the books of Psalms, Acts, Hebrews, and especially I Peter—is mentioned more often in Romans than in any other New Testament book. The apostle even tells us, “It was in hope that we were saved” (8:24), a hope well-founded (8:26–39). He calls the Divine Being “the God of hope” (15:13). From start to finish this book proclaims good tidings (3:24; 4:16–25; 7:24, 25; chapter 8 in its entirety; 11:33–36; 13:8–14; 16:25–27). And it encourages Christian action (12:9–21; 13:7, 14:19; 15:30; 16:1, 2).

At the root of every question is the question of man’s guilt. “How can a man be righteous before God” (Job 9:2; 25:4). Paul, too, asked this question. So did Luther, and so does everybody, consciously or unconsciously. Romans answers it.

It is, accordingly, a book for every age, including our own.

II. ITS AUTHOR

With few exceptions scholars agree that it was indeed the apostle Paul who wrote Romans. The evidence favoring this conclusion may, without exaggeration, be called overwhelming. The arguments that have been advanced against it—for example, “Luke, in the book of Acts, never mentions the establishment of a church in Rome; so Paul could not have written a letter to the Romans”—are so absurd that they merit no further comment.

For the sake of climactic effect the evidence in favor of Pauline authorship will be traced in reverse chronological order (from later to earlier).

Eusebius, the great church historian, writing at the beginning of the fourth century, refers to “the fourteen [sic!] letters of Paul,” and in the same context (Ecclesiastical History 111.iii.4, 5) makes mention of Romans as being one of them. Origen (fl.210–250), Tertullian (fl.193–216), and Clement of Alexandria (fl.190–200) are in full agreement.

The Muratorian Fragment (about 180–200), so named because it was published by Cardinal Ludovico A. Muratori (1672–1750), who had discovered it in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, contains the oldest extant list of New Testament writings. It is incomplete, is written in poor Latin and includes titles of books that were read in the church of Rome during the early days. In connection with Romans this Fragment reads:

“Now the epistles of Paul, what they are, whence and for what reason they were sent, they themselves make clear to him who is willing to understand. First of all he wrote at length to the Corinthians … then to the Galatians … and to the Romans on the order of the Scriptures, intimating also that Christ is the chief matter in them.”

Irenaeus (fl. about 182–188) states, “Paul, speaking to the Romans, declares, ‘Much more they who receive abundance of grace and righteousness will reign in life by the one, Christ Jesus’ ” (Against Heresies III.xvi), freely quoting Rom. 5:17. In this and several other statements Irenaeus clearly ascribes the authorship of Romans to Paul.

Going back even farther we reach the days of Marcion, who came to Rome shortly before the year 144. His canon of sacred writings consists of ten Pauline epistles plus Luke, all edited to suit the heretic’s personal theology. He recognizes Romans as one of Paul’s chief works.

The early apostolic fathers were not in the habit of mentioning the names of the holy men of God whom they quoted. Nevertheless, the fact that they are quoting, whether literally or (as often) freely, is frequently very clear, as is also the identity of the one whom they are quoting.

This is true, for example, with respect to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. This valiant Christian hero, “a disciple of John,” suffered martyrdom in the year 155. In his letter To The Philippians VI.ii he shows that he is well acquainted with Paul’s epistles, including Romans. In a sentence which reflects both Rom. 14:10, 12 and II Cor. 5:10 he writes, “If, then, we beseech the Lord to forgive us, we ourselves ought also to forgive, for we stand before the eyes of the Lord God, and we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, and each must give an account of himself.” The following quotation from this same letter shows that the mind and heart of this devout early martyr were immersed in the writings of Paul:

“These things, brothers, I write to you concerning righteousness. I do so not on my own initiative, but because you first invited me. For neither am I, nor is any other like me, able to rival the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who, when he was living among you, in the presence of his contemporaries taught accurately and steadfastly the word of truth, and who also, when he was absent, wrote letters to you. By means of the study of these letters you will be able to build yourselves up in the faith given to you …” III.i, ii.

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, while on his way to Rome and martyrdom, in the beginning of the second century a.d., wrote a number of letters, mostly to churches. These letters again clearly show that he was acquainted with, and highly regarded, Paul’s epistles, including the one to the Romans. Note, for example, the following resemblances:

	Romans	Cf. Ignatius To The Ephesians
1:3	of the seed of David	XVIII.ii
4:20	was strengthened in faith	X.ii
8:5, 8	carnal versus spiritual people	VIII.ii
6:4	newness of life	XIX.iii

A great admirer of Paul was Clement, bishop of Rome during the final decades of the first century. In his letter To The Corinthians he writes, “Take the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle … With true inspiration he charged you concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then you were given to partisan discord.” Cf. I Cor. 3:1–9. That he was also thoroughly acquainted with another epistle written by the same apostle, namely Romans, is clear from XXXV.v, vi. Cf. Rom. 1:29–32. In this case not only does he use many of Paul’s words, but he even arranges some of them in the same order: “unrighteousness, wickedness, greed (or covetousness).” And at the close of this little paragraph compare Clement’s “Not only those who do them are hateful to God but also those who approve of them,” with Paul’s “They not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

This brings us, finally, to the apostles and their own writings. II Peter 3:15, 16 reads as follows:

“Bear in mind that the patience of our Lord means salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote you, as also (he writes) in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters .…”

It is not surprising, therefore, that there is a close resemblance between Peter’s letters and Paul’s, as is evident especially when Romans and I Peter are placed side by side:

	Romans	Cf. I Peter
12:1	a sacrifice acceptable to God	2:5
12:2	be not fashioned	1:14
12:3	as God has allotted to each	4:10
12:9	love without hypocrisy (see the original)	1:22 (see the original)
12:10	love of the brothers	2:17

In conclusion, whoever rejects the Pauline authorship of Romans must also reject the Pauline authorship of I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians Colossians, etc. The writer who in Rom. 3:20–24; 4:3 proclaims the deeply satisfying doctrine of “justification not by human merit but by faith” does so also in Gal. 2:16; 3:6, 11; Titus 3:5–7. The inspired artist who in Rom. 12:5 pictures the church as Christ’s body with its many members has not changed his identity in I Cor. 10:17; 12:12–14, 27; Eph. 1:22, 23; Col. 2:19. The exhorter who in Rom. 12:6–8 insists that these members shall use their respective talents for the benefit of the entire body emphasizes the same duty in I Cor. 12:15–26, 28–31; Eph. 4:11–16. And the warm-hearted enthusiastic philanthropist of Rom. 15:15–28 is also the gift collector and benefactor of II Cor. 8 and 9. He calls himself “Paul, servant of Jesus Christ, apostle” (Rom. 1:1). We have every reason to believe him.

Saul, whose Roman name was Paul¹ was born at Tarsus, a center of Greek culture, a university city located in Cilicia, near the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean Sea. He received his early training in Jerusalem under that most distinguished doctor of the Law, Gamaliel, grandson of the famous Hillel. The witnesses who stoned Stephen laid their garments at the feet of Paul (Acts 7:58). Immediately after Stephen’s death Paul took a leading part in the persecution of Christians. He put his whole soul into this task. He “breathed threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord” (Acts 9:1). Not satisfied with waging the persecution in Jerusalem, he even asked of the high priest letters to the synagogues in Damascus that he might bring bound to Jerusalem “any that were of the Way, whether men or women” (Acts 9:2).

Then something happened that would bring about a radical change not only in the life of Saul of Tarsus but in the course of all future history.

It was the hour of noon and the sun was shining in all its strength. Paul was approaching Damascus to destroy the Christian community in that city. Suddenly, a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shone around him. “And he fell upon the earth, and heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord?” The voice answered, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter into the city, and you will be told what you must do” (Acts 9:3–6).

The men who accompanied Paul saw the light but could not distinguish the Person. They heard the voice or sound, but could not understand the words. Paul, on the other hand, saw the Lord and heard his words. Arriving in Damascus, he received his sight through the ministry of Ananias, who also baptized him. He began his evangelistic work in Damascus:

And at once in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God. And all who heard him were amazed and asked, “Is not he the man who in Jerusalem raised havoc among those who call on this name? And has he not come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?” But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who dwelt in Damascus, proving that this is the Christ (Acts 9:20–22).

Paul spent some time in Arabia, but Scripture does not tell us what he did there. When he returned to Damascus, his preaching aroused such opposition that he had to flee for his life, for the Jews were plotting to kill him. They had the co-operation of the civil authorities. Paul’s report is as follows:

In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes in order to take me: and through a window was I let down in a basket by the wall, and escaped his hands (II Cor. 11:32, 33).

Fully three years after his conversion Paul arrived in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18). He tried to join the disciples but they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was really a disciple. But Barnabas, a big-hearted Levite of Cyprus who had been converted earlier (Acts 4:36, 37), removed their apprehension and introduced Paul to Peter and to James, the Lord’s brother. “To visit Cephas [Peter]” had been Paul’s purpose when he started out from Damascus (Gal. 1:18). While in Jerusalem, the former persecutor preached fearlessly to the Greek-speaking Jews (Acts 9:28, 29). They immediately plotted to kill him. Hence, the brothers decided to send Paul away. In a vision the Lord himself confirmed this decision.

Paul had spent only fifteen days with Peter, as he himself states in Galatians 1:18. This is in complete harmony with the account which we find in Acts 22:17–21:

And it happened that, when I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance, and saw him [the Lord] saying to me, Make haste and quickly get out of Jerusalem; because they will not accept your testimony concerning me … Depart: for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.

Accordingly, the apostle left Jerusalem before he had seen the rest of the apostles and before he had become known by sight to the churches in Judea. Nevertheless, believers everywhere had heard the good news. “The man who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he formerly tried to destroy.” They glorified God (Gal. 1:23).

Paul’s friends brought him to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.

It is probable that the apostle labored in Tarsus and the surrounding territory for several years, founding the churches that are mentioned in Acts 15:41. When Barnabas, who had been sent to Antioch in Syria, saw the progress of the gospel in that great city and the need of an additional worker, he went to Tarsus to seek Paul and brought him to Antioch. Together they labored here for a year. The church grew rapidly and became the starting point for Paul’s mission to the pagan world (Acts 9:30; 11:20–26).

About this time a great famine occurred “over all the world,” just as had been predicted by the prophet Agabus. Luke tells us that this famine took place in the days of Claudius (Acts 11:28). He was emperor during the years 41–54. At Antioch contributions for the relief of the Christians in Judea were made. By the hands of Barnabas and Paul these were sent to Jerusalem. This trip probably occurred about the year 44, shortly before the death of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1). The two men, having accomplished their mission, returned to Antioch.

The extension of the church from Antioch by means of three great missionary journeys began at this time. The Holy Spirit directed the church to set apart Barnabas and Paul for the work to which God had called them. So, “when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away” (Acts 13:1–3). We do not know how long a time this first missionary journey occupied. All we can say is that it must be assigned, in general, to the period 44–50. For the details of this journey, followed by the Jerusalem Conference, see Acts 13:1–15:35. It is clear that on this trip Paul and his companions did not travel very far to the west. The journey was confined to the island of Cyprus and the southern part of the Roman province of Galatia.

The second journey is described in Acts 15:36–18:22. Its probable date is 50/51–53/54. It covered far more territory than did the first trip. In fact, this time the missionaries did not stay in Asia but actually entered Europe. Evangelistic work was carried on in Macedonia (Northern Greece) and Achaia (Southern Greece). The cities visited were respectively (a) Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea; and (b) Athens and Corinth. In the latter city Paul remained a long time (Acts 18:11, 18), preaching and supporting himself by working at his trade of making tents. It was also from this city that the apostle sent his epistle to the Galatians, and, perhaps a little later, the two epistles to the Thessalonians. On the homeward stretch of this tour Paul stopped at Ephesus but did not remain there very long. He promised, however, to return (Acts 18:20, 21). By way of Caesarea he came back to Antioch.

On his third journey (53/54–57/58; Acts 18:23–21:16) Paul, “having passed through the upper country,” came to Ephesus, thus fulfilling his promise (Acts 19:1). He remained here a long time (Acts 19:8, 10; 20:31) and was very successful. It is probable that all or most of “the seven churches of Asia” (Rev. 1:4) were founded during this period. Also, it would seem that before writing I Corinthians the apostle made a second visit to Corinth (II Cor. 12:14; 13:1), returning shortly afterward to Ephesus. A little later he wrote a letter to the Corinthians, the one we call I Corinthians.

When he finally left Ephesus Paul went to Macedonia. It was here (in Philippi perhaps?) that he wrote II Corinthians. And so the apostle came at last to Corinth, his third visit to that city. It was when he was about to depart from Corinth that he wrote Romans (Rom. 15:22–25; cf. Acts 20:3).

The triumph of the gospel during the period of Paul’s three missionary journeys was truly amazing. It has been estimated that by the close of the apostolic period the total number of Christians in the world had reached half a million. Ever so many missionaries and lay witnesses contributed to bring about this result. Undoubtedly the most effective worker of them all was “God’s chosen vessel,” the apostle Paul. He was “a Hebrew of the Hebrews,” a Roman citizen by birth, and versed in the “wisdom” of the Greeks.

There were certain external factors which favored Paul and his message, such as

1. a world government

2. world peace

3. a world language (Greek)

4. famous Roman roads linking the various parts of the world

5. world skepticism with respect to pagan deities

6. the dispersion of the Jews and of their monotheistic religion among the nations of the world

7. the translation of the Old Testament into Greek, in a sense the world language.

Nevertheless, there were also formidable obstacles. Journeying up and down the Roman Empire in order to blaze a trail for the gospel was a task beset with great dangers (II Cor. 11:23–28). Moreover, the enemies were many and relentless. Therefore, although we do not wish to detract in the least from the significance of the aforementioned favorable circumstances, more than this was needed if the gospel were to triumph. More was also divinely provided.

God, in his wonderful providence, prepared not only external conditions which favored the spread of Christianity, but also the man who was going to make use of these conditions. Paul had been “separated from his mother’s womb” in order to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles (Gal. 1:15–17).

What kind of person, then, was Paul?

He was a man with a brilliant intellect, an iron will, and a compassionate heart.

1. brilliant intellect

Paul was a thinker of the first order, a man with a penetrating mind, well-versed in the Old Testament, and able to grasp the connection between its precious passages and the doctrine of salvation in Christ. Far from being the creator of a brand-new theological system, as some seem to think, he discovered the doctrine of justification by faith in such Old Testament passages as Gen. 15:6; Ps. 32:1f.; Hab. 2:4. See Rom. 1:17; 3:21f.; 4:3. He also understood that what made this marvelously gracious solution of man’s guilt-problem possible was Messiah’s vicarious sacrifice, as Isaiah’s fifty-third chapter teaches. That Paul was indeed well acquainted with the contents of that chapter is clear from Rom. 10:16 (cf. Isa. 53:1), and is probably also indicated in I Cor. 15:3 (cf. Isa. 53:5–12). And may not the following references point in the same direction: Rom. 4:25 (cf. Isa. 53:4, 5); Rom. 5:19 (cf. Isa. 53:11); Rom. 8:34 (cf. Isa. 53:12); and I Cor. 5:7 (cf. Isa. 53:7)?

This plan of salvation is in harmony with the words of Jesus recorded in Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 6:51; 10:11, 14, 16, 28; and also with those spoken by the Lord in connection with the institution of the Lord’s Supper, and recorded by both Paul (I Cor. 11:23–26) and his close friend and frequent travel companion Luke (22:19, 20, on which see N.T.C. on Luke, pp. 961–964).

Several passages in Paul’s epistles reveal consummate literary skill. In this connection reference is generally made to Rom. 8, I Cor. 13, and I Cor. 15. But are not the language and the style of the following passages equally superb: Rom. 2:17–29; 5:1–11; chapter 12; I Cor. 4:11–13; II Cor. 5:1–10; 11:22–33; Gal. 2:19–21; Eph. 2:8–10; 2:14–21; 6:10–20; Phil. 3:7–21; 4:4–9; I Tim. 3:16?

A combination of astuteness and wisdom is evident in what may be called Paul’s Mission Strategy, embracing such points as the following:

a. Work in the great urban centers, so that from there the message may spread to the surrounding towns and villages.

b. Make use of the synagogue, in order to reach not only Jews but also Gentile proselytes.

c. Show that new-dispensation events are the fulfilment of old-dispensation prophecies.

d. Adapt the gospel message to the culture and the needs of the hearers.

e. Do follow-up work by means of return visits, letters, and special envoys.

f. Promote unity between rich and poor, Gentile and Jew, by asking the more prosperous churches to help the poorer ones.

2. iron will

Coupled with his penetrating mind was Paul’s invincible determination to be a channel of blessing for men. His slogan was: “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel … I have become all things to all men that by all possible means I may save some” (I Cor. 9:22), to the glory of God (I Cor. 10:31).

This indomitable purpose and resolution must certainly be considered an element in the explanation of the apostle’s willingness to endure persecution for the sake of the cause to which he was so ardently devoted. How tremendous his sacrifice! How unlimited his willingness to suffer for the sake of Christ and his kingdom! Here are Paul’s own words, II Cor. 11:23–28:

In labors far greater,

In prisons more often,

In scourgings above measure,

In exposure to death often.

Of the Jews five times I received forty lashes minus one.

Three times I was beaten with rods,

Once I was stoned,

Three times I suffered shipwreck,

A night and a day have I been in the deep;

In journeyings often,

In perils of rivers,

In perils of robbers,

In perils from my countrymen,

In perils from the Gentiles,

In perils in the city,

In perils in the wilderness,

In perils at sea;

In perils among false brothers,

In labor and toil,

In watchings often,

In hunger and thirst,

In fastings often,

In cold and nakedness.

Besides everything else

There is that which presses upon me daily,

Anxiety for all the churches.

Even when we limit ourselves to the story concerning Paul as recorded in the book of Acts we stand amazed at the amount of suffering which this hero of faith, in order to accomplish his unwavering and consuming purpose, was willing to endure. But when we add to the record of Acts what Paul himself tells us here in II Cor. 11, words fail to express our admiration for this great gift of God to the church! Cf. J. D. Quin, “Seven Times he wore chains,” JBL, Dec. 1978, pp. 574, 575.

Moreover, it should be borne in mind that II Cor. 11 was written before the apostle’s imprisonment in Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Rome (Acts 20:22, 23; 21:11, 27–28:31). This also means, of course, that Paul had already experienced all the trials mentioned in II Cor. 11 before he composed his epistle to the Romans! Keeping this in mind will make the study of Romans even more interesting and profitable.

In speaking about the apostle’s iron will, his hewing to the line no matter what the cost, this resoluteness must not be misconstrued. It did not amount to bullheadedness. The beauty of Paul’s philosophy was exactly this, that when principle was at stake—for example, that of Christ’s all-sufficiency for salvation—he was unbending, but in matters not involving principle he could be very accommodating, flexible, conciliatory. Therefore, instead of charging the apostle with inconsistency, we should credit him with kindness. When the Judaistic party in Jerusalem demanded that Titus be circumcised, Paul did not yield to its clamor (Gal. 2:3). Yet, he circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3). It was one thing to circumcise a person of mixed parentage, as was Timothy, and to do this in order to make him a more effective witness among the Jews; it was an entirely different matter to force circumcision on Titus (both of whose parents were Gentiles) and, in general, on all the Gentiles, with the implication that unless they received this sacrament they could not be saved (Acts 15:1).

Paul’s flexibility probably also explains his willingness, after his arrival in Jerusalem from his third missionary journey, to yield to the suggestion that he join four men who had taken a temporary Nazirite vow and pay for their offerings (Acts 21:17–26). The question whether this concession on his part was wise does not concern us at this point. The fact that must be emphasized is this: Paul, while taking a firm position on matters of principle, was always willing to yield on matters neither forbidden or enjoined. He followed this course purposely and consistently, as I Cor. 9:20, 21 shows.

Of the American poet John Greenleaf Whittier it has been said that he “yielded in smaller matters, that he might win in the greater.”² The same could be said of Paul.

3. compassionate heart

The apostle’s “drive” would not have been so keen had it not been activated by this third factor. Various phases of the apostle’s intensely emotional personality are exhibited in the book of Acts and in the epistles. Here was a marvelously loving heart, a truly great soul!

Having formerly persecuted the followers of Jesus, after his conversion Sorrow, hearty and profound, walked with Paul (I Cor. 15:9; I Tim. 1:15). That to such a bitter persecutor Christ had revealed himself as a loving Savior baffled him. He just could not get over it (Eph. 3:8; I Tim. 1:16). It caused his heart to overflow with lasting, humble gratitude! For this and for other reasons his epistles are full of magnificent doxologies (Rom. 9:5; 11:36; 16:25–27; Eph. 1:3f.; 3:20f.; Phil. 4:20; I Tim. 1:17; 6:15; II Tim. 4:18), which are the spontaneous utterances of the man who wrote, “For the love of Christ constrains us” (II Cor. 5:14). Having been “laid hold on” by Christ, the apostle in turn was eager to burn himself out for the salvation of others (I Cor. 9:22; 10:33; II Cor. 12:15).

His heart ached intensely because so many of his own people (Israelites) were not saved (Rom. 9:1–3; 10:1). Anxiety for all his churches pressed upon him daily (II Cor. 11:28). How fervent and touching were his prayers for them (Eph. 3:14–19; I Thess. 3:9–13).

How he loved them

, so that he could write, “We were gentle in the midst of you as a nurse cherishes her own children.” So, being affectionately desirous of you, we gladly shared with you not only the gospel of God but also our own souls … For now we really live if you stand fast in the Lord” (I Thess. 2:7, 8; 3:8). How earnest were his pleadings (II Cor. 5:20; Gal. 4:19, 20; Eph. 4:1), and how tactful! Though for their own good he was able to rebuke the wayward very sharply (Gal. 1:6–9; 3:1–4), even this was a manifestation of the love of his great, throbbing heart. Is it any wonder that, when occasion demanded it, out of the eyes of a man with an ebullient spirit and loving heart there welled forth fountains of tears (Acts 20:19, 31), so that both in II Cor. 2:4 and in Phil. 3:18 these are mentioned? And is it at all surprising that, on the other hand, on one occasion the tears of his friends, because of his imminent departure and the afflictions in store for him, well-nigh broke his heart (Acts 21:13)? Truly Paul’s

weeping

when he writes about the enemies of the cross of Christ is as glorious as is the

joy, joy, joy

that sings its way through his epistle to the Philippians!

III. ITS PLACE AND DATE OF COMPOSITION

The following facts point to Corinth as the place where the apostle composed the epistle to the Romans:

1. He commends to the church Phoebe whom he calls “a servant of the church of Cenchrea.” Now Cenchrea was the eastern port of Corinth. It is generally, and probably correctly, assumed that Phoebe carried Paul’s letter to its destination.

2. He calls Gaius his “host.” This person may well have been the one of that name mentioned in I Cor. 1:14, where the apostle informs the Corinthians that he had baptized this member of their congregation. In Rom. 16:23 Gaius is sending greetings.

3. Also extending a salutation is Erastus. Cf. II Tim. 4:20, “Erastus remained at Corinth.” An inscription discovered on a paving-block at Corinth reads, “Erastus laid this pavement at his own expense.” If these references are to the Erastus of Rom. 16:23, they confirm the theory that Romans was composed in Corinth.

Determination of the time of composition is perhaps somewhat more difficult. At least opinions differ rather widely. The question must be answered, “When was Paul in Corinth under circumstances that harmonized with the situation as pictured in his letter to the Romans?”

His first stop in that place was during the second missionary journey (Acts 15:36–18:22). According to Acts 15 this journey began soon after the close of the Jerusalem Conference, though exactly how soon afterward has not been revealed. See Acts 15:30, 36. If the date a.d. 50 is assigned to that gathering, as is generally done, the somewhat flexible date 50/51–53/54 for the entire second missionary journey may well be correct. Nevertheless, it cannot have been during this stay at Corinth that the apostle wrote Romans. That letter clearly belongs to a considerably later time period, when Paul’s missionary labors in the eastern part of the empire were nearing their completion. Note the following: “From Jerusalem and round about, as far as Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ” (Rom. 15:19); “I no longer have any room for work in these regions” (15:23). Cf. 1:10: “… now at last.”

Shall we then link Romans with Paul’s second journey to Corinth, the painful visit implied in II Cor. 12:14; 13:l? But this trip must have been of short duration and made under circumstances unfavorable for the composition of this great epistle. As indicated earlier, it was probably made during Paul’s very lengthy stay at Ephesus, and before he wrote I Corinthians.

Everything points to the probability that Paul wrote Romans toward the close of his three-month ministry in Achaia (Greece), mentioned in Acts 20:3; hence during his third recorded visit to Corinth on his third missionary journey (Acts 18:23–21:16).

On his subsequent departure from Corinth Paul’s original plan had been to sail directly from Greece to Syria, in order from there to travel to Jerusalem with gifts for its poor saints, charitable contributions made by their fellow-Christians in Macedonia and Achaia. But the timely discovery of a plot against the apostle’s life changed this plan, so that, instead, he returned to Jerusalem by way of Macedonia (Philippi) and Mysia (Troas). See Acts 20:3–6; Rom. 15:25.

The third missionary journey had already lasted a long time before Paul left Corinth. This is clear from the fact that even before reaching Corinth on this trip the apostle had spent “two months” and “two years” at Ephesus (Acts 19:8, 10). In fact, all in all he seems to have worked there for a period of “three years” (Acts 20:31). The date for his entire third missionary journey was therefore probably 53/54–57/58, and the date for the composition of the epistle to the Romans, just before his departure from Corinth, was probably 57 or 58. Since it was Paul’s intention to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost (Acts 20:16), we can perhaps be even more specific and say that the letter was probably written toward the close of the winter and/or during the beginning of the spring.

A considerably earlier date for the third missionary journey and for Romans brings the story into conflict with the date for Paul’s accusation before Gallio (Acts 18:12–17) during the apostle’s second missionary journey. It has been established that Gallio’s consulship fell within the period 51–53.

Also, such an early date would result in the necessity of moving back the dates of Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem, his arrest, and his imprisonment in Caesarea during the administration of Felix (and later on, of Festus). And since Felix probably did not become governor until the year 52,

it would then be difficult to explain how Paul, in his defense before this governor, could say, “Knowing that

for many years

you have been a judge over this nation, I cheerfully make my defense.”

IV. ITS ADDRESSEES

Under this heading an attempt will be made to answer two questions: How did the church of Rome originate? Which group predominated numerically: Jews or Gentiles?

During Christ’s earthly ministry (a.d. 26–30) people were brought out of the darkness into the light (John 3:26; 12:19). However, not all “followers” possessed “saving faith” (Matt. 13:1–7, 18–22; John 6:66), though some did (Matt. 13:8, 23; Luke 12:32; John 17:6–8). Included in the group of those who were genuine believers were not only Jews (Matt. 19:28) but also Gentiles (Matt. 8:10, 11; cf. 21:41) and Samaritans (John 4). Moreover, on and after Pentecost the number of disciples increased by leaps and bounds (Acts 2:41; 4:4). Gospel activity was resumed in Samaria. Philistia and probably even Ethiopia heard the message (Acts 8).

What was taking place in all these regions did not go unnoticed elsewhere, for, although modern methods of communication—radio, television, telephone, etc.—were nonexistent, people traveled extensively, thereby keeping each other informed about happenings in all parts of the Roman Empire. Soon, too, Damascus and Syria counted believers among their inhabitants. One of them was Ananias (Acts 9; for an even earlier reference to Syria see Matt. 4:24).

Travel was heavy in those days and, notwithstanding dangers, was relatively safe because of the still prevailing Pax Romana (reign of peace enforced by the Roman Empire).

There were ships. Admittedly they were not as luxurious as those of today. In fact, they were not even primarily intended for passenger service or tourism. Many of them were cargo vessels that brought grain to various places, especially to Rome; that is, to its ports or harbors. Rome’s huge population—estimated variously at 1,000,000 to 1,500,000—needed to be fed.

In addition to these freighters there were also many smaller vessels. However, ships and boats were not always available. Navigation generally took place between the beginning of March and the middle of November. But when these vessels were plying the waters, their owners and/or captains were willing, for a consideration, to take aboard passengers. As the book of Acts indicates, Paul made frequent use of this mode of travel.

There were also those famous Roman roads: Via Appia, Via Cornelia, Via Aurelia, Via Valeria, etc. They were of sturdy and durable construction and were furnished with distance markers. Twenty main highways issued from Rome’s “Golden Milestone,” each diverging into numerous branches, so that the various parts of the empire were bound together by a huge network of arteries.⁵ To go from one city to another, people would often make use of both means of travel: they would get to their destinations by sea and land. Thus, in order to reach Rome a Philippian might take the Egnatian Way from Philippi to Dyrrachium. Then by ship he would cross the Adriatic to Brundisium. From there the Appian Way would take him to Rome.

From the New Testament and from other sources one gains the impression that there were many great travelers. So, for example, Aquila and Priscilla (or Prisca) at different intervals in their lives must have traveled from Pontus to Rome and from there to Corinth (Acts 18:2); later to Ephesus (Acts 18:18, 19; I Cor. 16:19), then to Rome (Rom. 16:3), and subsequently back to Ephesus (II Tim. 4:19). Luke too traveled extensively. So did Timothy, Titus, and especially Paul! See II Cor. 11:25, 26.

Why did people go to Rome? For any one of the following reasons, or for a combination of two or more of them: to settle there, to conduct business, to ply a trade, to pursue a profession, to study, to escape arrest (it was easy to “get lost” in this big city), to satisfy their curiosity concerning the metropolis on the Tiber about which so many rumors had been circulating, to visit friends and relatives, and best of all, to bring the gospel to the Romans. There must have been other incentives that led people to this city. Also, thousands of individuals had actually been deported to Rome. Others were involved in the movements of military forces.

Why do I mention all this? To emphasize the fact, often overlooked, that there is every reason to believe that the gospel must have reached Rome at an early date. In their fear of indulging in “wild speculation” some forget that “realistic historical imagination” is not only justifiable but necessary. This is sometimes overlooked. So, for example, there are those who minimize the importance of Pentecost (Acts 2) for the establishment of the church in Rome. Because they can find no record of any connection between Pentecost and conversions taking place in Rome at such an early date, they reject the idea that there was such a relationship. Or they will say that the visitors from Rome who attended the Feast in Jerusalem and later on returned to their homes were not in a position to start a church.

But the evangelist Luke has definitely reported that among those who witnessed the astounding miracles attending the outpouring of the Holy Spirit there were “visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes” (Gentile converts to Judaism). See Acts 2:10. Is it not reasonable to believe that at least some of these visitors from Rome were among the three thousand converts (Acts 2:41)? Having returned to their homes, would they have failed to tell their friends and relatives in Rome what they had seen and heard in Jerusalem? And must we indeed believe that from that moment on they would have ignored the opportunity to pelt newly arrived or returning travelers with questions about the “Jesus is the Christ” movement and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as proof of Christ’s exaltation to the position at the Father’s right hand?

Not many years after the great Pentecost described in Acts 2 friends may also have come to Rome from mission-minded Antioch in Syria. Even before a.d. 44 the gospel had been proclaimed in that city, where “the disciples were first called Christians” (Acts 11:26). The church at Antioch contained several men who were qualified to spread the good tidings (Acts 13:1). So, since all roads led to Rome and travel back and forth was heavy, it is at least conceivable that some of these mission-minded Antiochians at an early date proclaimed the gospel in Rome, adding strength to the very young church. Soon members of other churches—for example, those in Philippi, Corinth, and Ephesus—may well have co-operated, for between each of them and Rome communication was constant.

It will have become evident that in its earliest beginnings the Roman church was probably started not (except indirectly) by any apostle but by the rank and file of those Jews and proselytes who had witnessed the miracles of Pentecost and had afterward returned to their homes in Rome. It should be stressed that these “lay” people were Jews or, in some cases had at one time been converted to the Jewish religion. It should not cause surprise therefore if we discover that in its very beginnings the church in Rome revealed this Jewish character.

Are there any records that lend further support to this theory? A fourth century a.d. Latin father, known as “Ambrosiaster,” in the Introduction to his Commentary on Romans, informs us that the Roman church was founded not by the apostles but by certain Jewish Christians who imposed a “Judaic form” on it. Does not this Judaic form remind us of what is recorded in Acts 15:1; 21:17–24 with reference to the church at Jerusalem?

In its subsequent history did the establishment or further growth of the church in Rome leave any traces in historical records? There is nothing of a very clear and substantial nature. But Suetonius (Life of Claudius XXV.ii), has handed down this statement: “Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because they were constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.” The spelling Chrestus to indicate Christus (= Christ) was not unusual. So interpreted, this bit of information could shed light on Acts 18:2, which similarly reports a banishment of the Jews from Rome during the reign of emperor Claudius (date of his reign a.d. 41–54). Suetonius, then, might be saying that with the introduction of Christianity into Rome quarrels broke out between those Jews who had accepted the Christian religion and the others of their race who remained hostile to the new faith. Erroneously (if Chrestus = Christus), yet understandably, Suetonius regarded Christ as the instigator. But though this interpretation—Chrestus=Christus—is possible, it is not necessarily correct, and has not been accepted by all expositors.⁶

Aside from his sermon on the day of Pentecost did the apostle Peter contribute anything to the establishment of the Roman church? Two extremes must be avoided. On the one hand that of the Roman Catholic Church, which, on the basis of an early tradition, ascribed to Peter a twenty-five year episcopacy (a.d. 42–67) over the church in Rome; on the other, the position of those who deny or at least cast doubt on any connection between Peter and that church.

As to the first extreme, if it were factual, Peter would have occupied the position of supreme authority in the Roman church during a period including the very year when Paul sent his epistle to that body of believers. Yet in his list of greetings, addressed to individual believers in Rome, Paul never even mentions Peter. See Rom. 16:3–15. Is it at all possible that Paul would have been guilty of such neglect and breach of etiquette?

And as to the second extreme, an appeal is often made to Rom. 15:20, which is then interpreted to imply that, before Paul wrote Romans, Christ had not yet been named in Rome; at least no apostle as yet had entered that city. However, that interpretation of Rom. 15:20 is not necessarily correct.

It would seem that when Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment and was traveling to various congregations of his far-flung spiritual domain (see N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 39, 40), Peter was in Rome. He wrote the letter that came to be known as “the First Epistle of Peter.” It was addressed to “the elect who are sojourners in Pontus, Galatia, etc.” Note its closing salutation: “The church [literally she] that is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you” (I Peter 5:13). In all probability this “Babylon” is Rome. Is not this identification the starting point from which one should proceed in the explanation of the same designation in Rev. 17:5? However, these events—Paul’s release, Peter’s writing—occurred after Paul wrote Romans.

We know therefore that, at least toward the close of his life, Peter labored in the church of Rome. Had he perhaps been there before? Did his Pentecost sermon, heard and transmitted by the visitors from Rome, indirectly qualify him for the title “founder” of the Roman church?

These questions cannot be answered with any degree of certainty. The book of Acts leaves many gaps. It makes allowance for many years, from a.d. 33 on, during which Peter may have been strengthening the church of Rome. Clement of Alexandria writes that Peter “had publicly preached the word in Rome” (Hypotuposeis, as quoted by Eusebius VI.xiv.6). And even somewhat earlier Irenaeus made the statement, “Peter and Paul went westward and founded the church in Rome” (Against Heresies III.i.1; cf. Eusebius V.viii.3). But of these statements of Clement and of Irenaeus there are various interpretations and evaluations. We probably do well to reserve our judgment. We should add, however, that according to tradition Mark’s Gospel was composed to satisfy the urgent request of the people of Rome for a written summary of Peter’s preaching in that city.

As to Paul’s part in the establishment of this church, it is clear from Rom. 1:10; cf. 15:28, that at the time of the writing of this letter the apostle, though being himself a Roman citizen by birth (Acts 22:28), had not yet set foot in Rome. It is also clear, however, that he had met, at least had become acquainted (whether directly or indirectly) with several of the people belonging to Rome’s church (16:3–15). He was eager to see Rome, and even more, to meet his friends there. He was actually going to reach the capital of the Roman Empire, but in a manner that had not been included in his plan but in God’s (Acts 25:11, chapters 27, 28). In Rome Paul, the prisoner, was going to be very effective in proclaiming the gospel (Phil. 1:12–14). But at the time when this epistle was being written these future developments had not been revealed to him.

In the church of Rome which group predominated numerically: Jews or Gentiles? In the main there are three views:

1. The Roman church consisted mainly of Jews.⁷

Arguments used in support of this theory:

a. Paul was a Jew. In Rom. 3:9 he writes, “Are we better than they?” Moreover, note the preceding context: “the Jew” (verse 1) and “the Jews” (verse 2). Accordingly some of the modern translations have even inserted the word “Jews” into the text of Rom. 3:9; hence “we Jews.”

Answer. In its continuation verse 9 shows that the author is now no longer thinking exclusively of Jews. He now proceeds from the fact that “all men,” both Jews and Greeks, are by nature “under sin.” That this is true with respect to the Greeks or Gentiles he has demonstrated in 1:18–32. That it holds also in the case of the Jews he has made clear in 2:1–3:8. So he now specifically turns his attention to himself and the church he is addressing, as a pastor who is facing his “congregation,” and he asks, “What then? Are we—you and I—any better?” He means, “better than humanity (Jews and Greeks) in general?” His answer amounts to, “Not at all, for we too belong to this entity (the entire human race) on which God’s judgment rests. No one is righteous, not even one.”⁸ Or somewhat wider: “we” = I and all other true believers. See also on 3:9.

b. In 7:1 Paul says, “I am speaking to men who know the law [or simply law].” He must be addressing especially the Jews, for they alone had been trained in the knowledge of God’s holy law.

Answer. He is addressing the Jewish contingent of the church to be sure, but not necessarily especially the Jews. If Paul is thinking of the law of God, found in the Old Testament and summarized in the ten commandments, the answer might be as follows: Many a believer from among the Gentiles had entered the church by way of the synagogue. Even as a proselyte to the Jewish faith he had become acquainted with the law of God. And as a Christian he had come to understand that law far better. Conclusion: what Paul says here in Rom. 7:1 does not prove that most of the members of the Roman church were Jews by race.

Also, room must be left for the possibility that law here in Rom. 7:1 means “law in general.” See on that passage. If so, then too, Rom. 7:1 fails to prove that most of the addressees were Jews by race.

c. Rom. 9–11 pertains especially to the Jews. It concerns Israel.

Answer. To a considerable extent this must be granted. But this does not mean that most of the addressed were Jews. In fact, it is exactly this section which shows that most of the addressees were converts from the Gentile world, for Paul regards the Jews as being, by and large, distinct from the people to whom he is directing his remarks. The apostle is thinking of two groups: Gentiles and Jews. When he is describing the condition and destiny of the Jews, he deliberately employs the pronouns they, their, them. Examples: “Theirs is the adoption” (9:4); “My heart’s desire for them is that they may be saved” (10:1). Note especially the distinction the apostle makes between the third person, referring to the Jews, and the second, referring to the addressed: “They were broken off because of their unbelief, and you are established through faith” (11:20). Similarly in 11:24 Paul makes a distinction between “you” and “these natural branches” (obviously the Jews). This use of the third person to indicate Israel continues through verse 31.

d. The dialectical method of argumentation employed here shows that the writer is addressing Jews, for that was the method they appreciated. Their former teachers, the rabbis, were in the habit of resorting to this form of lecturing.

Answer. Greeks—for example, Socrates—were not unfamiliar with this stylistic device. Besides, Paul was conscious of the objections his opponents might advance against his doctrines. So, very effectively, he anticipates their objections, and by means of the question-and-answer method clinches his argument. See 9:14; 9:19; 10:18, 19; 11:1; 11:11; 11:19f. More on this under heading V of this Introduction.

2. The Roman church consisted mainly of Gentiles.⁹

Proof:

a. In Rom. 1:5, 6 the apostle states “… we received grace and apostleship (to call) people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that springs from faith, among whom you are also …”

b. 1:13 ends with the words, “in order that I might obtain some fruit among you also, as I have among the rest of the Gentiles.”

c. In 11:13 Paul says, “I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry.”

d. 15:15 reads, “I have written to you rather boldly on some points, so as to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles … that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God.” Note also how very frequently the word “Gentiles” occurs in 15:9–18.

e. The fact that in the list of greetings Paul singles out certain individuals (see verses 7, 11, and 21) as being his fellow-countrymen also confirms the conclusion that not the Jews but the Gentiles constituted the majority of the church in Rome.

3. These arguments would seem to be unanswerable. Nevertheless, an attempt has been made to refute them. In what in many respects is a splendid commentary—I would urge the readers by all means to study it—C. E. B. Cranfield¹⁰ attempts to prove that it is not possible to establish whether most of the members of the church at Rome were Jews or were Romans. In my opinion his refutation of the position that Jewish Christians formed the majority is adequate, and his view that at the time of Paul there must, nevertheless, have been a considerable number of Jews in the Roman church is well argued. But when he states that the expression “among whom you are also” may mean no more than that the Roman church was situated in the midst of the Gentile world, and that in 1:13 the expression “as among the rest of the Gentiles” may be considered slightly inexact, I must dissent.

My conclusion, therefore, is that theory No. 2, namely, that most of the members of the Roman Church were Christians from the Gentiles, is correct, though the exact proportion of Jews to Gentiles is unknown.

A few facts should be added, however. First of all, since in the first and second centuries church buildings in the sense in which we think of them today were not yet in existence, families would hold services in their own homes. Such services would be attended by the members of the household: perhaps father, mother, children, sometimes other close relatives (cf. Luke 12:53), servants. If the house was large enough to accommodate others, they too were invited. The early church numbered many hospitable members, ready and eager to offer their facilities for religious use: meetings, services, etc. Thus, in Jerusalem “many were gathered together and were praying” in the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12). Lydia graciously invited Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Luke to use her home as their headquarters (Acts 16:15, 40). Wherever Aquila and Prisca went they would if at all possible welcome the worshipers to their home. Hence, both at Ephesus (I Cor. 16:19) and at Rome (Rom. 16:3–5) there was “a church at their house.” Laodicea too had a house-church (Col. 4:15). Corinth may have had a house-church at the home of Gaius. In Laodicea Nympha performed the duty of hostess to the members of the church of which she was a member.

How many of these house-churches there were in Rome we do not know. The house-church mentioned in Rom. 16:5 may not have been the only one; 16:14 (“the brothers with them”) and 16:15 (“all the saints with them”) may indicate others. And there may have been more, especially in such a large city.

In connection with the present subject—whether the Jews or the Gentiles predominated in the Roman church, while fully maintaining that most of the members had been gathered into the church from the Gentiles (whether directly or indirectly), can we not leave open the possibility that, among the various units composing this church, there may have been at least one, a house-church, in which not the Gentiles but the Jews predominated numerically?

Far more important, however, is the fact that the author of Romans is not mainly interested in the question whether there were more Jews or more Gentiles among those whom he was addressing. His emphasis is on the fact that both Jew and Gentile are by nature “under sin” (Rom. 3:9); in other words, that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23); that the way of salvation through faith in Christ is open to all (3:24); that Abraham is the father of all that believe (4:11, 12); and that for all who are in Christ Jesus there is no condemnation (8:1f.). We may talk about Jew versus Gentile. Romans stresses the idea of unity. One of its most precious passages is 10:12, 13:

“For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, and abounds in riches for all who call on him. For whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

V. ITS OCCASION AND PURPOSE

On this subject there is considerable difference of opinion. Much has been written about it, especially in recent years.¹¹

As was pointed out earlier, Paul had reached the end of his mission work in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. He had “planted” (I Cor. 3:6) the gospel in the large centers (and in some of the smaller towns besides). From these centers—such as Syrian Antioch, Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus—the word of the Lord was spreading widely (cf. Acts 19:20, 26; Rev. 1:4, 11). In fact Paul himself had proclaimed the good tidings of salvation from Jerusalem all the way to present-day Yugoslavia and Albania (Rom. 15:19). The gospel had even reached Rome, though Paul himself had never visited this city. He did, however, have many friends there, intimate acquaintances whom he loved dearly.

So now he hopes that the yearning he has cherished for many years, namely, to go to Rome (Rom. 15:23; cf. 1:10, 11; Acts 19:21) may at last be satisfied.

He realizes, however, that he cannot immediately sail to Rome by way of the Corinthan Gulf and Ionian Sea, for he has been conducting a campaign for the benefit of the poor saints in Jerusalem. Since this drive has been successful Paul, according to a previous promise (I Cor. 16:4), intends, the Lord willing, to go to Jerusalem, so that, in person, he, accompanied by others, may present the gifts that have been collected for the poor (Acts 24:17). And then he will wend his way to Rome! That was the plan.

But why does Paul want to visit Rome’s church? What, exactly, is his purpose?

The initial answer must be that Paul, being an intensely warm and loving person, desires to go to Rome in order to be a blessing to his friends (Rom. 1:10, 11) and to be refreshed by them (15:32). Moreover, it is for this same reason that he, now that it is impossible for him to go to Rome immediately, communicates with the Roman church by means of this letter. He writes to the Romans because he loves them. They are his friends “in Christ,” and by means of this letter he imparts his love to them, praises them (1:8), informs them about his constant prayers for them (1:9), asks them to pray for him (15:30), and informs them about his traveling plans (1:10–12; 15:24f.).

It is strange that this deeply personal reason (desire for fellowship, etc.), a reason clearly brought out by the apostle himself, is often overlooked. At times the emphasis is placed entirely on theological motivation or on mission incentive: Paul wants to correct the errors of the antinomians and/or wants to make Rome the headquarters for the evangelization of Spain. To be sure, these matters are important, but we should begin with the reason first stated by Paul himself in this very epistle.

All the more does Paul feel the necessity of writing this letter and by means of it asking the Roman church to remember him in prayer, because he is not at all sure that he will ever reach Rome. Rom. 1:10 introduces this fear, and 15:31 clarifies what the apostle has in mind. There are two things he fears: (a) that the Jews may kill him; (b) that the Jerusalem “saints” may not even be willing to accept the bounteous gift coming to them from the Gentiles.

As to the first misgiving, that it was not groundless is clear from such a passage as Acts 20:3 (because of a plot by the Jews Paul had to change his traveling plan), and from Acts 14:19; 17:5, 13; 18:6, 12f.; 23:12–21; II Cor. 11:24, 32, 33. Moreover, Paul’s misgiving was not entirely subjective. He was constantly receiving intimations from the Holy Spirit, hints of impending hardships (Acts 20:22, 23). See also 21:10, 11, 27f.

As to the second fear, though the brothers welcomed Paul and his companions warmly (Acts 21:17), to what extent this warm welcome also included appreciation for the “collection” on which Paul had spent so much time and effort is not made clear.

The fact here mentioned, namely, that to the mind of Paul the possibility was real, the prospect formidable, that he might never get to see his dear friends in Rome, explains why he had to write this type of letter, one which, in its first seven chapters is characterized by argumentative style. Note, for example, the series of expressions such as, “What then shall we say?” See 4:1; 6:1; 7:7; 8:31; 9:14, 30. Not only is this kind of style reminiscent of the manner in which Paul, the missionary, had during his many travels been arguing with his bitter opponents, the unbelieving Jews, but it also shows that he is conscious of the fact that Rome’s little church is surrounded by a huge army of such unbelievers. Paul, therefore, in this letter to the Romans, is showing the Roman church how it should defend itself against the constant onslaught of these opponents; yes, how it might even win some of them for Christ! If the addressees can no longer contact Paul himself, they will at least be able to read and reread this precious letter.

This also indicates that the epistle to the Romans is not really “a complete compendium of Christian Doctrine.” If it had been Paul’s intention to draw up such a document, he would surely have included far more material. Paul is a very practical man. He knows exactly what the Roman church needs. Guided by the Holy Spirit, he fulfils that need. Moreover, since the doctrine at stake, namely, that concerning the manner in which sinners are saved, is basic, what is presented in 1:16–8:39 is urgently needed not only by the church in Rome but by every church, every believer, every sinner, down through the ages.

By and large the condition of the Roman church must have been very encouraging (1:8; 15:14; 16:19). But that cannot mean that the intellectual maturity of its membership was complete and/or that its moral and spiritual development left nothing to be desired. On the contrary, this church too had its weaknesses. It was in need of instruction with respect to God’s promises to Israel. So one of the purposes of this epistle was to supply that instruction (chapters 9–11). More light was also needed on the question of clean versus unclean foods. That light too is richly supplied (14:13–18).

Not only information but also exhortation or admonition was needed, and this especially with respect to such matters as obedience to civil authority (chapter 13) and the proper attitude of “the strong” toward “the weak” (14:1–12; 15:1–4). And in connection with the need—then, now, always—of such virtues as unity, humility, and above all love, who will wish to deny that Rom. 12 is one of the finest not only in Scripture but in all of literature?

What has been said so far clearly indicates that the ardent desire to be a blessing to the church in Rome was definitely included in Paul’s purpose in writing this letter. The view according to which the apostle intended merely to pass through Rome in order to make it a base of operations for mission activity in Spain is incorrect. Rom. 15:24 (“I hope to visit you while passing through”) is balanced by 1:15 (“I am eager to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome”).

For the rest, it remains true that one of the items included in Paul’s aim was securing the co-operation of the Roman church in connection with his contemplated journey to Spain, as 15:24 clearly shows.

In conclusion, to arrive at a complete answer to the question, “Why did Paul write Romans?” the following two Pauline passages should not be ignored:

“I have become all things to all men, in order that, by any and all means, I might save some” (I Cor. 9:22).

“Whether therefore you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (I Cor. 10:31).

A great missionary indeed was Paul. His heart burned with love for people, and even more with love for God, the One who had rescued him, even him, formerly a bitter persecutor of God’s precious children! He just “could not get over it!” It seems as if across the span of the centuries we can still hear him say, “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who lives, but Christ who lives in me, and that (life) which I now live in flesh I live in faith, (the faith) which is in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20).

But one does not need to be a famous missionary like Paul to render service in God’s kingdom, a service recognized by God himself. There was, for example, sister Phoebe of Cenchrea, a harbor of Corinth, located a little to the east of that great cosmopolitan center. Always she was ready to render service to the Lord and his cause. When she heard that the great missionary was composing a letter addressed to his dear friends in Rome, did she volunteer her willingness to deliver it? Or did Paul himself take the initiative in asking her to render this service? However this may have been, it is clear that she was standing ready, always ready to do whatever she could do out of love for her Lord and Savior.

I believe that the purpose and the occasion of Paul’s epistle to the Romans have now been made clear.

VI. ITS TEXT

A few words should be written about the integrity of the text of Romans. Does the Greek text on which our translations are based faithfully represent what Paul actually wrote to the church in Rome?

There are those who doubt it, and this for the following reasons:

1. Not every manuscript contains the reading “in Rome” in 1:7 and 1:15. In 1:7 a variant substitutes “all who are in the love of God” for “all who are in Rome, beloved of God.” Also in verse 15 “in Rome” is then omitted.

2. The strikingly beautiful doxology, “Now to him who is able to establish you … be glory forever through Jesus Christ. Amen,” which in our Bibles is found at the close of chapter 16, is in some sources found at the close of chapter 14; in others, at the close of chapters 14 and 16; and in one very early papyrus (Chester Beatty) at the close of chapter 15.

3. As to the greetings (16:3–15), there are those who maintain that they point to the church of Ephesus rather than to that of Rome, as the group for which they were intended; for

a. How could Paul have known so many persons in Rome? He himself had never been there. But he had spent a long time in Ephesus.

b. Prisca (or Priscilla) and Aquila were living in Ephesus shortly before this (Acts 18:18, 19; I Cor. 16:19), and Epaenetus is called “the first-fruits” (= first convert to Christ) in Asia. This again reminds us of Ephesus, not of Rome.

c. The sharp reprimand of 16:17, 18 is out of line with the words of praise the apostle addresses to those whom he has in mind in 1:8; 15:14. Sharp condemnation and warm commendation do not go together. Therefore chapter 16 must have been addressed to another audience than those to whom Paul is speaking in the preceding chapters.

Though it must be admitted that not every problem can be solved, the following answers to these doubts about the integrity of the text deserve consideration:

As to 1: The omission of “in Rome” is a rare exception. The phrase “in Rome” has decisive manuscript support. Besides, the context favors reference to a definite place. Note especially verse 10, “I keep pleading that somehow by God’s will now at last the way may be opened for me to come to you.” Could it be that the heretic Marcion, who was rejected by the Roman church, had something to do with the omission of this phrase in 1:7, 15?

As to 2: The best manuscripts favor 16:25–27 as the proper place for this doxology. According to the testimony of Origen it was Marcion who deleted everything in Romans following 14:23. His negative attitude toward the Old Testament and its “god” or “demi-urge” is well-known. So there were too many statements in chapter 15 he did not like. See especially verse 4. Nevertheless, Romans must have a proper conclusion. It is therefore not surprising that the doxology at the close of chapter 16 was transferred to chapter 14. Once the process of moving a passage from one place to another begins, where will it end? It must be admitted, however, that the exact reason why the Chester Beatty manuscript has placed the doxology at the close of chapter 15 is not known. But this does not in any way cancel the fact that its place at the close of chapter 16 is favored by the strongest manuscript evidence.

As to 3:

a. Because of the heavy and constant traffic between Rome and other cities, it is reasonable to suppose that the apostle had met these people on his journeys. In a few cases he may have received ample information about them from friends. Moreover, the very reason that he had not been in Rome himself makes it all the more probable that by warmly greeting those he did know he desired to gain an entrance into the hearts of the entire Roman church.

b. As has been indicated previously, Prisca and Aquila were great travelers. Besides, what is so unreasonable about supposing that they went back to the place where they had lived before, namely, Rome? Together with ever so many others they returned when the edict of expulsion was no longer in effect. And as to Epaenetus, the fact that he was “The first-fruits of Asia” surely does not mean that he had to remain in Asia for the rest of his life.

c. The warning of 16:17, 18 concerns certain definite individuals, “false teachers” perhaps, who are always and everywhere trying to destroy God’s kingdom. That Paul is not withdrawing his favorable estimate of Rome’s church is very clear from the context. See verse 19.

It has become clear, therefore, that the arguments against the integrity of the text of Paul’s epistle to the Romans are very weak indeed!

For more on the arrangement of the text of Romans 16, in connection with Harry Gamble’s study, see Vol. II of the present commentary.

VII. ITS THEME AND SUMMARY

Does Romans have a theme? If by “theme” is meant a subject from which the author never digresses, the answer is No. This letter touches on a variety of subjects: Paul’s desire to visit Rome (1:10), God’s wrath (1:18), Adam versus Christ (5:12–21), antinomianism (6:1), soul struggle (7:15–24), present suffering contrasted with future glory (8:18), Israel (chapters 9–11), love (12:9), taxes (13:6), vegetarianism (14:2), the strong and the weak (14:1; 15:1), philanthropy (15:25–27), Spain (15:28), Phoebe (16:1), Satan (16:20).

On the other hand, if by “theme” is meant a central topic, which, having been announced, is subsequently taken up again and again, either as a whole or in part, the answer is Yes.

This theme was the product not of human excogitation but of divine implantation in the heart and mind of struggling Saul of Tarsus.

Applicable to him are these poetic lines:

O long and dark the stairs I trod

With trembling feet to find my God,

Gaining a foothold bit by bit,

Then slipping back and losing it.

Never progressing; striving still

With weakening grasp and faltering will,

Bleeding to climb to God, while he

Serenely smiled, unnoting me.

Then came a certain time when I

Loosened my hold and fell thereby;

Down to the lowest step my fall,

As if I had not climbed at all.

Now when I lay despairing there,

Listen … a footfall on the stair,

On that same stair where I afraid,

Faltered and fell and lay dismayed.

And lo, when hope had ceased to be,

My God came down the stairs to me.

Anonymous

“… justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24).

The theme of Romans, introduced in 1:16, 17 … “The righteous shall live by faith …”, expressed more fully in 3:21–24, 28, reflected in such passages as 5:1; 8:30–34; 9:30–32; 11:23–26; 16:26, is never absent from the writer’s mind.

Justification by faith (Rom. 5:1), spread out into “justification by grace through faith” (see 3:22–24; cf. Eph. 2:8), is clearly the theme of Romans. It is also the theme of Galatians. There is a close resemblance between the larger and the smaller epistle. Gen. 15:6, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” is quoted in both letters (Rom. 4:3, 9, 22; Gal. 3:6). Cf. James 2:23. Among other verbal resemblances are:

Rom. 1:17 and Gal. 2:16; 3:11	Rom. 13:8 and Gal. 5:14
Rom. 6:6–8 and Gal. 2:20	Rom. 13:13, 14 and Gal. 5:16, 17
Rom. 8:14–17 and Gal. 4:5–7	Rom. 14:12 and Gal. 6:5

Nevertheless, there is also a striking difference between the two. Not only does this difference refer to size and subject matter—the larger epistle containing much material that is not found in the smaller—it pertains also and especially to the manner in which the apostle speaks to the addressees.

Romans sets forth calmly that for every sinner, whether Jew or Gentile, there is salvation full and free through faith in Christ, apart from law works. Galatians, in a tone that is not nearly as calm and at times becomes fiery, defends this glorious gospel against its detractors. Its denunciations are withering.

Chapter
1:1–15	Here in Romans, after a Prologue, in which Paul greets the Christians in Rome (1:1–7), and informs them that he is thanking God for the fact that their faith is being proclaimed everywhere, and that he is asking God to grant him the opportunity to visit and preach the gospel among them (verses 8–15), he announces and develops the theme of that gospel as follows:
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
1:16–3:31	Justification by faith, apart from the works of the law, is:
1–3	A. Real and Necessary 1 Theme: “The gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who exercises faith, … as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith” (1:16, 17). 2 The Gentiles need this justification (1:18–32). 3 The Jews also need it (2:1–3:8). 4 Accordingly, “there is none righteous, not even one” (3:9–20). 5 “But now, apart from law, a righteousness from God has been revealed, a righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ …” (3:21–31).
4	B. Scriptural 1 The Example of Abraham (4:1–12). 2 This Example Shows that God’s Promise is Realized Through Faith, not Works (4:13–25).
5–8	C. Effective; that is, Producing the Desired Results; Such As: 1a Peace and its Concomitants, including Assurance of Complete Salvation (5:1–11). 1b The Certainty and Copiousness of Salvation Confirmed by the Parallel Adam—Christ (5:12–21). 2a Holiness (6:1–14). 2b Who is Your Master? Sin or God? (6:15–23). 3a Liberty: Freedom from the Law (7:1–6). 3b The Sinner’s Relation to God’s Law, in the Light of Paul’s Own Experience and That of Others Like Him (7:7–13). 3c Paul’s Own Experience and That of Others Like Him (continued): The Wretched Man’s Struggle and Victory (7:14–25). 4a “No Condemnation” for Those in Christ Jesus (8:1–30). 4b Super-invincibility, that is, Being More Than Conquerors (8:31–39).

Having shown that the doctrine of justification—hence salvation—by faith is Real and Necessary (chapters 1–3), Scriptural (chapter 4), and Effective, i.e., fruit-producing (chapters 5–8), Paul proceeds to prove, in chapters 9–11, that it is also Historical, in the sense that in the course of history God’s most precious promises were ever intended for, and realized in, the believing remnant, that this is true today (while Paul was writing), and will so continue.

Chapters 12–16 contain the Practical Application of all this. In other words, these concluding chapters show how those who have been justified (and therefore saved) by God-given faith, should reveal their gratitude in lives of love toward their fellowmen and devotion to their gracious Triune God.

Further details with respect to chapters 9–16—Outline and Explanation of the text—is reserved for N.T.C. on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Volume II, which is now being prepared.

¹ For more information on these names see N.T.C. on I and II Thessalonians, p. 38.

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

² A. H. Strong, American Poets and Their Theology, Philadelphia, etc., 1916, p. 124.

³ See J. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, Grand Rapids, 1966, Vol. V, pp. 460–464.

⁴ See Josephus, Antiquities XX.137; Jewish War II.247.

⁵ See W. V. Von Hagen, The Roads That Led to Rome, Cleveland and New York, 1967.

⁶ Lenski is among those who reject the identification. See his Interpretation of The Acts of the Apostles, Columbus, 1944, p. 745. See, however, also F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, op. cit., Vol. V, p. 295.

⁷ T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, English tr. Edinburgh, 1909, Vol. I, p. 422; and before him F. C. Baur, Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, English tr. 1873, Vol. I, pp. 321 ff. Other defenders of this view: W. Manson, N. Krieger, J. A. C. Van Leeuwen and D. Jacobs, etc.

⁸ In this connection see especially A. F. N. Lekkerkerker, De Prediking van het Nieuwe Testament, De Brief van Paulus aan de Romeinen, Nijkerk, 1971, p. 129.

⁹ Among those who favor this view are the following: W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (International Critical Commentary), Edinburgh, 1902, p. xxxiif.; M.-J. Lagrange, Saint Paul, Épître aux Romains, Paris, 1950, pp. xxi–xxiv; H. Ridderbos, Aan De Romeinen, (Commentaar Op Het Nieuwe Testament), Kampen, 1959, pp. 6–10; and John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, Grand Rapids, 1959, Vol. I, pp. xxi, xxii.

¹⁰ The Epistle To The Romans (International Critical Commentary), Edinburgh, 1975, Vol. I, pp. 18–21.

¹¹

From the almost endless number of books and articles on this subject I wish to call attention merely to the following:

K. P. Donfried (editor and contributor), The Romans Debate, Minneapolis, 1977. In this book the question, “Why did Paul write Romans?” is explored by nine American and European scholars.

John Knox and C. R. Cragg, The Epistle to the Romans (Vol. IX in The Interpreter’s Bible), New York and Nashville, 1954, pp. 358–363.

E. F. Harrison, Romans (Vol. X. in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), Grand Rapids, 1976, pp. 5, 6. An excellent summary!

G. W. Barker, W. L. Lane, J. R. Michaels, The New Testament Speaks, New York, Evanston, and London, 1969, pp. 192, 193. Excellent mission emphasis!

H. Ridderbos, Aan De Romeinen, pp. 10–14.

↑ Back to top