THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE ROMANS
[Sidenote: The Author.]
The genuineness of this Epistle, like that of Galatians and 1 and 2
Corinthians, is practically undisputed. No one ever seems to have
questioned it between the time that Marcion drew up his _Apostolicon_,
about A.D. 140, and A.D. 1792. Before the time of Marcion it is quoted
by St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius, and St. Polycarp. And there seem
to be some reminiscences of it in 1 Peter. It is first definitely
mentioned by name in the writings of St. Irenaeus, who quotes it
several times. This early and frequent use postulates for the Epistle
a very authoritative source. There is no one that we know of among the
first Christians who could have written it except St. Paul. What he
tells the Romans about his personal wishes and intentions is exactly
consonant with what he says elsewhere. The notices that he gives them
of his movements perfectly accord with the notices in Acts. The
primary conceptions of the Epistle are more or less common to all St.
Paul's works. They are concerned with the guilt and the power of sin,
the eternal purpose which God has for man, the meaning of Christ's
death and the effect of His resurrection, the nature of our acquittal
by God and our new spiritual life.
The only serious question with regard to the criticism of the outward
letter of the Epistle, is connected with the last two chapters (xv.,
xvi.). Baur rejected both as spurious compilations, {159} intended to
reconcile "Paulinism" with the more Jewish school of early Christian
thought. But Baur's habit of pronouncing spurious every book or part
of a book which did not agree with his peculiar estimate of St. Paul,
is now discredited. In spite of this, many critics think that xv. and
xvi. do not belong to this Epistle. They are generally admitted to be
by St. Paul, but it is thought that they are simply pages which have
become detached from some other writings of the apostle. Chapter xvi.
in particular is supposed to be a fragment of an Epistle to Ephesus.
It abounds in personal greetings to intimate friends; and yet it is
difficult to believe that St. Paul had many friends in Rome before he
visited it. And among these friends are Prisca and Aquila (xvi. 3),
who certainly stayed at Ephesus, where St. Paul had laboured for two
years and must have had many friends. The tone of xvi. 17-20 is
thought to imply sectarian divisions which the rest of the Epistle
ignores. And the final doxology appears in different places in
different MSS., a fact which suggests that the early Church doubted
where the Epistle ended. No real importance need be attached to
another argument used by some critics, viz. that Marcion omitted xv.
and xvi. He would have rejected them, whether genuine or not, on
account of the sanction given to the Old Testament in xv. 4.
On the other hand, the integrity of the Epistle is maintained by some
of the best recent critics, including Sanday, Zahn, and Godet. The
best MSS. place the final doxology in its present position. The fact
that the majority of cursive MSS. and some valuable versions, such as
the later Syriac and the Armenian, place it at the end of xiv. seems to
be accounted for by the fact that the last two chapters were often
omitted in the lessons read in church, being considered unimportant for
the purposes of general edification. The fact that the Epistle seems
to come to an end at xv. 33, and also at xvi. 20, before the final
doxology in xvi. 27, suggests the best solution. It is that the
apostle, after concluding the argument of the Epistle, made various
{160} additions of a personal nature with reference to himself and his
friends as they occurred to his mind. He then summed up the whole
argument in xvi. 25-27, where the obedience of _faith_ is stated to be
the purpose of God's final revelation. The number of friends mentioned
in xvi. is not incredibly large when we remember the easy and frequent
intercourse which existed between Rome and the east.
[Sidenote: To whom written.]
"To all that are in Rome, beloved by God, called to be saints." It has
been well said that the universality of the gospel made St. Paul desire
to preach it in the universal city. He longed to "see Rome;" he was
conscious that Christ had called him to "bear witness at Rome." He
himself had the freedom of the city of Rome, and he was inspired with
the hope, which was fulfilled three hundred years afterwards, that the
religion of Christ would be the religion of the Roman empire. The
territory then ruled by Rome more nearly embraced the whole of the
civilized world than any empire that has since been seen. It included
London and Toledo, Constantinople and Jerusalem. Roman soldiers kept
their watch on the blue Danube, and were planting outposts on the
far-off grey Euphrates. The city of Rome itself contained about a
million and a half of inhabitants. It was well governed and
sumptuously adorned. A real belief in the homely vulgar gods of their
forefathers had declined among educated people, and the humane
principles of Stoic philosophy were instilling a new regard for the
less fortunate classes of mankind. Strange foreign devotions were
satisfying some of the yearnings which found no nourishment in the hard
old Roman paganism. Men who took no interest in Jupiter were attracted
by Mithras, the Eastern god of the light. Women who could obtain no
entrance into the exclusive sisterhood of the Vestal Virgins, could
find occupation in the worship of the Egyptian Isis. Some vague belief
in a Divine One was rising in minds who thought that Jupiter Mithras
and Isis were only symbols of a power behind the mists of human wisdom.
Jews {161} of all classes were numerous, though the majority were as
poor as those of East London. They made some converts, and Poppaea,
the mistress of Nero in A.D. 58, dallied with Judaism as with a new
sensation. Men and women of every race were included among the slaves
of Rome, and the arts and elegance of Greek and Syrian slaves often
proved a staircase by which new religions found a way into the chambers
of the great and wealthy. In spite of some signs of moral vigour,
society was cankered with pride of class and with self-indulgence. It
possessed no regenerating force capable of checking the repulsive vice
which was encouraged by the obscenity of actors and the frivolity of
sceptics.
We are told that "sojourners from Rome," both Jews and proselytes, were
in the crowd which listened to St. Peter's address on the Day of
Pentecost (Acts ii. 10). It is possible that these men brought news of
the gospel to the large body in Rome of Jews, and of Gentiles
influenced by Jewish ideas. In any case, communication between the
chief cities of the empire was at this time so frequent that we may be
sure that the principles and attractions of Christianity were soon
heard of at Rome. Gradually a small band formed there of people who
were interested and pleased by what they had learnt of Christ; it is
probable that St. Paul sent Aquila and Prisca from Ephesus to give them
definite instruction. It does not seem that they had been visited by
an apostle (xv. 20). The Epistle is addressed to a community
consisting of Jews and Gentiles, but the Gentiles are by far the more
numerous.
The apostle's claim in ch. i. to address this Church as within the
jurisdiction of "the apostle of the Gentiles," his direct appeal to the
Gentiles in xi. 13, and the statement of his priestly office exercised
over the Gentiles in xv. 16, show that the Church of Rome was Gentile
in character. The proper names in the Epistle afford us little
indication of the proportion of Jews and Gentiles. The majority of the
names are Greek, and four names are Latin; but the Jews of that time,
like the {162} Jews of the present day, often passed under Gentile
names. We know how the English Jews now disguise Moses as "Moss" Judah
as "Leo," and Levi as "Lewis."
The majority of the converts were probably in a humble social position.
When St. Paul wrote to the Philippians, there were Christians in the
imperial household itself, and it is possible that the Narcissus
mentioned in Romans may be the freedman of the Emperor Claudius, put to
death in A.D. 54. Ordinary slaves and freedmen seem to have been the
principal element among those who were first "called to be saints" at
Rome, but before long there were people of good birth and cultured
intelligence who turned gladly from the lifeless old Roman religion and
the fantastic new-fashioned Eastern cults to this original faith in the
incarnate God.
[Sidenote: Where and when written.]
St. Paul wrote this letter towards the end of his stay at Corinth, at
the close of A.D. 55 or the beginning of A.D. 56 (see xvi. 1; xv.
23-26, and Acts xix. 21).
[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]
St. Paul writes as the apostle of the Gentiles to the Christians of the
greatest of all Gentile cities. He does so with a solemn sense of
special responsibility. Profoundly impressed with the grandeur of the
Roman name, the position of this promiscuous little body of converts is
to him enormously significant. They are the representatives of the
faith of Jesus in the capital of the world; they are the first members
of a Church to which God seems to give the most magnificent of all
opportunities. And the thought is scarcely absent from his mind that
this may be the last Epistle he will ever send. He is going to
Jerusalem, and has a sad foreboding of what may await him there (xv.
31).
The manner and style which give the Epistle a unique place among the
works of St. Paul are caused by these considerations. He wishes to
tell the Roman Christians his very best ideas in the very best way:
this may be his last chance of doing so. He puts aside, then, all
clamour of personal debate, and sets {163} himself to produce an
ordered theological treatise. Never elsewhere does the apostle write
with so careful method, so powerful concentration, so effective
marshalling of arguments, so stirring yet measured eloquence.
The Epistle opens with a brief introduction. Paul, the apostle of
Christ, wishes to preach the gospel to those in Rome whom Christ has
called. Then he begins at once to describe the set of circumstances
which the gospel is intended to meet. The Gentiles have not been true
to such knowledge as they had of God, and by an inevitable process they
have passed on to unnatural and vicious excess (i. 18-32). And when
St. Paul turns to the Jews, he finds they are in no better case. With
fuller knowledge they have sinned scarcely less. Strict justice will
be meted out by God to all, the Jew coming first and then the Gentile.
The Gentile will not escape, for the Gentiles, whom we conceive of as
having no law, have a law in that moral sense which makes them
instinctively put in practice the precepts of the Law, and their inward
thoughts accuse or defend them (ii. 1-16). The Jew may boast of his
Law and his knowledge of revelation, but he is no better in practice
than a Gentile. And as for his circumcision, it is worthless unless he
is also spiritually circumcised in the heart (ii. 17-29).
After a parenthetical discussion of difficulties suggested by a
possible Jewish opponent (iii. 1-8), St. Paul shows that the Jews are
not in a worse case than the Gentiles. Both are under the dominion of
sin, and Scripture says so. The whole system of Law is a failure. Law
does nothing but give a clear knowledge of sin (iii. 9-20).
St. Paul then brings forward his great remedy--the answer of God to the
need which is represented by universal human sinfulness. Man has
failed to correspond to the suggestions of conscience, he has failed to
fulfil the requirements of the written Law, but now he may come into a
right relation with God by identifying himself with Jesus Christ. He
may be justified (_i.e._ accepted as righteous) by an act of God's
grace (_i.e._ by an {164} undeserved act of God's love) on account of
the redemption wrought by Christ, whom God has set forth as a
propitiation to show His own righteousness. God could no longer allow
man to mistake His patience with our sins for slack indifference. Man
must no longer seek to be justified before God on the strength of what
he himself has done, but on the strength of his faith in Christ, _i.e._
his devoted personal adhesion to Christ (iii. 21-26). St. Paul tells
the Romans that this justifying faith excludes glorying, can be
realized by Gentile as well as Jew; that by it we establish the Law
(iii. 27-31), as the Jewish dispensation, rightly understood, testifies
to its necessity. In fact, Abraham himself was justified by faith
(iv.) Then St. Paul sets forth in glowing and stately words what are
the consequences for us which follow from being so justified. We are
at peace with God, and share in His love, and this is the secure ground
of Christian hope for life and after death (v. 1-11). The effects of
Christ's death are computed by an _argumentum a fortiori_ from the
results of Adam's fall (v. 12-21).
The apostle now carefully refutes the notion that the doctrine of
justification by faith encourages Antinomianism. Liberty does not mean
licence. St. Paul was quite alive to the fact that skilful opponents
and brainless admirers would misrepresent his doctrine, which was also
Christ's. He therefore takes great pains to show that the connection
between the righteousness of Christ and the righteousness of a
Christian is not arbitrary or fictitious. His argument throughout
implies that man actually receives "the righteousness of God," that is,
the righteousness which is inherent in God, and is bestowed by God upon
man when he unites himself with Christ (vi.-viii.).
Shall I go on sinning that God's mercy may be all the greater in
forgiving me? God forbid: for when I went down into the waters of
baptism, I shared in the death of Christ; and when I rose from them, I
rose as a sharer in His risen life. Because I am united thus to the
life of Christ, sin is foreign to my nature (vi. 1-14). I am no longer
under law, but under grace: but {165} to be the slave of sin and be
occupied with uncleanness, and to gain the wages of death, is
inconsistent with being the slave of righteousness, occupied in a
course of purification and rewarded with the gift of life (vi. 15-23).
Next, St. Paul asks why it is that we are no longer under the Law?
Because we have no connection with that state of sin to which the Law
was applicable. Our soul is like a wife whose lawful husband is dead.
Or, to put the truth into another form, our old state was killed by our
identification with Christ crucified, and we are espoused to Christ
risen (vii. 1-6). What, then, shall we think of the Law? Is it sin?
No. It reveals the sinfulness of sin, and it irritates dormant sin
into activity. A thing cannot be identical with another thing which it
exposes and irritates. But why did God permit the Law, which is holy,
to prove fatal to my soul (vii. 13)? He did not. The Law was not
fatal, though sin was all but fatal. Sin was permitted to do its worst
that its real hideousness might be apparent. This is what took place.
The Law gave me an ideal, but my better self, which corresponds to the
Law, could not keep me from ding wrong or make me do right. I became
involved in a terrible conflict. This was the opportunity of Christ.
He has delivered me from that state of the body which involved me in
sin and death. Without Him, I should still be serving the Law of God
with my conscience, and the law of sin with my body (vii. 25).
Where the Law of Moses failed, Christ splendidly succeeds. He not only
sets before men an ideal, but also helps them to attain it, and fulfil
the righteous claims of the moral Law, by uniting Himself with them by
the Spirit (viii. 1-10). Men are now in a new relation to God: they
call Him Father, He sees in them His sons. Though with all creation we
wait still in fruitful pain for the fulness of redemption, we wait with
confident hope. The Spirit is with us to help and to pray, we remember
God's high purpose for us, we have known His love in the past, Jesus in
infinite exaltation is interceding for us; {166} who, then, shall ever
be able to separate us from the love of God (viii. 11-39)?
St. Paul turns now to a parenthetical discussion which necessarily
suggests itself here. It has practically happened that God's own
people, the children of Abraham, in spite of their privileges, are
excluded from this new salvation which comes from acceptance of Christ.
This does not mean that God has been unfaithful. St. Paul vindicates
His action toward them, and he shows that it has been consistent with
His previous action towards the Israelites (ix. 6-13), righteous (ix.
14-21), and merciful (ix. 22-29). God has always shown that He is free
to select whom he likes to carry out His purpose in the world.[1] The
Jews are rejected because they seek to be justified, on the strength of
their own works (ix. 30-33; x. 1-3): now, the method of the Law has
been superseded by Christ's, which is an easier method (x. 4-10) and
universal (x. 11-13). And the Jews have had every opportunity for
hearing of it (x. 14-21). But God has not rejected them entirely or
finally (xi. 1-10); and if their fall has led to the preaching of the
gospel to the Gentiles, how much more happily fruitful will be their
reception into the Church (xi. 11-15)! We may hope for this ultimate
acceptance of the gospel by both Jew and Gentile because of the
original holiness of the Jewish stock. The Gentiles are grafted into
that: just as we may be cut off from it if we sin, so the Jews more
easily may be grafted in again if they will (xi. 16-24). St. Paul now
shows how the hardening of the Jews and the disobedience of the
Gentiles alike have served the purposes of God. Israel as a nation
shall be saved by the Messiah. The chapter closes {167} with words of
reverent admiration for the wonderful workings of the Divine Providence
(xi. 25-36).
After this long doctrinal argument, St. Paul insists upon certain
practical duties (xii.-xv. 13). We may notice in xiii. 2 ff. the
emphasis which is laid upon the dignity of the civil government, a
dignity which was immeasurably degraded ten years later by the wanton
persecution of the Roman Christians. And xiii. 13 is a verse ever to
be remembered by the Church as the verse by which God brought Augustine
from free thinking and licentious living to be numbered among the
saints. In xiv. begins some considerate advice about certain
Christians "weak in faith." They seem to have formed a party, but not
a party which can be identified with any other religious clique
mentioned by the apostle. Their vegetarianism and their observance of
particular holy days have suggested the theory that they were
Christians who followed the ascetic practices of the Jewish sect of
Essenes. The theory that they were Gentiles who affected the customs
of the Pythagoreans has commended itself to other writers. On the
whole, the number of Jews in Rome supports the theory that these were
Jewish Christians. St. Paul deals very tenderly with these total
abstainers from meat and wine. He evidently does not put them on the
same level as the sectaries of Galatia or Colossae.
The Epistle closes with various references to personal matters,
including the expression of a desire to visit Spain and Rome (xv. 34).
{168}
ANALYSIS
Salutation and introduction (i. 1-15).
(1) DOCTRINAL.--The subject of the Epistle. How is righteousness to be
attained? Not by man's work, but by God's gift, through faith, _i.e._
personal attachment to Christ (i. 16, 17).
A. Righteousness as a state of man in the sight of God (Justification):
i. 18-v. 21.
a. Righteousness was never attained before Christ came. The Gentiles
neglected their conscience until they sank into abominable sins; future
judgment will certainly come on all men without respect of persons; the
Jews, too, have no right to criticize the Gentiles--they had the Law of
Moses, while the Gentiles only had the unwritten law of conscience, yet
they failed. The Jewish quibble that there was no good in being a Jew
if God condemned him, is refuted. The witness of the Old Testament to
the universality of sin is quoted (i. 18-iii. 20).
b. Exposition of the new method of attaining righteousness. It is
independent of the Law, is universal, is obtainable through Christ's
death which manifests God's righteousness. This method excludes human
boasting, and can be experienced by Jew and Gentile alike (iii. 21-31).
c. The relation of this new method to the Old Testament. Abraham, the
typical saint of the Old Testament, was not justified because of works,
or circumcision, or law. His faith shows that the Old Testament
supports the Christian method of salvation (iv.).
d. The blessed state of the justified Christian. He is filled with
hope, and this hope is guaranteed by the proved love of God. What a
contrast between this blessedness and the effects of Adam's fall! The
work of Christ resembles that of Adam, because it passes from one man
to all men: it differs greatly, because Adam's fall brought sin, our
condemnation, our death. Christ's gift brings grace, our acquittal,
our life. The Fall brought sin, Law increased sin; Grace is greater
than sin (v.).
{169}
B. Righteousness as necessarily involving moral progress
(Sanctification); vi.-viii.
a. Refutation of the theory that we may continue to sin in order to
give God fresh opportunities of displaying His lovingkindness. Our
baptism implies union with the sinless Christ. Refutation of the
theory that we may as well sin as not sin because we are no longer
under the Law. Our marriage to Christ must be fruitful (vi. 1-vii. 6).
The Law is not to be disparaged, though it is impotent to rescue me in
the terrible moral conflict under which I should suffer, if it were not
for Christ (vii. 6-25).
B. Where the Law of Moses failed, the incarnation of Christ succeeds.
The life of Christian righteousness is ruled by the Holy Spirit. It
implies filial confidence in God, a glorious inheritance, divine
assistance, inviolable security (viii.).
C. The problem raised by the fate of the Jews: ix.-xi.
a. Their rejection from their privileged position a sad contrast to
their high destiny; the entire justice of God in forming a new Israel
of Jews and Gentiles alike (ix.).
b. The cause of their rejection was that they sought to be justified in
their own way and not in God's way, and this in spite of Christian
opportunities and prophetic warnings (x.).
c. Consolations which qualify the severity of their fate. Their
unbelief is only partial and temporary, and God's purpose is to restore
all. Doxology (xi.).
(2) PRACTICAL.--The Christian sacrifice, and the duties of a Christian
(xii.). Church and State, the law of love, the approaching judgment
(xiii.).
Toleration for weak and eccentric Christians; vegetarians, observers of
private holy days and total abstainers, not to be disturbed; we must do
nothing that makes a brother stumble. Christ pleased not Himself; He
was both a minister of the circumcision and the hope of the Gentiles
(xiv. 1-xv. 13).
Personal conclusion (xv. 14-xvi. 27).
[1] The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, as taught in the
writings of Calvin and in the Presbyterian Westminster Confession, is a
complete perversion of St. Paul's teaching. Calvin teaches a
predestination to heaven or hell; St. Paul here speaks of an
appointment to certain duties on earth. The Calvinists asserted that
some men "cannot be saved;" St. Paul teaches that God so acted "in
order that He might have mercy upon all" (xi. 32).
{170}