Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
INTRODUCTION

I. The Origin of the Roman Church. The establishment of the Church in Rome is shrouded in deep obscurity. Much as we might expect it, no hint whatever is given by St. Paul in this Epistle regarding its origin and founder. That the Roman community of Christians, however, had long been established and was well organized when St. Paul wrote his letter is very certain and evident from the general tone of the Epistle itself, and from the Apostle’s long-cherished desire to visit the faithful there (Rom 1:8, Rom1:10-15; Rom 15:22-24, Rom 15:28-29).

It seems very probable that the first Christians in Rome were converted Jews, originally from Palestine. We know that after the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey (63 B.C.) many Jews went to Rome, in order there to enjoy the favor and protection of Caesar, and that these Jews, like their brethren everywhere, did not fail to make converts and to maintain close relations with Jerusalem. Accordingly, they were accustomed to go up to Jerusalem for the regular feasts of Pasch (Passover), Pentecost and Tabernacles; and it seems likely that some of them might have been converted to Christianity by what they witnessed at the first Christian Pentecost (Acts 2:10), and thus they would carry the faith back to Rome. Likewise it seems probable that, on account of the persecution which arose after the death of St. Stephen (Acts 8:1), some Christians may have fled from Jerusalem to Rome, and later also that some members of the “Italian band” might have followed the example of Cornelius (Acts 10:1) in embracing the Christian faith, thereafter returning to Rome.

These probabilities would explain how Jewish Christians were in Rome before the advent of St. Peter or any Apostle, but they are by no means sufficient to account for the flourishing and well organized community to which St. Paul at so early a date was able to address a long and profound letter like that to the Romans. As we see from the Epistle, the faith of the Roman community was already celebrated in the whole world (Rom 1:8), the faithful had remained steadfast in the doctrine that had been preached to them (Rom 6:17), their religious instruction had been thorough and profound (Rom 12:6-8), and their charity toward one another was a source of wide admiration (Rom 15:14). They were also free from the Law—a condition which would be incomprehensible if the community owed its origin and organization only to some Jewish converts from Jerusalem. Neither can we suppose that the Church in Rome was organized by Gentile Christians from the communities established by St. Paul; for these, in the first place, were themselves too recently founded to undertake so great a task; and, had such been the case, St. Paul would certainly had worded his letter very differently. The Epistle gives no indication that the community addressed was in any way indebted to the Apostle as its founder, but exhibits (Rom 15:14-30), on the contrary, a certain delicacy of feeling about visiting them and inviting himself to preach among them.

We are forced, therefore, to admit with the unanimous decision of antiquity that the Roman Church had as its founder and organizer an Apostle, and that that Apostle was St. Peter (cf. Clem, of Rome, 1 ad Cor. 5; St. Ignat., Ad Rom. iv. 3; Papias in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 15; St. Iren., Adv. Haer iii. 1, 1, 2; Caius, in Euseb., op. cit. ii. 25, 7-8; and many other testimonies cited in Vigouroux, Diet, de la Bible, torn. v. col. 373, and in Duchesne, Hist, de VEglise Anc, 6ieme ed. pp. 61 fT.). A community so powerful and so well formed as that of Rome could not have been an exception to all the others of Apostolic times; and we know that each of those others, such as the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Galatla, Ephesus, Corinth, etc., were founded by Apostles and governed by them, or by Bishops delegated by the Apostles (Tertull. De Praescript., cap. XXXII). Furthermore, the name church was not given to any community of Christians in the time of the Apostles, unless that community was governed by a Bishop as its head. If one believes with Meyer and other Protestants that St. Peter did not establish and organize the Church of Rome, he will be at a loss to explain how and by whom it was organized into such a powerful Church. It is true that some of the authorities above referred to make Sts. Peter and Paul joint-founders of the Roman community, but Papias, Clement of Alex. (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. II. 15 ; III. 39; IV. 14) and St. Cyprian (Ad. Anton ep. 52, 8; Ad. Cornel. ep. 59, 14 seq.) tell us distinctly that St. Peter was the sole founder of the Roman Church. And Eusebius (Chron. ad ann. 43), St. Jerome (De Viris Must. i. 8), and others say that St. Peter came to Rome during the first years of Claudius, around a.d. 42, very probably soon after his miraculous delivery from prison in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17). The Apostle most likely remained in Rome until near the publication of the edict by Claudius (a.d. 49), when all the Jews were expelled, and then betook himself again to Jerusalem, where, around a.d. 51, he presided at the first Council of the Church. That he later returned to Rome is certain from the fact that he suffered martrydom there on June 29, a.d. 67, an event and date upon which authorities are generally agreed.

When some of the Fathers and early Christian writers speak as if both Peter and Paul were the founders of the Church in Rome, their meaning evidently is that St. Paul assisted only in the increase and growth of the community of which St. Peter was the originator, and that the two Apostles finally gave their lives in Rome for the faith. That St. Paul had no part in laying the foundations of the Christian Church there is clear from his whole letter. “Since the great Peter had been the first to bring them the Gospel, he (Paul) of necessity added, to strengthen you: for he says, ‘it is not a different teaching that I wish to bring you, but to strengthen the teaching already brought, and to water the plants already planted'” (Theodoret, on verse 11). “Peter had preached there, but Paul regarded his work as his own: so free was he from all envy” (St. Chrysostom, on verse 8).

II. The Composition of the Roman Church; readers of the Epistle. Scholars are not agreed as to the elements which formed the Church in Rome. From the foregoing it seems very probable that in the beginning the converts were mostly Jewish, but soon afterwards, and especially when St. Paul wrote his Epistle, the community was chiefly Gentile. This is now the opinion of the great majority of exegetes, and is based not only on individual texts, but upon the general character of the Epistle. St. Paul writes to the Romans because he is the Apostle of the Gentiles (Rom 1:5-6); he desires to visit them in order that he may have some fruit among them, even as among the other Gentiles (Rom 1:13-14); he calls himself the Apostle of the Gentiles (Rom 11:13), and, referring to his Gentile Apostolate, justifies his vigorous language because he is the minister of Jesus Christ among the Gentiles (Rom 15:15-18). Finally, the address and application of Rom 11:13 ff. presuppose a great majority of Gentiles, with whom the Jews (Rom 11:28, 31) are shown in contrast; and throughout chapters 9-11 the Apostle essays to explain to his Gentile readers the causes of the present deplorable state of his coreligionists and of God’s mysterious dealings with His chosen people. From another point of view, however, it can rightly be maintained that these last-named chapters, 9-11, as touching the question of election and the mission of Israel, would be of more interest to Jewish than to Gentile readers, and that they are, therefore, addressed primarily to the former. Whatever may be said on this point, the considerations already given are sufficient to show that the greater part of the Christians in Rome when St. Paul wrote, were of pagan origin.

It must be admitted, nevertheless, that the Roman community was not without its Jewish element, and this perhaps a more or less potent one. For although the opinion of Zahn, Bauer and others, which—pointing to Rom 6:15-17; Rom 7:1-6; Rom 8:15—believes the majority of the Christians in Rome were Jewish, is not tenable, in view of what has been said above, still it seems beyond question that the Jewish Christians in the Eternal City when Paul wrote were not at all few. The Apostle, consequently, addresses the Jews directly at times (Rom 2:17-24)., In Rom 4:1, 11 he
speaks of “Abraham our father according to the flesh,” and in Rom 7:1 he says, “I speak to them that know the law.” Further, he treats here and there certain questions which could have little interest to the Gentiles, but were of highest importance to Jews. Such, for example, are the questions about the value of the Mosaic Law and the principle of justification (Rom 3-8), the election and the mission of Israel (Rom 9-11), the rules given to those who make distinctions between different foods (Rom 14:2-3), different days (Rom 14:5-6), etc. Obvious as is the import of these passages we must, notwithstanding, always remember that St. Paul was very Jewish by nature and training, and that he was at all times accustomed to adopt the standpoint of the Law, to regard the Old Testament as the basis of the New, and to look upon Christianity as the heir of God’s promises, the true “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16). He took this same position in the Epistle to the Galatians, and we know that that Epistle was chiefly written for Gentile Christians who were about to submit to circumcision. Hence, when the Apostle addresses Jews in the present letter, it seems not at all unlikely that he is speaking, at least in a measure, to those who were still subject to the Law, and not to Jewish Christians at all (cf. Acts 28:23-28).

III. Purpose of the Epistle. The motive which prompted the writing of this letter St. Paul himself makes known to us. For a long time he had cherished an ardent desire to visit Rome and preach the Gospel there (Acts 19:21; Rom 1:10-15; Rom 15:22-23), but had till now been variously impeded from carrying out his purpose (Rom 1:13; Rom 15:22). He considered his work in the East practically done, and was ready to turn his eyes toward the West, desiring to evangelize Spain and visit Rome on the way. For his work in the Occident Rome seemed the natural and providential centre from which his new missions should radiate; and as he had not been the founder of the Roman Church and was personally unknown to most of the faithful in the Eternal City, it was highly needful that he should endeavor first to enlist the good will and assistance of the Roman Christians for the progress and success of his labors there, in Spain, and in all the West. The present letter was therefore written, in the first place, to prepare the Roman community for his impending visit, and by thus introducing himself to them and gaining their favor, to provide a suitable and effective base for his future operations.

But from the length and profound character of the letter, if not from his expressed and primary intentions and purposes, we feel convinced that St. Paul, in writing to the Romans, had something more in mind than merely to announce his prospective coming and win the sympathy and assistance of the Roman Christians. Just what this was is not entirely certain. The views of Protestant authorities are multiple and various, although many of them differ only as to minor details. Weiss (Introd. to The NetwTestament I, p. 307) conjectures that Paul meant the Epistle to be his testament to the Church and to Christendom generally; that he felt his life to be uncertain, and so, while enjoying a time of peace at Corinth, took care to formulate more fully than before his whole body of doctrine, to be sent to the Capital City for the Christians of the whole empire. Others, like Tholuck, Reiche, Kolner and de Wette, have thought that the Apostle wanted to make known in the Capital of the Empire the value of Christianity as a universal religion, capable of satisfying the needs and demands of the human heart, as neither paganism nor Judaism had ever been able to do. Baur and the School of Tubingen generally have believed the essence of the Epistle to consist in chapters 9-11 and consequently they have held that St. Paul’s purpose in writing to the Romans was to explain, by a beautiful page, God’s eternal plan and designs for the salvation of the human race. Both similar and different views have been held by other non-Catholics.

Among Catholics two chief opinions have been advanced from the early centuries:
(a) St. Hilary, Ambrosiaster, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and many later interpreters, such as Estius, a Lapide, Calmet, etc., think the great purpose of the Epistle was to show that the Mosaic observances were not necessary for salvation, and to reconcile the disagreements between the Gentile and Jewish Christians, the latter of whom wished to subject the Gentiles to the Mosaic Law, to the faithful observance of which they attributed their own justification, while the former boasted of their philosophy, and perhaps considered that in it lay the secret merit of their call to the Gospel. Against both of these classes, we are told, St. Paul demonstrates the gratuity of justification and the impotency of the Law and of philosophy to lead man to salvation.

This opinion, however, seems out of harmony with the Epistle itself, in which the unity of faith and the charity of the Romans are so highly praised, and in which there is no trace of discord or division, especially with regard to so fundamental a doctrine as that of justification. Paul’s conception of Christianity was identical with that of the Roman Church, and the polemics of the Epistle were directed, not against Jewish Christians, but against unbelieving Jews. The minor contrasts which are mentioned, such as the weak and the strong, those who had attained to complete Christian freedom, those who had not, and the like, are mildly spoken of (Rom 14:5-10, Rom 14:13-15:7) by way of precaution against uncharitable divisions which might arise and could easily develop into something serious. From his experiences in Corinth and Galatia St. Paul knew well what harm divisions could cause and how they impeded his work, and before entering upon his new field of activity in the West, he took wise precaution to exhort all the Romans to complete unity in faith and charity for their own spiritual well-being, and for the purpose of securing their confidence and assistance in his future labors.

(b) Origen, St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, St. Thomas, Drach, Cornely and many others hold that St. Paul in writing to the Romans had a dogmatic purpose. It was not his aim to make known the Gospel in Rome, nor to teach a new doctrine, nor to correct the ideas of the Christians there, since he knew they were well organized and well instructed in the faith; but he wanted to give them the main features of his own preaching, so that when he should arrive and preach to them, they would be able to understand and profit by his teaching, and thus, while being confirmed in the faith they had received, be the better disposed to enter whole heartedly into cooperation with him. This was the more desirable, inasmuch as his stay in Rome would be comparatively brief (Rom 1:11-12; Rom 15:24). The Apostle, therefore, discusses in this Epistle the great fundamental truths of his teachings and of Christianity, namely, the universal sinfulness of mankind, the universality of salvation gratuitously offered to men through faith in Jesus Christ, and the deep mystery of divine predestination., Hence also it was but natural that he should treat of the relation of the Mosaic Law and faith, of their relation to man, of the religious position of the Jews and of the Gentiles among themselves and towards God and Christ, and finally of the need in which all men stood of Christianity in order to attain salvation. Having been chosen by Christ Himself as the Apostle of the Gentiles, St. Paul felt his indebtedness to all (Rom 1:14; Rom 15:15-16), and was eager, consequently, to preach also to the Romans. He does not forget the evil efforts of his adversaries everywhere, and so he often writes as if forestalling the attacks of the Judaizers upon his doctrine and upon his person.

IV. Time and Place of Writing. The Epistle to the Romans was written at Corinth, most probably in the early spring of a.d. 58. It was the last letter written by St. Paul before his first Roman captivity. It shows that his experience in the Apostolate had become mature; he had covered in preaching all the territory between Jerusalem and Illyricum (Rom 15:19, 23); and now that his task in the East was done, he was ready to turn to the West (Rom 15:23-24). First, however, he must return to Palestine with the alms he had collected in Galatia, Macedonia and Achaia for the faithful in Jerusalem (Rom 15:25-28; 1 Cor 16:1-4; 2 Cor 8-9; Acts 20:2-3), and from there he would go to Rome on his way to Spain (Rom 15:24, 28; Acts 19:21). It was his intention to leave Corinth and sail directly for Syria, but learning that the Jews had a plot to kill him, he eluded them by going through Macedonia (Acts 20:3). As there is no mention of this change of plan in Rom 15:25, it is concluded that the letter had been finished and sent before he became aware of the sinister designs. Further, we know from Acts 20:6 that the Apostle, after setting out from Corinth on his journey, celebrated the Pasch at Philippi in Macedonia; whence it seems most probable to hold with Baronius that the Epistle was written in February or March of 58.

There seems to be no doubt that St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans from Corinth. It appears that he had spent a considerable time there, and this would be necessary for the composition of an Epistle so elaborate and important. Included in it are the salutations of Caius, his host, and of Erastus, the treasurer of the city; and his companions were Timothy, Sosipater and Jason (Rom 16:21-23). Now in 1 Cor 1:14 we read that St. Paul baptized a certain Caius at Corinth, and from 2 Tim 4:20 we learn that there lived in Corinth a Christian named Erastus. Moreover, in Acts 20:4 we find that Timothy and Sopater (or Sosipater, as in some MSS.) were among Paul’s companions as he journeyed from Corinth through Macedonia at the end of his third missionary journey; and from Acts 17:6-7 we know that Jason of Thessalonica was he who had entertained the Apostle during the latter’s visit to Macedonia. Finally, Rom 16:1 commends to the Romans Phoebe of Cenchrae, a deaconess of the Church at Corinth, to whom was entrusted the letter to be carried to Rome. From all this we are warranted in holding with the common opinion that the Epistle to the Romans was written from Corinth.

V. Authenticity. That St. Paul was the author of the Epistle to the Romans is affirmed in the first place by the Epistle itself: “Paul a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle,” etc. (Rom 1:1); and this testimony has been accepted as authentic by all
antiquity. Moreover, the earliest writings seem to betray an acquaintance with this Epistle; for it is believed that the First Epistle of St. Peter was inspired by its doctrine, that the Epistle of St. James had in view to correct certain misunderstandings of Paul’s teaching to the Romans, and that in the doxology of St. Jude’s Epistle (Jude 24-25) there is a strong resemblance to the doxology of this one (Rom 16:25-27) which only a knowledge of the latter could explain.

It cannot be doubted that the letter to the Romans was known and often cited by the early Fathers, All Christian antiquity, says Bisping, has regarded the Epistle to the Romans, as it has come down to us, as forming one whole, integrally composed by St. Paul. Some of the Fathers refer to the letter by its title (Clem, of Alex., Strom, iii. 4; Tertull., de Coron. VI; Contra Marc, v. 13; Iren., Adv. Haer., iii. 16); others make quotations from it (Clem, of Rom., ad Cor. i. 35; Rom. i. 29-33; Polycarp., ad Philipp. VI. Rom. xii. 17; xiv. 10, 12; St. Ignat, ad Smirn. I; Rom. i. 3; etc.). St. Irenaeus and the Muratorian Fragment expressly attribute this letter to St. Paul the Apostle, and the latter authority places it among the inspired Scriptures. The heretics of the second century, such as Basilides, Valentine and Marcion, not only admitted the authenticity of the Epistle, but made use of it to promote their own errors.

Thus we see that the authenticity of this Epistle has been admitted from the very beginning, and the verdict of the first centuries has been continued down the ages, even to our own times, with almost entire unanimity among scholars. And yet there have been, and are some modern critics, chiefly in Germany and Holland, such as Bruno Bauer (1850), Loman (1882), Steck (1888), Van Manen (1892) and others, who have made bold to say that the authenticity of this Epistle was never established, and that, on the contrary, the letter is an invention of the second century. Somewhat less destructive was the view taken by Weiss, Michelsen, Volter and others, according to whom Romans is the result of repeated revisions of genuine Pauline fragments. Rejecting all tradition, these critics declare in effect, the testimonies of the first and second centuries to be forgeries, and they forthwith proceed to construct their own arbitrary systems of criticism. Their arguments are mainly the following: (a) Romans is not an Epistle, but a theological treatise. Answer: The discussion of theological or scientific questions in an Epistle was perfectly in accordance with the literature of St. Paul’s time, as is evident from most, if not all, of the Pauline letters, and from the writings of other Apostles, (b) The beginning and conclusion do not correspond; and the second part treats a subject entirely different from the first. Answer: A careful analysis of the Epistle shows that the introduction and conclusion are most intimately connected with the theme, and that the interrelation of the first and second parts is not only indisputable, but is expressly mentioned in Rom 9:30-32; Rom 10:3-6; Rom 11:6, 20-23. (c) There are evident traces of compilation and of a revision, such as discordance in language and ideas, difficult periods, sudden transitions and the like. Answer: All this is explained by St. Paul’s vehemence and impulsiveness of character, by his custom of dictating his letters, and, to some extent, by the fact that the original text has not been perfectly preserved, (d) The texts treating of the rejection of Israel are contradictory, and so cannot be Paul’s composition; they must belong to a period following the destruction of Jerusalem. Answer: A true understanding of St. Paul renders perfectly intelligible, on the one hand, the Apostle’s bitter opposition to the blindness of his fellow-Jews in failing to understand God, in persecuting and rejecting Christ, in trying to obstruct the work of the Apostles, and in insisting on the observance of the Law and their natural lineage as giving them a right to salvation ; and, on the other hand, his emphasizing the fact that Israel was the first called to salvation (Rom 1:16; Rom 2:10), that to her was shown the preference and given the great promise of the Messiah (Rom 3:1-3; Rom 9:4-5; Rom 15:8), and that her people were zealous, although misdirected, for the honor and service of God (Rom 9:31-33; Rom 10:2). These bold contrasts result from St. Paul’s burning zeal and all-compelling charity for Christ. He loves his own brethren, he recognizes their privileges; but he hates their sins and blindness, because they are opposed to Christ, whom he loves first and above all.

The opinion that Romans is a forgery of the second century is too absurd to merit more than a passing remark. If a writer of the second century was the author of this Epistle, why did he represent St. Paul as intending to pay only a passing visit to Rome, or why has he not told us of the Apostle’s prolonged stay there, since we know from Acts 28:30-31 that St. Paul was actually two whole years in Rome? Why did not such a writer mention St. Peter somewhere in his letter? How could a forger make St. Paul say that he had nothing to do with founding the Roman Church, and that he had had no previous connections with it, in the face of earlier writings which made Peter and Paul co-founders of the Roman community? These questions alone are sufficient to show the entire absurdity of any forgery theory, and to establish the reliability of St. Paul’s authorship. St. Paul’s person and character are stamped on every page of the Epistle. “The authenticity of the Epistle to the Romans,” says Julicher, “can be contested only by those who venture to banish the personality of Paul from the pages of history.”

VI. Integrity. While the great majority of Protestants admit with all Catholics the authenticity of the Epistle to the Romans, it must be allowed that they are not so willing to hold to its integrity. No serious attack is made on the body of the Epistle, but the two concluding chapters, 15 and 16, are rejected by many as not belonging to the original text. The Tubingen School, following the leadership of Charles Baur, has absolutely rejected both chapters; while others have inclined to the theory of Marcion who, as Origen-Rufinus expresses it, cuncta dissecuit after Romans 14:23.

In favor of their opinion these critics give the following reasons: (a) Marcion omitted these two chapters from his edition of the Epistle. Answer: Marcion rejected these chapters only because they did not suit his own heretical doctrines, as we know he was accustomed to mutilate other parts of the New Testament for the same reason (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III. xii. 12; xiv. 4).

(b) There seem to be four terminations to the Epistle in these two chapters,—at Rom 15:33, Rom 16:20, 24 and 27. This would indicate compilation, perhaps by extractions from other letters. Answer: We may first observe that it often happens in our own days that a letter has several postscripts. Moreover, verse 24 of chapter 16, being a repetition of verse 20, is omitted in most MSS., and is therefore probably not authentic; and verse 27 of the same chapter is a doxology, and not a final blessing. We have, then, only the terminations Rom 15:33 and Rom 16:20 to account for. St. Paul, after terminating his Epistle at xv. 33, added the commendation of Phoebe and a few salutations, followed by a paragraph of warning and promise, as a postscript, and thus closed the letter again. Then it occurred to him to send the salutations of those companions who were most probably present with him in the room, some of whom (Rom 16:21) had probably just arrived from Macedonia with their collections for the Church in Jerusalem, as the Apostle wrote these final words; whereupon, moved by the very solemnity of the occasion, by the anxiety which he felt regarding the acceptance of his letter in Rome, and by the uncertainty of the outcome of his impending journey to Jerusalem, he burst forth in the hymn of praise which concludes the Epistle.

(c) The doxology occupies very different and strange positions in the MSS.,—a circumstance which casts suspicion on its genuinity. In the older MSS. (B C D E), and in the Vulgate, Peshitto, Ethiopic and other versions it appears at the end of the letter, as in our English version. In codex L, a few of the Eastern MSS., most of the cursives, the Greek commentators, except Origen, and in the Gothic, later Syriac, Armenian and Slavonic versions the doxology is inserted at the end of Rom 14. The A P, and the cursives 5, 17 and the oldest Armenian version, place it at the end of both chapter 14 and chapter 16. It is entirely omitted by the codices F and G; but the former leaves a space for it at the end of 16, and the latter, at the end of 14.

For these reasons Holtzmann, Julicher and others have regarded the doxology as an addition of a later date. Answer: In view of the testimony of the great MSS., and of the close connection which the doxology has in thought and tone with the beginning, object and circumstances of the Epistle, all objections to its authenticity must entirely disappear; they are not warranted. Likewise the authority of the great MSS. is sufficient to prove that the doxology was originally only at the end of the Epistle. Lectionaries were probably responsible for its transfer to the end of chapter 14. The last two chapters, containing personal matters, were perhaps not considered suitable for public reading, and were therefore omitted from the lectionaries, while the precious doxology was retained and moved forward to the end of the fourteenth chapter. Thus from the lectionaries this arrangement likely passed into the later MSS. and versions.

Present-day criticism is not so much opposed to the Pauline authorship of Romans 16 as to its inclusion in this Epistle. Hence a great many modern critics favor the opinion of David Schulz (1829), who believed that Rom 16 did not originally belong to this Epistle, but was perhaps added to a copy of it, or to some other Epistle sent elsewhere, most probably to Ephesus. This opinion is based chiefly on the following reasons:

(a) St. Paul is writing to strangers at Rome, and yet in this chapter he seems to know all about their internal conditions, the doctrine they had received, the dangers they were in, etc. This would be perfectly intelligible in an Epistle to the Ephesians, among whom the Apostle had spent over two years. Answer: There is nothing unlikely in believing that the condition of the Roman Christians was well known, like their faith, “in the whole world,” and like their “obedience in every place” (Rom 1:8; Rom 16:19). Furthermore, the evils St. Paul mentions as probably existing among the Romans were such as might be suspected to be anywhere and in every community.

(b) St. Paul in this chapter sends salutations to twenty-six persons with whom he seems to have been well acquainted. These persons would much more likely be in Ephesus, where his acquaintances were many, than in Rome, where he had never been. Answer: We know that travel between Rome and the Orient was very common and comparatively easy in St. Paul’s time, owing to the splendid Roman roads, and that, consequently, many of the persons saluted in this chapter, whose names were Greek, could have been converts and friends of St. Paul who had migrated from the East to Rome. Contrariwise, those with Latin names could have been in the East and have met St. Paul during his missionary journeys, and afterwards returned to their homes in Rome.

Zahn (Introd. to the N. T., pp. 382-3) also cleverly observes that St. Paul in writing to Churches where he was widely known could not have singled out particular individuals for special greetings or salutations without exciting envious divisions; and hence when he wrote to Churches he himself had founded he was accustomed to send individual salutations to only one or two persons at the close of his letters; or to none at all, as in the letters sent to Thessalonica, Galatia, Corinth and Philippi. On the contrary, at the close of the letter to the Colossians, written to a comparatively unimportant Church which Paul had not founded, or even seen, we find greetings from six different individuals, only one of whom had ever been at Colossae; and Paul himself sends salutations to different persons at Colossae and at Laodicea. Thus at Colossae and at Rome he would have the Christians feel that they were not strange to him, nor he to them; but that, in reality, there were many close bonds of acquaintanceship and affection between him and them.

(c) Certain of the persons saluted in this chapter seem especially to belong to Ephesus. Aquila and Priscilla were at Ephesus just a few months before Paul wrote to the Romans. Is it probable that so soon afterwards they would be in Rome? Again Epenetus is called (verse 5) “the first fruits of Asia,” which means that when converted he was a resident of Ephesus, or of its immediate neighborhood. Is it not unlikely that he should have moved as far away as Rome? Answer: Aquila and Priscilla were accustomed to travel. They had lived at Rome, at Corinth and at Ephesus, and as Epenetus very probably owed his conversion to them, it seems most likely, as Zahn (op. cit., pp. 390-91) suggests that both he and they, knowing Paul’s intentions and plans, had gone together to Rome to make preparations for the Apostle’s coming, and were therefore in the Eternal City when the Epistle was sent.

(d) It is insisted that so many mentioned here were Paul’s kinsmen, fellow-workers, fellow-prisoners, etc., that it is next to impossible to see how they could be in Rome, whereas it would be most natural to look for them in the Church at Ephesus. Answer: We may reply with Lightfoot, Harnack, Zahn and many other non-Catholic scholars, (a) that none of the persons mentioned in these salutations except Aquila, Priscilla and Epenetus, can be shown to have any connection with Ephesus; (b) the names, Urbanus, Rufus, Ampliatus, Julia and Junia are Latin, and would point to Rome rather than to Ephesus; while Narcissus and Aristobulus were friends of the Emperor Claudius and residents of Rome; (c) fourteen of these names—Urbanus, Rufus, Ampliatus, Julia, Stachys, Apelles, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Hermes, Hermas, Patrobas, Philologus, Andronicus and Nereus—are found in the sepulchral inscriptions on the Appian Way in the list of persons connected with Caesar’s household and contemporary with St. Paul.

(e) This last chapter gives the Epistle a new character; it seems to show that it was written not as an introduction, but as a warning to the community. For example, verses 17-20 would appear to be addressed to a well-known community, and the words, “I would” of verse 19 seem stern and authoritative, which would hardly be proper in writing to an unknown Church. Answer: These verses are perfectly in harmony with St. Paul’s impulsive character and his sharp transitions of thought and expression when a deep anxiety suddenly took hold of him. He knew the submissiveness of the Roman Christians, whose “obedience was published in every place,” and the phrase, “I would” of verse 19, as in other places in the Apostle’s writings, means nothing more than “I wish.”

In view of all that has been said, we are forced to conclude with the best authorities that chapters xv and xvi are not only Pauline in thought and language, but that they belong to the Epistle to the Romans. The Epistle is, therefore, integral as well as authentic.

VII. Language and Style. This letter, like all the others of the Apostle, was written in Greek. It might have been expected that Latin would have been employed in writing to the Romans, but Greek was the dominant language of the Church during the first two or three centuries. This we know both from sepulchral inscriptions and from the early writers, most of whom wrote in Greek.

St. Paul’s Greek is that of his age. And as it is generally admitted now that all the words and phrases used by the Apostle are to be found in the Greek which was in common use at the time, it is altogether incorrect to say that he spoke and wrote in a translated Hebrew or Aramaic, such as is found to a great extent in the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Paul was perfectly familiar with the best Greek of his age—able to use it with grace and exactness, and yet for the most part he chose simple words and simple phrases according to current usage. At no time, however, in the present letter does he descend to those common words which the best writers of his time habitually avoided as too ignoble for written discourse. The tone of this letter is always elevated.

The style is magisterial, as becomes the subject matter, and yet it is often lively and full of energy—at times truly eloquent. The arguments are very closely reasoned and admirably arranged to enforce their purpose.

So varied is the style of this letter—so different the words, the images and the sentiments expressed, that some have wondered if all could have come from the same pen. But these phenomena are aptly explained by the variety of subjects treated, and by their artful and forceful development. The irregularities that occur are the result of the Apostle’s temperament and the impetuous and rapid movement of his thought. On the whole the Epistle to the Romans is one of the best specimens of literature that St. Paul has left us.

VIII. Theological Importance. So doctrinal in character and so systematic in treatment are the contents of this Epistle that some, as seen above, have said that it partakes rather of the nature of a theological treatise than that of a letter. But, on the one hand, we find, especially in the beginning and toward the close of the Epistle, those personal elements and characteristic touches which properly belong to a letter; and on the other hand, as already explained, St. Paul had in mind a dogmatic purpose in writing to the Romans, and wanted for personal and objective reasons, to lay before his readers the chief features of his system of doctrine, which was in essence the teaching of Christianity. While, therefore, this is a true letter, it must be admitted also that its theological value is of highest importance and revolves about the great fundamental problem of justification. All other important questions dealt with receive their treatment only because they are in some way linked with justification. The Apostle is here not especially concerned with such particular theological questions as Christology, Eschatology and the Sacraments; these were not immediately connected with his present purpose in writing.

Justification and the first step toward salvation, according to St. Paul, are not dependent on the merits, the wisdom or the efforts of man or any creature; but proceed solely from God’s free election and grace. To this first and supreme grace neither inclusion among the children of Abraham, nor the works and practice of the Law, nor the gifts and pursuit of human wisdom and the highest philosophy are sufficient to give a title. The only assistance we can lend, the only condition we can fulfil in the attainment of this great benefit is to have faith (Rom 1:16 ff.; Rom 3:24-30, 32; Rom 4; Rom 5:1. ff.)—an active faith in Christ who redeemed us while yet we were enemies of God (Rom 3:24 ff.; Rom 4:4 ff.; Rom 5:6-10, 15-21; Rom 7:25; Rom 8:29 ff.); for we owe our salvation to the sanctifying blood of Christ (Rom 8:32-39).

But what is the nature of this faith which St. Paul requires as a condition for the grace of justification on the part of man? It is nothing less, in the first place, than that firm belief in the Word of God which was exacted from Abraham (Rom 4:3, 9, 13-22; Gal 3:6), together with those supernatural dispositions possessed by the Patriarch (Gen 15:6). The Christian must hold with unshaken faith that Christ is God, God’s messenger and Son, that He suffered, died and rose again for us; “that if we be dead with Christ we shall live also together with Christ: knowing that Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more” (Rom 6:8-9). “If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Rom 10:9). For St. Paul Christianity is essentially and absolutely grounded on belief in Christ’s Messiahship, His Divinity, the expiatory character of His death, the Resurrection, the necessity of Baptism and the like. Such is the faith that must be the basis of all our trust in God (Rom 1:5; Rom 3:3; Rom 4:17-21; Rom 6:16-19; Rom 10:16; Rom 15:18). This justifying faith, then, consists in an intellectual adherence to the truths of the Gospel (Rom 4:19-22; Rom 10:8-17), and in a practical submission to God’s will manifested therein (Rom 1:5; Rom 10:3, 16; Rom 11:30, 32; 2 Cor 10:5; Eph 2:2; Eph 5:6-14). Accordingly, though the works of the Mosaic Law or of the natural man avail nothing for sanctification, supernatural acts, such as hope, fear, repentance and the like, which are the expression of intellectual adherence to the Gospel, are presupposed for justification.

And as the faith required by St. Paul is that which is supported and followed by good works, a “faith that worketh by charity” (Rom 2:6-7, 13; Gal 5:6), so naturally his justification is no truce with the soul’s enemy, no mere cloaking of sin; but a real internal renovation, an exclusion of all that has separated man from God (Rom 1-3:20), a total death to and freedom from sin, as the natural man dies to the sensible world around him (Rom 5:1-23; Rom 7:1 ff; Rom 13:12 ff.).

IX. Division and Contents. Argument. There are four distinct parts in the Epistle to the Romans: an Introduction, a Dogmatic and a Moral Part, and a Conclusion.

1. The Introduction (Rom 1:1-15) is one of the longest and most solemn found in any of the Pauline Epistles. In the first seven verses the author tells the Romans of his call by grace to the Apostolate, of the object and universality of his mission, of the truth of the Gospel foretold in Scripture, of Christ’s human descent from David, and of His establishment as “the Son of God in power according to the spirit of sanctification,” by His Resurrection from the dead. In the eight following verses St. Paul praises the Roman Christians and thanks God for their faith, tells them of his anxiety to visit them, and thus takes a first step to prepare them for his coming and his preaching.

2. The Dogmatic or Theoretic Part of the Epistle (Rom 1:16-11:36) may be divided into three sections, the first of which (Rom 1:16-4:25) treats of the necessity of justification through faith. This necessity is shown, (a) because the wrath of God is upon the Gentiles, giving them up to uncleanness, to vile passions and to reprobate minds (Rom 1:18-32). (b) The wrath of God is upon the Jews, who judge the Gentiles, but commit the same sins, and are not shielded by special privileges (Rom 2:1-3:8). (c) All this is according to Scripture, which St. Paul cites to prove his position, and therefore every mouth is stopped (Rom 3:9-20). The Apostle then goes on to show that salvation is possible through faith in Christ and the Gospel. The faith of the Gospel is the only way to salvation, and this is offered to all men on the same conditions. All men, Jews and Gentiles, being sinners, deserve only punishment from God; but now salvation is gratuitously offered to all through faith in Christ Jesus (Rom 3:21-4:25).

The second section (Rom 5:1-8:39) is concerned with the results of Redemption; i.e., with the greatness and blessings of justification through faith. Here the superabundant fruits of grace and the redemption merited by Christ are described. These fruits are, (a) peace with God and hope of future glory which are within the reach of all, so that the possibility of justification and salvation are as universal as the curse (Rom 5:1-21); (b) dominion over sin and liberation from its slavery (Rom 6:1-23); (c) freedom from the Law which led into bondage to sin (Rom 7:1-25); (d) grace for the present life to conquer sin and death and establish the divine kinship, and glory and triumph in the life to come (Rom 8:1-39).

In the third section (Rom 9:1-11:36) of this, the Dogmatic Part of the Epistle, after extolling the certainty and universality of salvation, the Apostle, forestalling doubts and difficulties that might arise because of the rejection or obduracy of the Jews, turns to Jewish history and explains the providence of God in regard to Israel. At first he makes pass in review God’s deeds of love and power towards the chosen people (Rom 9:1-5), and then proceeds to show how the divine promises have not failed because of the actual exclusion of Israel from part in the redemption of the Messiah. This he proves, (a) because these promises did not apply to Israel according to the flesh, but were the fruit of grace, which God is free to grant as He pleases. God is only acting within His right when He gives grace to one, and not to another; and as Creator and Lord of all, He exercises this right according to His free pleasure, as we see from the cases of Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Moses and Pharaoh (Rom 9:6-24); and, what is more, God through the Prophets expressly announced the exercise of this right towards Jews and Gentiles (Rom 9:24-29). (b) Israel’s rejection was due to its own culpableness in relying on its origin and in seeking its justification in the Law (Rom 9:30-10:4), as well as to its blindness and disobedience toward the message of faith announced everywhere among the Jews (Rom 10:5-21). (c) In this is manifested the wisdom and goodness of God, for not all the Jews have been rejected—a remnant has embraced the faith (Rom 11:1-10), and Israel’s loss is the Gentiles’ gain (Rom 11:11-24). (d) Finally, Israel’s rejection is not irrevocable, for the Jews will at last find mercy and salvation (Rom 11:25-32). The Apostle closes his survey and study of these great problems with a song of praise to the wisdom and knowledge of God’s inscrutable providence (Rom 11:33-36).

3. The Practical Part of the Epistle (Rom 12:1-15:13) contains directions and exhortations for the daily life of Christians, and is divided into two main sections, the first of which (Rom 12:1-13:14) gives counsels and instructions for the Christian life in general. It embraces exhortations (a) on complete self-consecration and faithful service of God (Rom 12:1-2); (b) on the need of humility and mutual charity (Rom 12:3-21); (c) on the obligations toward superiors and the civil authority (Rom 13:1-7); (d) on the necessity of charity and vigilance in view of the proximity of salvation (Rom 13:8-14). The second section (Rom 14:1-15:13) of the Moral Part of the Epistle contains particular recommendations for the Roman community: (a) they should not criticise and condemn one another on account of differences of opinion (Rom 14:1-13a); (b) self-denial is enjoined and mutual helpfulness is commended after the example of Christ (Rom 14:13b-15:13).

4. The Conclusion of the Epistle (Rom 15:14-16:21) has three parts: The first (Rom 15:14-33) treats of the Apostle’s calling, his intended relations with the Roman community and his proposed journey. In the second part (Rom 16:1-24) St. Paul commends Phoebe, salutes many and warns against divisions. The third part (Rom 16:25-27) contains the sublime doxology.