Epistle To The Romans

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

Romans, Epistle To The

1. Time, occasion, and character . The letter to the Romans belongs to the central group which includes also Galatians, and the two letters to the Corinthians of St. Paul’s Epistles. Marcion’s order Gal., Cor., Rom. Is not unlikely to be the order of writing. A comparison of the data to be found in the letter, with statements in Acts, suggests that Rom. was written from Corinth at the close of the so-called third missionary journey ( i.e. the period of missionary activity described in   Acts 18:23-28 ). After the riots in Ephesus (  Acts 19:23-40 ) St. Paul spent three months in Greece (  Acts 20:3 ), whither Timothy had preceded him. He was thus carrying out a previous plan somewhat sooner than he had originally intended.   Acts 19:21-22 informs us that the Apostle wished to make a tour through Macedonia and Achaia, and afterwards, having first visited Jerusalem once more, to turn his steps towards Rome. From the letter itself we learn that he was staying with Gains (  Acts 16:23 ), who is probably to be identified with the Gains of   1 Corinthians 1:14 . At the time of writing, Paul and Timothy are together, for the latter’s name appears in the salutation (  1 Corinthians 16:21 ). Sosipater, whose name also appears there, may he identified with the Sopater mentioned in   Acts 20:4 . PhÅ“be, the bearer of the letter, belongs to Cenchreæ, one of the ports of Corinth. The allusions in the letter all point to the stay in Corinth implied in   Acts 20:1-38 . Above all, the letter itself, apart from such important passages as   Acts 1:10-11 and   Acts 15:22;   Acts 15:30 , is ample evidence of St. Paul’s plans to visit Rome, the plans mentioned in   Acts 19:21-22 . It is then more than probable that the letter was written from Corinth during the three months’ stay in Greece recorded in   Acts 20:3 .

A comparison of  Romans 15:22;   Romans 15:30 with   Acts 19:21-22 brings out one of the most striking of Paley’s ‘undesigned coincidences.’ The parallel references to Jewish plots in   Romans 15:31 and   Acts 20:3 are also noteworthy. It should, however, be mentioned that if on critical grounds ch. 16 has to be detached from the original letter, and regarded as part of a lost letter to the Ephesians, much of the evidence for the place and date of Romans is destroyed, though the remaining indications suffice to establish the position laid down above.

The date to which the letter is to be assigned depends on the chronology of St. Paul’s life as a whole. Mr. Turner (Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] , s.v. ‘Chronology of NT’) suggests a.d. 55 56. But for further treatment of this subject, readers must consult the general articles on Chronology of NT and Paul.

The immediate occasion for the letter is clearly the prospective visit to Rome. St. Paul is preparing the way for his coming. This explains why he writes to the Romans at all; it does not explain why he writes the particular letter we now possess. A shorter letter would have been sufficient introduction to his future hosts. How are we to account for the lengthy discussion of the central theme of the gospel which forms the larger part of the letter? Some suspect a controversial purpose. The Church at Rome contained both Jews and Gentiles; through Priscilla and Aquila and others St. Paul must have known the situation in Rome; he could, and doubtless did, accommodate his message to the condition of the Church. The objections he discusses may be difficulties that have arisen in the minds of his readers. But the style of the letter is not controversial. St. Paul warns the Romans against false teachers, as against a possible rather than an actual danger (  Acts 16:17-20 ). Similarly, the discussion of the reciprocal duties of strong and weak (ch. 14) is marked by a calm conciliatory tone which suggests that the writer is dealing with problems which are probable rather than pressing. In fact, St. Paul seems to be giving his readers the result of his controversial experiences in Corinth and Galatia, not so much because the Church in Rome was placed in a similar situation, as because he wished to enable her members to profit from the mistakes of other Churches. If the letter is not controversial, it is not, on the other hand, a dogmatic treatise. Comprehensive as the letter is, it is incomplete as a compendium of theology. The theory that St. Paul is here putting his leading thoughts into systematic form ‘does not account for the omission of doctrines which we know Paul held and valued his eschatology and his Christology, for instance’ (Garvie). Romans is a true letter, and the selection of topics must have been influenced by the interest of the Church to which he was writing.

But apart from the position of the Roman Christians, and apart from the wish of the Apostle to prepare the way for his visit to them, the form and character of the letter were probably determined by the place Rome held in the Apostle’s mind. St. Paul was proud of his Roman citizenship. He was the first to grasp the significance of the Empire for the growth of the Church. The missionary statesmanship which led him to seize on the great trade-centres like Ephesus and Corinth found its highest expression in his passionate desire to see Rome. Rome fascinated him; he was ambitious to proclaim his gospel there, departing even from his wonted resolve to avoid the scenes of other men’s labours.

It should be noted that the Church at Rome was not an Apostolic foundation. The Christian community came into existence there before either St. Paul or St. Peter visited the city.

He explains his gospel at some length, because it is all-important that the capital of the Empire should understand and appreciate its worth. He is anxious to impart some spiritual gift to the Roman Christians, just because they are in Rome, and therefore, lest Jewish plots thwart his plans, he unfolds to them the essentials of his message. Indeed, his Roman citizenship helped to make St. Paul a great catholic. The influence of the Eternal City may be traced in the doctrine of the Church developed in Ephesians, which was written during the Roman captivity. The very thought of Rome leads St. Paul to reflect on the universality of the gospel, and this is the theme of the letter. He is not ashamed of the gospel or afraid to proclaim it in Rome, because it is as world-wide as the Empire. It corresponds to a universal need: it is the only religion that can speak to the condition of the Roman people. It is true he is not writing for the people at large. His readers consist of a small band of Christians with strong Jewish sympathies, and perhaps even tending towards Jewish exclusiveness. His aim is to open their eyes to the dignity of the position, and to the world-wide significance of the gospel they profess.

Jülicher further points out that Rome was to be to St. Paul the starting-point for a missionary campaign in the West. Consequently the letter is intended to win the sympathy and support of the Roman Church for future work. It is to secure fellow-workers that the Apostle explains so fully the gospel which he is eager to proclaim in Spain and in neighbouring provinces.

2. Argument and content . Romans, like most of the Pauline letters, falls into two sections: doctrinal (chs. 1 11) and practical (chs. 12 16). In the doctrinal section, it is usual to distinguish three main topics: justification (chs. 1 4), sanctification (chs. 5 8), and the rejection of the Jews (chs. 9 11). It is not easy to draw any sharp line between the first two. The following is a brief analysis of the argument:

The salutation is unusually long, extending to seven verses, in which St. Paul emphasizes the fact that he has been set apart for the work of an Apostle to all the Gentiles. Then follows a brief introduction. The Apostle first thanks God for the faith of the Roman Christians, and then expresses his earnest desire to visit them and to preach the gospel in Rome. For he is confident and here he states is central theme that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all men, if they will only believe ( Romans 1:1-17 ).

Salvation for all through the gospel that is the thought to be developed. And first it is necessary to show that such a saving power is a universal need. The evidence for this is only too abundant. Nowhere have men attained God’s righteousness: everywhere are the signs of God’s wrath. The wilful ignorance which denies the Creator has led to the awful punishment of moral decay with which St. Paul had grown sadly familiar in the great cities of the Empire. Indeed, so far has corruption advanced that the consciences of many have been defiled. They not only commit sin without shame; they openly applaud the sinner ( Romans 1:18-32 ). Nor can any one who still perceives this failure hold himself excused. The very fact that he recognizes sin as such, condemns him in so far as he commits it. His keener conscience, if it leaves him unrepentant, will evoke the heavier penalty. God will judge all men according to their deeds. Both Jew and Gentile will be judged alike, the conscience in the Gentile corresponding to the Law in the case of the Jew (  Romans 2:1-16 ). This passage is usually referred to the Jews, whose habit of judging and condemning others is rebuked in   Matthew 7:1 . It may have a wider application. The remainder of the chapter deals with the Jews. The principle of judgment according to deeds will be applied without distinction of persons. The privileges of the Jew will not excuse him in the eyes of God. Neither the Law nor circumcision will cover transgression. The true Jew must be a Jew inwardly: the actual Jews have by their crimes caused the name of God to be blasphemed. A Gentile who does not know the Law and yet obeys it is better than the Jew who knows and disobeys (  Romans 2:17-23 ). But is not this condemnation a denial of the Jews’ privileges? No, the privileges are real, though the Jews are unworthy of them; and the mercy of God is magnified by their ingratitude. Yet even so, if God’s mercy is brought to the light by their sin, why are they condemned? The full discussion of this difficulty is reserved to chs. 9 11. Here St. Paul only lays down the broad truth that God must judge the world in righteousness, and apparently he further replies to Jewish objectors by a tu quoque argument. Why do they condemn him if, as they say, his lie helps to make the truth clearer? (  Romans 3:1-8 ). St. Paul now returns to his main point, the universality of sin, which he re-states and re-enforces in the language of the OT. The whole world stands guilty in the sight of God, and the Law has but intensified the conviction of sin (  Romans 3:9-20 ).

To meet this utter failure of men, God has revealed in Christ Jesus a new way of righteousness, all-embracing as the need. Here too is no distinction of persons; all have sinned, and salvation for all stands in the free mercy of God, sealed to men in the propitiatory sacrifice of His Son, whereby we know that our past sins are forgiven, and we enter the new life, justified in the sight of God. The righteousness of God is thus assured to men who will receive it in faith. Faith is not defined, but it seems to mean a humble trust in the loving God revealed in Jesus. There can no longer be any question of establishing a claim on God by merit, or of superiority over our fellows. All need grace, and none can be saved except by faith. Jew and Gentile here stand on the same level ( Romans 3:21-30 ).

Does not this righteousness through faith make void the Law? St. Paul scarcely answers the general question, but at once goes on to prove that the father of the race, Abraham, was justified by faith, i.e. by humble trust in God, in whose sight he could claim no merit. His trust in God was reckoned unto him for righteousness. His blessedness was the blessedness of the man whose sins are hidden, St. Paul here introducing the only beatitude found in his letters. This blessing came to Abraham before circumcision, on which clearly it did not depend. Similarly, the promise of inheriting the earth was given to him apart from the Law, and the seed to whom the promise descends are the faithful who follow their spiritual ancestor in believing God even against nature, as Abraham and Sarah believed Him. Surely it was for our sakes that the phrase ‘was reckoned unto him for righteousness’ was used in the story of Abraham. It enables us to believe in salvation through our faith in Him who raised Jesus from the dead (  Romans 3:31 to   Romans 4:25 ).

At this point opens the second main stage in the doctrinal section of the letter. The fact of justification by faith has been established. It remains to say something of the life which must be built on this foundation. Jesus has brought us into touch with the grace of God. His death is the unfailing proof of God’s love to us sinful men. What can lie before us save progress to perfection? Reconciled to God while yet enemies, for what can we not hope, now that we are His friends? Christ is indeed a second Adam, the creator of a new humanity. His power to save cannot be less than Adam’s power to destroy. Cannot be less? Nay, it must be greater, and in what Jülicher rightly calls a hymn, St. Paul strives to draw out the comparison and the contrast between the first Adam and the Second. Grace must reign till the kingdom of death has become the kingdom of an undying righteousness ( Romans 5:1-21 ).

Does this trust in the grace of God mean that we are to continue in sin? Far from it. The very baptismal immersion in which we make profession of our faith symbolizes our dying to sin and our rising with Christ into newness of life. If we have become vitally one with Him, we must share His life of obedience to God. The fact that we are under grace means that sin’s dominion is ended. If we do not strive to live up to this we fail to understand what is involved in the kind of teaching we have accepted. If we are justified by faith, we have been set free from sin that we may serve God, that we may win the fruit of our faith in sanctification, and enjoy the free gift of eternal life ( Romans 6:1-23 ). The new life likewise brings with it freedom from the Law; it is as complete a break with the past as that which comes to a wife when her husband dies. So we are redeemed from the Law which did but strengthen our passions (  Romans 7:1-6 ). Not that the Law was sin; but as a matter of experience it is through the commandment that sin deceives and destroys men (  Romans 7:7-12 ). Is, then, the holy Law the cause of death? No, but the exceeding sinfulness of sin lies in its bringing men to destruction through the use of that which is good. And then in a passage of intense earnestness and noble self-revelation St. Paul describes his pre-Christian experience. He recalls the torturing consciousness of the hopeless conflict between spirit and flesh, a consciousness which the Law only deepened and could not heal. The weakness of the flesh, sold under sin, brought death to the higher life. But from this law too, the law of sin and of death, Christ has set him free (  Romans 7:13-25 ). For the Christian is not condemned to endure this hopeless struggle. God, in sending His Son, has condemned sin in the flesh. The alien power, sin, is no longer to rule. The reality and the strength of the Spirit of God have come into our lives with Jesus, so that the body is dead, to be revived only at the bidding of the indwelling Spirit (  Romans 8:1-12 ). We are no longer bound to sin. God has put it into our hearts to call Him ‘Abba, Father.’ We are His little ones already. How glorious and how certain is our inheritance! That redemption for which creation groans most surely awaits us, far more than recompensing our present woes; and patience becomes us who have already received the first-fruits of the Spirit. The Spirit of God prays for us in our weakness, and we know that we stand in God’s foreknowledge and calling. All must be well (  Romans 8:12-31 ). And then in a final triumph-song St. Paul asks, ‘If God be for us, who can be against us?’ The victory of the Christian life requires a new word: we are more than conquerors. Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (  Romans 8:31-37 ).

Almost abruptly St. Paul turns to his third main question. The rejection of the Jews, by which the grace of God has come to the Gentile, grieves him to the heart. How is God’s treatment of the Jews to be justified? There was from the first an element of selectiveness in God’s dealings with the race of Abraham. The promise was not the necessary privilege of natural descent. It was to Isaac and not to Ishmael, to Jacob and not to Esau ( Romans 9:1-13 ). God’s mercy is inscrutable and arbitrary but it must be just. Whom He wills, He pities: whom He wills, He hardens. If it be said, ‘Then God cannot justly blame men; how can the clay resist the potter?’, St. Paul does not really solve the problem, but he asserts most emphatically that God’s right to choose individuals for salvation cannot be limited by human thought (  Romans 9:14-21 ). The justice of God’s rejection of the Jews cannot be questioned a priori . But what are the facts? The Jews, in seeking to establish their own righteousness, have failed to find the righteousness of God. They have failed, because the coming of Christ puts an end to legal righteousness, a fact to which Moses himself bears testimony. They ought to have realized this, and they cannot be excused on the ground that they have had no preachers. They are responsible for their own rejection: they have heard and known and disobeyed (  Romans 9:30 to   Romans 10:21 ). But though God has the right to reject His people, and though the Jews are themselves responsible for, their refusal to accept the gospel, yet St. Paul cannot believe that it is final. Even now a remnant has been saved by grace; and the present rejection of Israel must have been inteoded to save the Gentiles. What larger blessing will not God bestow when He restores His people? The Gentiles must see in the fall of Israel the goodness of God towards themselves, and the possibilities of mercy for the Jews. This is enforced by the illustration of the wild olive and the natural branches (  Romans 11:17-24 ). The Jews are enemies now, in order that God may bless the Gentiles. But they are still beloved, for the sake of the fathers. No, God has not deserted His people. If they are at present under a cloud, it is God’s mercy and not His anger that has willed it so. And the same unsearchable mercy will one day restore them to His favour (  Romans 11:25-36 ).

With the thought of the infinite mercies of God so strikingly evidenced, St. Paul begins his practical exhortation. Self-surrender to God is demanded as man’s service. ‘Thou must love Him who has loved thee so.’ A great humility becomes us, a full recognition of the differing gifts which God bestows on us. A willingness to bear wrong will mark the Christian. He must he merciful, since his confidence is in the mercy of God. The conclusion of ch. 11 underlies the whole of ch. 12. St. Paul goes on to urge his readers to obey the governing powers; to pay to all the debt of love, which alone fulfils the Law; to put off all sloth and vice, since the day is at hand (ch. 13). The duties of strong and weak towards each other will call for brotherly love. We must not surrender the principle of individual responsibility. Each standeth and falleth to the Lord. We have no right to judge, and we must not force our practices on our fellows. On the other hand, we must not push our individual liberty so far as to offend our brothers. Let us give up things we feel to be right, if we cause strife and doubt by asserting our liberty. The strong must bear the infirmities of the weak. Even Christ pleased not Himself. May we find our joy and peace in following Him! ( Romans 14:1 to   Romans 15:12 ).

St. Paul then concludes by explaining why he was so bold as to write to them at all, and by unfolding his plans and hopes for the future ( Romans 15:13-33 ). The last chapter contains a recommendation of PhÅ“be who brings the letter, and a number of detailed salutations to individual members of the Church, and to some house-churches. A brief warning against teachers who cause division, greetings from St, Paul’s companions, and an elaborate doxology bring the letter to a close (ch. 16).

The theology and leading ideas of the letter cannot be treated here. In a sense, however, the importance of Romans lies rather in its religious power than in its theological ideas. The letter is bound together by St. Paul’s central experience of the mercy of God. In God’s grace he has found the strength which can arrest the decay of a sinful, careless world. In God’s grace he has found also the secret of overcoming for the man who is conscious of the awfulness of sin, and of his own inability to save his life from destruction. The problem of the rejection of the Jews is really raised, not so much by their previous privileges as by God’s present mercy. St. Paul cannot be satisfied till he has grasped the love of God, which he feels must he at the heart of the mystery. The reality and nearness of God’s mercy determine the Christian character and render it possible. It is noteworthy that, though St. Paul seldom refers to the sayings of Jesus, he arrives at the mind of Christ through the gospel of the grace of God. A comparison of the Sermon on the Mount with  Romans 12:1-21;   Romans 13:1-14;   Romans 14:1-23 makes the antithesis, ‘Jesus or Paul,’ appear ridiculous. Above all, the glowing earnestness with which in chs. 4 8 he seeks to share with the Roman Christians (note the use of ‘we’ throughout that section) the highest and holiest inspirations he has learnt from Christ, reveals a heart in which the love of God is shed abroad. As Deissmann suggests, we do not recognize the special characteristic of St. Paul if we regard him as first and foremost the theologian of primitive Christianity. Romans is the passionate outpouring of one who has come into living touch with his heavenly Father.

3. Some textual points: integrity and genuineness . The omission in manuscript G of the words en Rômç in   Romans 1:7;   Romans 1:15 is an interesting indication of the probability that a shortened edition of Romans, with the local references suppressed, may have been circulated in quite early times. The letter to the Ephesians seems to have been treated in the same way. This shorter edition may have concluded at   Romans 14:23 , where the final doxology (  Romans 16:25-27 ) is placed in several MSS (ALP, etc.). But the shifting position of this doxology in our authorities perhaps indicates that it is not part of the original letter at all (see Denney, in the EGT [Note: Expositor’s Greek Testament.] ). But there is further evidence to show that some early editions of the letter omitted chs. 15 and 16. Marcion apparently omitted these chapters. Tertullian, Irenæus, and Cyprian do not quote them. There is also some internal evidence for thinking that ch. 16 at least may be part of a letter to Ephesus. The reference to Epænetus in   Romans 16:5 would be more natural in a letter to Ephesus than in a letter to Rome. In view of   Acts 18:2 it is difficult to suppose that Aquila and Priscilla had returned from Ephesus to Rome. Moreover, it is not likely that St. Paul would have so many acquaintances in a church he had not visited. On the other hand, none of these considerations affects or explains ch. 15, and the two chapters cannot be separated very easily. Further, Sanday and Headlam have collected an imposing array of evidence to prove the presence at Rome of persons with such names as are mentioned in ch. 16 (‘Romans’ in ICC [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] xxxiv f.). The question must still be regarded as open.

But while there is some probability that ch. 16 is part of a distinct letter, the theories of dismemberment, or rather the proofs of the composite character of Romans advanced by some Dutch scholars, cannot be considered convincing. The views of the late Prof. W. C. van Manen have received perhaps undue attention, owing to the fact that the art. on ‘Romans’ in the EBi [Note: Encyclopædia Biblica.] is from his pen. His criticism was certainly arbitrary, and his premises frequently inaccurate. Thus he quotes with approval Evanson’s statement that there is no reference in Acts to any project of St. Paul’s to visit Rome a statement made in direct contradiction of   Acts 19:21 ( EBi [Note: Encyclopædia Biblica.] , vol. iv. col. 4137). The year a.d. 120 is regarded as the probable date of Romans, in face of the external evidence of 1 Clement ( ib. col. 4143). The general argument against the genuineness of Romans, which weighs most with van Manen, lies in the fact that ‘it has learned to break with Judaism, and to regard the standpoint of the law as once for all past and done with.’ This is ‘a remarkable forward step, a rich and farreaching reform of the most ancient type of Christianity; now, a man does not become at one and the same moment the adherent of a new religion and its great reformer’ ( ib. col. 4138). Of this disproof of Pauline authorship it is quite sufficient to say with Prof. Schmiedel, ‘Perhaps St. Paul was not an ordinary man.’ Indeed, Prof. Schmiedel’s article on ‘Galatians’ ( ib. vol. ii. col. 1620f.) is a final refutation of the Dutch school represented by van Manen. They have advanced as yet no solid reason for doubting the genuineness of Romans.

H. G. Wood.

Morrish Bible Dictionary

This may justly be called the fundamental epistle of Christian doctrine. Its value and importance are seen in that its doctrine lays in the soul a moral foundation by the presentation of God in qualities or attributes which the state of things existing in the world appears to call in question. Thus God is justified in the eyes of the believer, and this being the case, the purposes of His love are made known to him.

In looking at all that is around us in the world, everything appears to be out of order: the presence and domination of sin, a broken law, and the corrupt and violent will in man, all call in question the righteousness of God; while the scattering of God's people Israel raises the question of His faithfulness to His promises.

Now in Christ all this finds its full and complete answer. The Son of God, by whom all were created, has Himself come in the likeness of sinful flesh, and, by offering Himself a sacrifice for sin, has completely vindicated God's righteousness, while revealing His love. At the same time the man, or order of man, that has sinned against God has been judicially removed by His death from before the eye of God, so that God can present Himself to man in grace.

The moral perfection of the offerer of necessity brought in resurrection, in which all the pleasure of God's grace in regard to man is set forth in righteousness; and Christ risen is the deliverer who is to come forth from Zion to turn away ungodliness from Jacob. Thus God's faithfulness to His covenant is established in Zion. God is proved to be faithful and righteous: we have here the first elements of the knowledge of God.

But it way be desirable to open up the epistle a little in detail. After the introduction, in which the fact may be noticed that the glad tidings are said to be concerning God's Son, a picture is given us of the moral condition of man in the world, whether heathen, philosopher, or Jew. In the heathen we see the unchecked development of sin ( Romans 1 ). In the philosopher the fact that light in itself does not control evil ( Romans 2 ); and in the Jew that law is proved to be powerless to bring about subjection to God, or to secure righteousness for man. The conclusion is that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God — all are proved to be justly under the sentence and judgement of death which God had imposed at the outset.  Romans 3 .

In the latter part of  Romans 3 we have the declaration of God's righteousness, in regard of man's state, in the blood of Christ, who on the cross took vicariously the place of man, and suffered what was due to man: God's righteousness is thus witnessed to, both in respect of past forbearance and present grace; and His consequent attitude towards all men, without difference, is seen; while   Romans 4 shows that the principle of justifying man, or accounting him righteous apart from works, had been conspicuous in regard to the men to whom in time past God had made promises, namely, Abraham and David. This was and is the pleasure of God, as now set forth in our Lord Jesus, who has been delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification. While God had Himself been glorified in Christ's death, His pleasure as to man is set forth in Christ's resurrection.

 Romans 5 brings fully into view the dominion of grace established through our Lord Jesus Christ, and unfolds in detail the terms on which God is with those who have been justified in His grace, beginning with peace and going on to reconciliation, the love of God being shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost. The subject is brought to a conclusion at the close of the chapter by the unfolding of the position of Christ as the last Adam; and of the effects of His moral perfectness in not only removing all that had come in by the sin of the first man Adam, but, in bringing in the justification of life. The bearing of this is that, for God, but one typical Man subsists, and that what attaches to Him as such belongs to those who are morally of His line or order. This principle was true in Adam, and is now true in Christ. In Christ the question of good and evil has been solved; death has been annulled, and the blessing of eternal life brought into view.

The righteousness of God having been vindicated, and the truth brought out of what His mind is towards believers, the three following chapters take up the question of the state of the believer, and develop the divinely established way of deliverance for him from principles to which man's soul is naturally in bondage; that thus he may be responsive to the love in which it has pleased God to make Himself known, and may be brought into the sense of being the object of God's purpose.

There are three principles to which man is in bondage, namely, sin, the law, and the flesh; and a way has been opened by which the believer may be free from the control of each of these principles. As to sin , the dominating principle in the world ( Romans 6 ), the way of deliverance is indicated in baptism, in identification with the death of Christ; and freedom is found in realising the truth of that which is set forth in baptism, that is, in reckoning ourselves dead indeed to sin, and alive to God in Christ Jesus. The knowledge which the soul has acquired of God in grace enables it to take this ground.

As regards law ( Romans 7 ), the bond, where it existed, has been dissolved in the death of Christ, so that Christ who is risen from the dead should be law to the believer; hence he lives by the faith of the Son of God who loved him and gave Himself for him.

As regards flesh, which is found to be hopelessly perverse, deliverance is in the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus ( Romans 8 ). This is the power within the believer, and the consequences of it are momentous. It involves, in the consciousness of the believer's soul, the transfer from one stock to another. He is not only transplanted, but grafted into Christ, so that he acquires all the nourishment and vigour of the new stock. Thus he is led into the consciousness of all that is involved in the Spirit that dwells within him; and is able more distinctly to accept the position of death to sin, and to appreciate the truth of Christ being law to him — and in the enjoyment of deliverance he has the consciousness by the Spirit of that to which God has called him, namely, to be conformed to the image of His Son, and the persuasion that nothing can separate him from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

We now arrive at another section of the epistle, which includes  Romans 9 ,  Romans 10 , and  Romans 11 , the object of which would appear to be to vindicate the faithfulness of God as to His promises to the fathers, in face of the fact of Israel having been set aside to make way for the church. It is shown that the principle of sovereignty lay underneath the whole of God's dealings in regard to Israel, and was expressed in the way of election, and of rejection at critical points in their history, and that the position of Israel had been formed on this. A crucial test had come in by the presentation of Christ, and Israel had stumbled at the stumbling stone; and, while saving a remnant, God had in His sovereignty also called an election from the Gentiles, who had submitted to the righteousness of God which Israel had refused. In this connection the apostle vindicates his world-wide gospel.

God had not, however, given up finally His thought in regard to Israel, for even in the gospel to the Gentiles He had them ultimately in view. The nations had now by the gospel their opportunity, and if they failed to continue in the goodness of God, their defection would make the way for the resumption of God's ways with Israel, and both Gentiles and Jews would manifestly come in on the ground of mercy. Thus God would be everything, and man nothing. This result calls forth the doxology at the close of  Romans 11 .

Thus we have in the epistle a full vindication of God, both as to righteousness and faithfulness.

The hortatory part of the epistle follows in  Romans 12 —   Romans 15 . The compassions of God are urged as an incentive to the believer to be here for the will of God. Transformed by the renewing of his mind, he is to be here in anticipation of another age. This is to be seen both in his service and, morally, in his character. His obligation is then shown in respect of the powers allowed of God in the world, and of man generally; and then in respect of the kingdom of God, by the influence of which he is to be ruled in his conduct toward those weak in the faith.

The apostle closes by a reference to the distinctiveness of his own service, carrying out his special mission to the Gentiles — and the expression of his purpose in due course to reach Rome.

The salutations at the close of the epistle are remarkable for the number of persons mentioned by name, and for the touches by which they are individually identified.

The epistle was written by Paul when at Corinth, about A.D. 58: cf.  Acts 20:1-3 . It is an exhaustive dissertation, and evinces the energy and wisdom of the Spirit of God in each point discussed. It is apposite that such an epistle should have been addressed to the saints at the then metropolis of the civilised world, not, however, that that metropolis should be in any way a centre of the church of God. Paul had not introduced the gospel there, and there is no evidence that Peter did so. It may have been carried to that city by some who were converted at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.

Easton's Bible Dictionary

 Romans 16:1 1 Corinthians 1:14 2 Timothy 4:20

The precise time at which it was written is not mentioned in the epistle, but it was obviously written when the apostle was about to "go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints", i.e., at the close of his second visit to Greece, during the winter preceding his last visit to that city ( Romans 15:25; Compare  Acts 19:21;  20:2,3,16;  1 Corinthians 16:1-4 ), early in A.D. 58.

It is highly probable that Christianity was planted in Rome by some of those who had been at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost ( Acts 2:10 ). At this time the Jews were very numerous in Rome, and their synagogues were probably resorted to by Romans also, who in this way became acquainted with the great facts regarding Jesus as these were reported among the Jews. Thus a church composed of both Jews and Gentiles was formed at Rome. Many of the brethren went out to meet Paul on his approach to Rome. There are evidences that Christians were then in Rome in considerable numbers, and had probably more than one place of meeting ( Romans 16:14,15 ).

The object of the apostle in writing to this church was to explain to them the great doctrines of the gospel. His epistle was a "word in season." Himself deeply impressed with a sense of the value of the doctrines of salvation, he opens up in a clear and connected form the whole system of the gospel in its relation both to Jew and Gentile. This epistle is peculiar in this, that it is a systematic exposition of the gospel of universal application. The subject is here treated argumentatively, and is a plea for Gentiles addressed to Jews. In the Epistle to the Galatians, the same subject is discussed, but there the apostle pleads his own authority, because the church in Galatia had been founded by him.

After the introduction (1:1-15), the apostle presents in it divers aspects and relations the doctrine of justification by faith ((1:16-11:36)) on the ground of the imputed righteousness of Christ. He shows that salvation is all of grace, and only of grace. This main section of his letter is followed by various practical exhortations ((12:1-15:13),), which are followed by a conclusion containing personal explanations and salutations, which contain the names of twenty-four Christians at Rome, a benediction, and a doxology (Rom ( Romans 16 ).

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

1. Its Genuineness

2. Its Integrity

3. The Approximate Date

4. The Place of Writing

5. The Destination

6. The Language

7. The Occasion

8. Some Characteristics

9. Main Teachings of the Epistle

(1) Doctrine of Man

(2) Doctrine of God

(3) Doctrine of Son of God - R edemption; Justification

(4) Doctrine of the Spirit of God

(5) Doctrine of Duty

(6) Doctrine of Israel

Literature

This is the greatest, in every sense, of the apostolic letters of Paul; in scale, in scope, and in its wonderful combination of doctrinal, ethical and administrative wisdom and power. In some respects the later Epistles, Ephesians and Colossians, lead us to even higher and deeper arcana of revelation, and they, like Romans, combine with the exposition of truth a luminous doctrine of duty. But the range of Roman is larger in both directions, and presents us also with noble and far-reaching discussions of Christian polity, instructions in spiritual utterance and the like, to which those Epistles present no parallel, and which only the Corinthian Epistles rival.

1. Its Genuineness:

No suspicion on the head of the genuineness of the Epistle exists which needs serious consideration. Signs of the influence of the Epistle can be traced, at least very probably, in the New Testament itself; in 1 Peter, and, as some think, in James. But in our opinion Jas was the earlier writing, and Lightfoot has given strong grounds for the belief that the paragraph on faith and justification ( James 2 ) has no reference to perversions of Pauline teaching, but deals with rabbinism. Clement of Rome repeatedly quotes Romans, and so do Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin. Marcion includes it in his list of Pauline Epistles, and it is safe to say in general Romans "has been recognized in the Christian church as long as any collection of Paul's Epistles has been extant" (A. Robertson, in Hdb , under the word). But above all other evidences it testifies to itself. The fabrication of such a writing, with its close and complex thought, its power and marked originality of treatment, its noble morale , and its spiritual elevation and ardor, is nothing short of a moral impossibility. A mighty mind and equally great heart live in every page, and a soul exquisitely sensitive and always intent upon truth and holiness. Literary personation is an art which has come to anything like maturity only in modern times, certainly not before the Renaissance. In a fully developed form it is hardly earlier than the 19th century. And even now who can point to a consciously personated authorship going along with high moral principle and purpose?

2. Its Integrity:

The question remains, however, whether, accepting the Epistle in block as Pauline, we have it, as to details, just as it left the author's hands. Particularly, some phenomena of the text of the last two chapter invite the inquiry. We may - in our opinion we must - grant those chapters to be Pauline. They breathe Paul in every sentence. But do they read precisely like part of a letter to Rome  ? For example, we have a series of names (  Romans 16:1-15 ), representing a large circle of personally known and loved friends of the writer, a much longer list than any other in the Epistles, and all presumably - on theory that the passage is integral to the Epistle - residents at Rome. May not such a paragraph have somehow crept in, after date, from another writing? Might not a message to Philippian, Thessalonian or Ephesian friends, dwellers in places where Paul had already established many intimacies, have fallen out of its place and found lodgment by mistake at the close of this letter to Rome? It seems enough to reply by one brief statement of fact. We possess some 300 manuscripts of Romans, and not one of these, so far as it is uninjured, fails to give the Epistle complete, all the chapters as we have them, and in the present order (with one exception, that of the final doxology). It is observable meanwhile that the difficulty of supposing Paul to have had a large group of friends living at Rome, before his own arrival there, is not serious. To and from Rome, through the whole empire, there was a perpetual circulation of population. Suppose Aquila and Priscilla (e.g.) to have recently returned ( Acts 18:2 ) to Rome from Ephesus, and suppose similar migrations from Greece or from Asia Minor to have taken place within recent years; we can then readily account for the greetings of Rom 16.

Lightfoot has brought it out in an interesting way (see his Philippians , on   Philippians 4:22 ) that many of the names (e.g. Amplias, Urbanus, Tryphena) in Rom 16 are found at Rome , in inscriptions of the early imperial age, in cemeteries where members of the widely scattered "household of Caesar" were interred. This at least suggests the abundant possibility that the converts and friends belonging to the "household" who, a very few years later, perhaps not more than three, were around him at Rome when he wrote to Philippi ( Philippians 4:22 ), and sent their special greeting ("chiefly they") to the Philipplans, were formerly residents at Philippi, or elsewhere in Macedonia, and had moved thence to the capital not long before the apostle wrote to the Romans. A. Robertson (ut supra) comes to the conclusion, after a careful review of recent theories, "that the case for transferring this section ... from its actual connection to a lost Epistle to Ephesus is not made out."

Two points of detail in the criticism of the text of Romans may be noted. One is that the words "at Rome" ( Romans 1:7 ,  Romans 1:15 ) are omitted in a very few manuscripts, in a way to remind us of the interesting phenomenon of the omission of "at Ephesus" ( Ephesians 1:1 margin). But the evidence for this omission being original is entirely inadequate. The fact may perhaps be accounted for by a possible circulation of Romans among other mission churches as an Epistle of universal interest. This would be much more likely if the manuscripts and other authorities in which the last two chapters are missing were identical with those which omit "at Rome," but this is not the case.

The other and larger detail is that the great final doxology ( Romans 16:25-27 ) is placed by many cursives at the end of Romans 14, and is omitted entirely by three manuscripts and by Marcion. The leading uncials and a large preponderance of ancient evidence place it where we have it. It is quite possible that Paul may have reissued Romans after a time, and may only then have added the doxology, which has a certain resemblance in manner to his later (captivity) style. But it is at least likely that dogmatic objections led Marcion to delete it, and that his action accounts for the other phenomena which seem to witness against its place at the finale.

It is worth noting that Hort, a singularly fearless, while sober student, defends without reserve the entirety of the Epistle as we have it, or practically so. See his essay printed in Lightfoot's Biblical Studies .

3. The Approximate Date:

We can fix the approximate date with fair certainty within reasonable limits. We gather from  Romans 15:19 that Paul, when he wrote, was in the act of closing his work in the East and was looking definitely westward. But he was first about (  Romans 15:25 ,  Romans 15:26 ) to revisit Jerusalem with his collection, mainly made in Macedonia and Achaia, for the "poor saints." Placing these allusions side by side with the references in 1 and 2 Corinthians to the collection and its conveyance, and again with the narrative of Acts, we may date Romans very nearly at the same time as 2 Corinthians, just before the visit to Jerusalem narrated in Acts 20, etc. The year may be fixed with great probability as 58 AD. This estimate follows the lines of Lightfoot's chronology, which Robertson (ut supra) supports. More recent schemes would move the date back to 56 AD.

"The reader's attention is invited to this date. Broadly speaking, it was about 30 years at the most after the Crucifixion. Let anyone in middle life reflect on the freshness in memory of events, whether public or private, which 30 years ago made any marked impression on his mind. Let him consider how concrete and vivid still are the prominent personages of 30 years ago, many of whom of course are still with us. And let him transfer this thought to the 1st century, and to the time of our Epistle. Let him remember that we have at least this one great Christian writing composed, for certain, within such easy reach of the very lifetime of Jesus Christ when His contemporary friends were still, in numbers, alive and active. Then let him open the Epistle afresh, and read, as if for the first time, its estimate of Jesus Christ - a Figure then of no legendary past, with its halo, but of the all but present day. Let him note that this transcendent estimate comes to us conveyed in the vehicle not of poetry and rhetoric, but of a treatise pregnant with masterly argument and admirable practical wisdom, tolerant and comprehensive. And we think that the reader will feel that the result of his meditations on date and circumstances is reassuring as to the solidity of the historic basis of the Christian faith" (from the present writer's introduction to the Epistle in the Temple Bible; see also his Light from the First Days: Short Studies in 1 Thessalonians ).

4. The Place of Writing:

With confidence we may name Corinth as the place of writing. Paul was at the time in some "city" ( Romans 16:23 ). He was staying with one Gaius, or Caius (same place) , and we find in  1 Corinthians 1:14 a Gaius, closely connected with Paul, and a Corinthian. He commends to the Romans the deaconess Phoebe, attached to "the church at Cenchrea" (  Romans 16:1 ), presumably a place near that from which he was writing; and Cenchrea was the southern part of Corinth.

5. The Destination:

The first advent of Christianity to Rome is unrecorded, and we know very little of its early progress. Visiting Romans ( ἐπιδημοῦντες , epidēmoúntes ), both Jews and proselytes, appear at Pentecost (  Acts 2:10 ), and no doubt some of these returned home believers. In  Acts 18:2 we have Aquila and Priscilla, Jews, evidently Christians, "lately come from Italy," and probably from Rome. But we know practically nothing else of the story previous to this Epistle, which is addressed to a mission church obviously important and already spiritually advanced. On the other hand (a curious paradox in view of the historical development of Roman Christianity), there is no allusion in the Epistle to church organization. The Christian ministry (apart from Paul's own apostleship) is not even mentioned. It may fairly be said to be incredible that if the legend of Peter's long episcopate were historical, no allusion whatever to his work, influence and authority should be made. It is at least extremely difficult to prove that he was even present in Rome till shortly before his martyrdom, and the very ancient belief that Peter and Paul founded the Roman church is more likely to have had its origin in their martyrdoms there than in Peter's having in any sense shared in the early evangelization of the city.

As to Rome itself, we may picture it at the date of the Epistle as containing, with its suburbs, a closely massed population of perhaps 800,000 people; a motley host of many races, with a strong oriental element, among which the Jews were present as a marked influence, despised and sometimes dreaded, but always attracting curiosity.

6. The Language:

The Epistle was written in Greek, the "common dialect," the Greek of universal intercourse of that age. One naturally asks, why not in Latin, when the message was addressed to the supreme Latin city? The large majority of Christian converts beyond doubt came from the lower middle and lowest classes, not least from the slave class. These strata of society were supplied greatly from immigrants, much as in parts of East London now aliens make the main population. Not Latin but Greek, then lingua franca of the Mediterranean, would be the daily speech of these people. It is remarkable that all the early Roman bishops bear Greek names. And some 40 years after the date of this Epistle we find Clement of Rome writing in Greek to the Corinthians, and later again, early in the 2nd century, Ignatius writing in Greek to the Romans.

7. The Occasion:

We cannot specify the occasion of writing for certain. No hint appears of any acute crisis in the mission (as when 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, or Colossians were written). Nor would personal reminiscences influence the writer, for he had not yet seen Rome. We can only suggest some possibilities as follows:

(1) A good opportunity for safe communication was offered by the deaconess Phoebe's proposed visit to the metropolis. She doubtless asked Paul for a commendatory letter, and this may have suggested an extended message to the church.

(2) Paul's thoughts had long gone toward Rome. See  Acts 19:21 : " I must see Rome," words which seem perhaps to imply some divine intimation (compare   Acts 23:11 ). And his own life-course would fall in with such a supernatural call. He had always aimed at large centers; and now his great work in the central places of the Levant was closing; he had worked at Ephesus, Thessalonica, Corinth; he was at last to think of the supreme center of all. Rome must always have had a dominant interest for the "Apostle of the Nations," and any suggestion that his Lord's will tended that way would intensify it to the highest degree.

(3) The form of the Epistle may throw further light on the occasion. The document falls, on the whole, into three parts. First we have  Romans 1 through 8 inclusive, a prolonged exposition of the contrasted and related phenomena of sin and salvation, with special initial references to the cases of Jew and non-Jew respectively. Then come   Romans 9 through 11, which deal with the Jewish rejection of the Jewish Messiah, developing into a prophetic revelation of the future of Israel in the grace of God. Lastly we have   Romans 12 through 16. Some account of the writer's plans, and his salutations to friends, requests for prayer, etc., form the close of this section. But it is mainly a statement of Christian duty in common life, personal, civil, religious. Under the latter head we have a noble treatment of problems raised by varying opinions, particularly on religious observances, among the converts, Jew and Gentile.

Such phenomena cast a possible light on the occasion of writing. The Roman mission was on one side, by its locality and surroundings, eminently gentile. On the other, there was, as we have seen, a strong Judaic element in Roman life, particularly in its lower strata, and no doubt around the Jewish community proper there had grown up a large community of "worshippers" ( σεβόμενοι , sebómenoi ) or, as we commonly call them, "proselytes" ("adherents," in the language of modern missionary enterprise), people who, without receiving circumcision, attended Jewish worship and shared largely in Jewish beliefs and ideals. Among these proselytes, we may believe, the earliest evangelists at Rome found a favorable field, and the mission church as Paul knew of it contained accordingly not only two definite classes, converts from paganism, converts from native Judaism, but very many in whose minds both traditions were working at once. To such converts the problems raised by Judaism, both without and within the church, would come home with a constant intimacy and force, and their case may well have been present in a special degree in the apostle's mind alike in the early passages (  Romans 1 through 3) of the Epistle and in such later parts as   Romans 2 through 11; 14; 15. On the one hand they would greatly need guidance on the significance of the past of Israel and on the destiny of the chosen race in the future. Moreover, discussions in such circles over the way of salvation would suggest to the great missionary his exposition of man's reconciliation with a holy God and of His secrets for purity and obedience in an unholy world. And meanwhile the ever-recurring problems raised by ceremonial rules in common daily life - problems of days and seasons, and of forbidden food - would, for such disciples, need wise and equitable treatment.

(4) Was it not with this position before him, known to him through the many means of communication between Rome and Corinth, that Paul cast his letter into this form? And did not the realization of the central greatness of Rome suggest its ample scale? The result was a writing which shows everywhere his sense of the presence of the Judaic problem. Here he meets it by a statement, massive and tender, of "heaven's easy, artless, unencumbered plan" of redemption, grace, and glory, a plan which on its other side is the very mystery of the love of God, which statement is now and forever a primary treasure of the Christian faith. And then again he lays down for the too eager champions of the new "liberty" a law of loving tolerance toward slower and narrower views which is equally our permanent spiritual possession, bearing a significance far-reaching and benign.

(5) It has been held by some great students, notably Lightfoot and Hort, that the main purpose of Romans was to reconcile the opposing "schools" in the church, and that its exposition of the salvation of the individual is secondary only. The present writer cannot take this view. Read the Epistle from its spiritual center, so to speak, and is not the perspective very different? The apostle is always conscious of the collective aspect of the Christian life, an aspect vital to its full health. But is he not giving his deepest thought, animated by his own experience of conviction and conversion, to the sinful man's relation to eternal law, to redeeming grace, and to a coming glory? It is the question of personal salvation which with Paul seems to us to live and move always in the depth of his argument, even when Christian polity and policy is the immediate theme.

8. Some Characteristics:

Excepting only Ephesians (the problem of the authorship of which is insoluble, and we put that great document here aside), Romans is, of all Paul has written, least a letter and most a treatise. He is seen, as we read, to approach religious problems of the highest order in a free but reasoned succession; problems of the darkness and of the light, of sin and grace, fall and restoration, doom and remission, faith and obedience, suffering and glory, transcendent hope and humblest duty, now in their relation to the soul, now so as to develop the holy collectivity of the common life. The Roman converts are always first in view, but such is the writer, such his handling, that the results are for the universal church and for every believer of all time. Yet all the while (and it is in this a splendid example of that epistolary method of revelation which is one of the glories of the New Testament) it is never for a moment the mere treatise, however great. The writer is always vividly personal, and conscious of persons. The Epistle is indeed a masterpiece of doctrine, but also always "the unforced, unartificial utterance of a friend to friends."

9. Main Teachings of the Epistle:

Approaching the Epistle as a treatise rather than a letter (with the considerable reserves just stated), we indicate briefly some of its main doctrinal deliverances. Obviously, in limine , it is not set before us as a complete system either of theology or of morals; to obtain a full view of a Pauline dogma and ethics we must certainly place Ephesians and Colossians, not to speak of passages from Thessalonians, beside Romans. But it makes by far the nearest approach to doctrinal completeness among the Epistles.

(1) Doctrine of Man.

In great measure this resolves itself into the doctrine of man as a sinner, as being guilty in face of an absolutely holy and absolutely imperative law, whether announced by abnormal revelation, as to the Jew, or through nature and conscience only, as to the Gentile. At the back of this presentation lies the full recognition that man is cognizant, as a spiritual being, of the eternal difference of right and wrong, and of the witness of creation to personal "eternal power and Godhead" as its cause, and that he is responsible in an awe-inspiring way for his unfaithfulness to such cognitions. He is a being great enough to be in personal moral relation with God, and able to realize his ideal only in true relation with Him; therefore a being whose sin and guilt have an unfathomable evil in them. So is he bound by his own failure that he cannot restore himself; God alone, in sovereign mercy, provides for his pardon by the propitiation of Christ, and for his restoration by union with Christ in the life given by the Holy Spirit. Such is man, once restored, once become "a saint" (a being hallowed), a "son of God" by adoption and grace, that his final glorification will be the signal (in some sense the cause?) of a transfiguration of the whole finite universe. Meanwhile, man is a being actually in the midst of a life of duty and trial, a member of civil society, with obligations to its order. He lives not in a God-forsaken world, belonging only to another and evil power. His new life, the "mind of the Spirit" in him, is to show itself in a conduct and character good for the state and for society at large, as well as for the "brotherhood."

(2) Doctrine of God.

True to the revelation of the Old Testament, Paul presents God as absolute in will and power, so that He is not only the sole author of nature but the eternal and ultimately sole cause of goodness in man. To Him in the last resort all is due, not only the provision of atonement but the power and will to embrace it. The great passages which set before us a "fore-defining" ( προόρισις , proórisis , "predestination") and election of the saints are all evidently inspired by this motive, the jealous resolve to trace to the one true Cause all motions and actions of good. The apostle seems e.g. almost to risk affirming a sovereign causation of the opposite, of unbelief and its sequel. But patient study will find that it is not so. God is not said to "fit for ruin" the "vessels of wrath." Their woeful end is overruled to His glory, but nowhere is it taken to be caused by Him. All along the writer's intense purpose is to constrain the actual believer to see the whole causation of his salvation in the will and power of Him whose inmost character is revealed in the supreme fact that, "for us all," "he spared not his Son."

(3) Doctrine of Son of God - R edemption; Justification.

The Epistle affords materials for a magnificently large Christology. The relation of the Son to creation is indeed not expounded in terms (as in Col), but it is implied in the language of  Romans 8 , where the interrelation of our redemption and the transfiguration of Nature is dealt with. We have the Lord's manhood fully recognized, while His Godhead (as we read in  Romans 9:5; so too Robertson, ut supra) is stated in terms, and it is most certainly implied in the language and tone of e.g. the close of Romans 8. Who but a bearer of the Supreme Nature could satisfy the conception indicated in such words as those of  Romans 8:32 ,  Romans 8:35-39 , coming as they do from a Hebrew monotheist of intense convictions? Meantime this transcendent Person has so put Himself in relation with us, as the willing worker of the Father's purpose of love, that He is the sacrifice of peace for us (Romans 3), our "propitiatory" One (ἱλαστήριον , hilastḗrion , is now known to be an adjective), such that (whatever the mystery, which leaves the fact no less certain) the man who believes on Him, i.e. (as Romans 4 fully demonstrates) relies on Him, gives himself over to His mercy, is not only forgiven but "justified," "justified by faith." And "justification" is more than forgiveness; it is not merely the remission of a penalty but a welcome to the offender, pronounced to be lawfully at peace with the eternal holiness and love. See Justification; Propitiation .

In closest connection with this message of justification is the teaching regarding union with the Christ who has procured the justification. This is rather assumed than expounded in Romans (we have the exposition more explicitly in Eph, Col, and Gal), but the assumption is present wherever the pregnant phrase "in Christ" is used. Union is, for Paul, the central doctrine of all, giving life and relation to the whole range. As Lightfoot has well said ( Sermons in Paul's , number 16), he is the apostle not primarily of justification, or of liberty, great as these truths are with him, but of union with Christ. It is through union that justification is ours; the merits of the Head are for the member . It is through union that spiritual liberty and power are ours; the Spirit of life is from the Head to the member . Held by grace in this profound and multiplex connection, where life, love and law are interlaced, the Christian is entitled to an assurance full of joy that nothing shall separate him, soul and (ultimately) body, from his once sacrificed and now risen and triumphant Lord.

(4) Doctrine of the Spirit of God.

No writing of the New Testament but John's Gospel is so full upon this great theme as  Romans 8 may be said to be the locus classicus in the Epistles for the work of the Holy Ghost in the believer. By implication it reveals personality as well as power (see especially   Romans 8:26 ). Note particularly the place of this great passage, in which revelation and profoundest conditions run continually into each other. It follows Romans 7, in which the apostle depicts, in terms of his own profound and typical experience, the struggles of conscience and will over the awful problem of the "bondage" of indwelling sin. If we interpret the passage aright, the case supposed is that of a regenerate man, who, however, attempts the struggle against inward evil armed, as to consciousness, with his own faculties merely, and finds the struggle insupportable. Then comes in the divine solution, the promised Spirit of life and liberty, welcomed and put into use by the man who has found his own resources yam. "In Christ Jesus," in union with Him, he "by the Spirit does to death the practices of the body," and rises through conscious liberty into an exulting hope of "the liberty of the glory of the sons of God" - not so, however as to know nothing of "groaning within himself," while yet in the body; but it is a groan which leaves intact the sense of sonship and divine love, and the expectation of a final completeness of redemption.

(5) Doctrine of Duty.

While the Epistle is eminently a message of salvation, it is also, in vital connection with this, a treasury of principle and precept for the life of duty. It does indeed lay down the sovereign freedom of our acceptance for Christ's sake alone , and so absolutely that (  Romans 6:1 ,  Romans 6:2 ,  Romans 6:15 ) the writer anticipates the inference (by foes, or by mistaken friends), "Let us continue in sin." But the answer comes instantly, and mainly through the doctrine of union. Our pardon is not an isolated fact. Secured only by Christ's sacrifice, received only by the faith which receives Him as our all, it is ipso facto never received alone but with all His other gifts, for it becomes ours as we receive, not merely one truth about Him, but Him. Therefore, we receive His Life as our true life; and it is morally unthinkable that we can receive this and express it in sin. This assumed, the Epistle (Romans 12 and onward) lays down with much detail and in admirable application large ranges of the law of duty, civil, social, personal, embracing duties to the state, loyalty to its laws, payment of its taxes, recognition of the sacredness of political order, even ministered by pagans; and also duties to society and the church, including a large and loving tolerance even in religious matters, and a response to every call of the law of unselfish love. However we can or cannot adjust mentally the two sides, that of a supremely free salvation and that of an inexorable responsibility, there the two sides are, in the Pauline message. And reason and faith combine to assure us that both sides are eternally true, "antinomies" whose harmony will be explained hereafter in a higher life, but which are to be lived out here concurrently by the true disciple, assured of their ultimate oneness of source in the eternal love.

(6) Doctrine of Israel.

Very briefly we touch on this department of the message of Romans, mainly to point out that the problem of Israel's unbelief nowhere else in Paul appears as so heavy a load on his heart, and that on the other hand we nowhere else have anything like the light he claims to throw ( Romans 11 ) on Israel's future. Here, if anywhere, he appears as the predictive prophet, charged with the statement of a "mystery," and with the announcement of its issues. The promises to Israel have never failed, nor are they canceled. At the worst, they have always been inherited by a chosen remnant, Israel within Israel. And a time is coming when, in a profound connection with Messianic blessing on the Gentiles, "all Israel shall be saved," with a salvation which shall in turn be new life to the world outside Israel. Throughout the passage Paul speaks, not as one who "will not give up a hope," but as having had revealed to him a vast and definite prospect, in the divine purpose.

It is not possible in our present space to work out other lines of the message of Romans. Perhaps enough has been done to stimulate the reader's own inquiries.

Literature.

Of the Fathers, Chrysostom and Augustine are pre-eminent as interpreters of Romans: Chrysostom in his expository Homilies , models of eloquent and illuminating discourse, full of "sanctified common sense," while not perfectly appreciative of the inmost doctrinal characteristics; Augustine, not in any continuous comm., but in his anti-Pelagian writings, which show the sympathetic intensity of his study of the doctrine of the Epistle, not so much on justification as on grace and the will. Of the Reformers, Calvin is eminently the great commentator, almost modern in his constant aim to ascertain the sacred writer's meaning by open-eyed inference direct from the words. On Romans he is at his best; and it is remarkable that on certain leading passages where grace is theme he is much less rigidly "Calvinistic" than some of his followers. In modern times, the not learned but masterly exposition of Robert Haldane (circa 1830) claims mention, and the eloquent and highly suggestive expository lectures (about the same date) of Thomas Chalmers. H. A. W. Meyer (5th edition, 1872, English translation 1873-1874) among the Germans is excellent for carefulness and insight; Godet (1879, English translation 1881) equally so among French-writing divines; of late English interpreters I. A. Beet (1877, many revisions), Sanday and Headlam (1895, in the" International" series) and E. H. Gifford (admirable for scholarship and exposition; his work was printed first in the Speaker's (Bible) Comm ., 1881, now separately) claim particular mention. J. Denney writes on Romans in The Expositor 's Greek Test. (1900).

Luther's lectures on Romans, delivered in 1516-1517 and long supposed lost, have been recovered and were published by J. Ficker in 1908. Among modern German commentators, the most important is B. Weiss in the later revisions of the Meyer series (9th edition, 1899), while a very elaborate commentary has been produced by Zahn in his own series (1910). Briefer are the works of Lipsius ( Hand-Kommentar , 2nd edition, 1892, very scholarly and suggestive); Lietzmann ( Handbuch zum Nt , interest chiefly linguistic), and Julicher (in J. Weiss, Schriften des NTs , 2nd edition, 1908, an intensely able piece of popular exposition).

A. E. Garvie has written a brilliant little commentary in the "(New) Century" series (no date); that of R. John Parry in the Cambridge Greek Testament , 1913, is more popular, despite its use of the Greek text. F. B. Westcott's Paul and Justification , 1913, contains a close grammatical study with an excellent paraphrase.

The writer may be allowed to name his short commentary (1879) in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and a fuller one, in a more homiletic style, in the Expositor's Bible , 1894.

The Nuttall Encyclopedia

An epistle written from Corinth, in the year 59, by St. Paul to the Church at Rome to correct particularly two errors which he had learned the Church there had fallen into, on the part, on the one hand, of the Jewish Christians, that the Gentiles as such were not entitled to the same privileges as themselves, and, on the other hand, of the Gentile Christians, that the Jews by their rejection of Christ had excluded themselves from God's kingdom; and he wrote this epistle to show that the one had no more right to the grace of God than the other, and that this grace contemplates the final conversion of the Jews as well as the Gentiles. The great theme of this epistle is that faith in Christ is the one way of salvation for all mankind, Jew as well as Gentile, and its significance is this, that it contains if not the whole teaching of Paul, that essential part of it which presents and emphasises the all-sufficiency of this faith.