Paul Writes the Book of Romans
Acts 20:1-3 KJV 1 And after the uproar was ceased, Paul called unto him
the disciples, and embraced them, and departed for to go into Macedonia.
2 And when he had gone over those parts, and had given them much
exhortation, he came into Greece, 3 And there abode three months. And
when the Jews laid wait for him, as he was about to sail into Syria, he
purposed to return through Macedonia.
Introduction
The uproar in Ephesus was over and calm had returned to the city. Paul called the disciples together to bid them farewell and begin his final journey from Asia. His intention was to eventually go to Jerusalem.
Much Exhortation
Paul had called the disciples, those of the church at Ephesus and maybe some from other local churches in Asia Minor. After exhorting them to continue on in the faith, he departed to travel to Macedonia.
As we learned from our look at the letters to the Corinthians, Paul expected to meet Titus in Troas. Paul was disappointed that Titus was not at Troas, so he continued to Macedonia. It is believed that he went back to Corinth since it seems that he wrote the letter to the Romans from there.
Again, I wish to use the narrative drawn from Albert Barnes’ writing concerning the book of Romans.
This Epistle has been, with great uniformity, attributed to the apostle Paul and received as a part of the sacred canon. ….
On this point the testimony of antiquity is uniform. The 236
proof on this subject may be seen at length in Lardner’s works. The internal evidence that this was written by Paul is stated in a most ingenious and masterly manner by Dr. Paley
in his Horae Pauline.
It is agreed by all, that this Epistle was written in Greek.
Though addressed to a people whose language was Latin, yet
this Epistle to them, like those to other churches, was in Greek. On this point, there is also no debate. The reasons why this language was chosen were probably the following:
(1) The Epistle was designed doubtless to be read by other
churches as well as the Roman congregation; compare
Col_4:16. Yet the Greek language, being more generally known and spoken, was more adapted for this purpose than
the Latin tongue.
(2) The Greek language was then understood at Rome and
extensively spoken. It was a part of polite education to learn it. The Roman youth were taught it; and it was the fashion of the times to study it, even so much so as to make it a matter of complaint that the Latin was neglected for it by the Roman youth. ….
(3) It is not impossible that the Jews at Rome, who constituted a separate colony, were better acquainted with the Greek than the Latin. They had a Greek translation (the
Septuagint), but no Latin translation of the Scriptures (as yet), and it is very possible that they used the language in which they were accustomed to read their Scriptures and which was extensively spoken by their brethren throughout
the world.
(4) The apostle was himself probably more familiar with the
Greek than the Latin. He was a native of Cilicia, where the
Greek was doubtless spoken, and he not infrequently quotes
237
the Greek poets in his addresses and epistles Act_21:37; Act_17:28; Tit_1:12; 1Co_15:33.
This Epistle is placed first among Paul’s epistles, not because it was the first written, but because of the length and importance of the Epistle itself, as well as the importance of the church in the imperial city. It has uniformly had this place in the sacred canon, though there is reason to believe
that the Epistle to the Galatians, the first to the Corinthians, and perhaps the two letters to the Thessalonians were written before this.
Of the time when it was written, there can be little doubt.
About the year 52 or 54 a.d. the Emperor Claudius banished
all Jews from Rome. In Act_18:2, we have an account of the
first acquaintance of Paul with Aquila and Priscilla who had
departed from Rome in consequence of that decree. This acquaintance was formed in Corinth; and we are told that Paul stayed with them and worked at the same occupation
Act_18:3. In Rom_16:3-4, Paul directs the church to greet Priscilla and Aquila, who had for his life laid down their own necks. This service which they rendered to Paul must have
been therefore after the decree of Claudius; and of course the Epistle must have been written after the year 52 ad.
In Act_18:19, we are told that Paul left Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus. Paul made a journey through the neighboring regions, and then returned to Ephesus Act_19:1. Paul
remained at Ephesus at least two years Act_19:8, Act_19:9,
Act_19:10, and while here probably wrote the First Epistle
to the Corinthians. In that Epistle 1Co_16:19 he sends the salutation of Priscilla and Aquila, who were, of course, still at Ephesus. The Epistle to the Romans, therefore, in which
Paul sends his salutation to Aquila and Priscilla, as being then at Rome, could not be written until after they had left
238
Ephesus and returned to Rome; that is, until three years at least after the decree of Claudius in 52 or 54 ad.
Still further, when Paul wrote this Epistle of Romans, he was about to depart for Jerusalem to convey a collection which
had been made for the poor saints there, by the churches in
Macedonia and Achaia; Rom_15:25-26. When he had done
this, he intended to go to Rome; Rom_15:28. Now, by
looking at the Acts of the Apostles, we can determine when
this occurred. At this time, he sent Timothy and Erastus ahead of him into Macedonia, while he remained in Asia for
a season Act_19:22. After this Act_20:1-2, Paul himself went into Macedonia, passed through Greece, and remained
about three months there. In this journey it is almost certain that Paul went to Corinth, the capital of Achaia, at which time it is supposed that Romans was written. From this place
he set out for Jerusalem where he was made a prisoner, and
after remaining a prisoner for two years Act_24:27, he was
sent to Rome about 60 a.d. Allowing for the time of his traveling and his imprisonment, it must have been about three years from the time that he purposed to go to Jerusalem; that is, from the time that he finished Romans Rom_15:25-29 to the time when he actually reached Rome,
and thus the Epistle to the Romans must have been written
about 57 ad.
It is clear also, that the Epistle to the Romans was written from Corinth. In Rom_16:1, Phoebe, a member of the church
at Cenchrea, is commended to the Roman Christians. She probably had charge of the letter, or she accompanied those
who had it. Cenchrea was the port of the city of Corinth, about seven or eight miles from the city. In Rom_16:23, Gaius is spoken of as the host of Paul, or he of whose hospitality Paul partook, but Gaius was baptized by Paul at
239
Corinth, and Corinth was manifestly his place of residence;
1Co_1:14. Erastus is also mentioned as the chamberlain of
the city where the Epistle to the Romans was written; but this Erastus is mentioned as having his home at Corinth;
2Ti_4:20. From all this it is manifest that Romans was written at Corinth about the year 57 ad.
Concerning the state of the church at Rome at that time, it is not easy to form a precise opinion. From this Epistle it is evident that it was composed of Jews and Gentiles and that
one purpose of writing to it was to reconcile their jarring opinions, particularly about the obligation of the Jewish law, the advantage of the Jew, and the way of justification. It is probable that the two parties in the church were endeavoring
to defend each their special opinions, and that the apostle took this opportunity and mode to state to his converted countrymen the great doctrines of Christianity, and the relation of the Law of Moses to the Christian system. The Epistle itself is full proof that the church to whom it was addressed was composed of Jews and Gentiles. No small part
of it is an argument expressly with the Jews; Rom. 2; Rom.
3; Rom. 4; Rom. 9; Rom. 10; Rom. 11. And no small part of
the Epistle is also designed to state the true doctrine about the character of the Gentiles and the way in which they could be justified before God.
At this time, there was a large number of Jews at Rome.
When Pompey the Great overran Judea, he sent a large number of Jewish prisoners to Rome to be sold as slaves, but
it was not easy to control them. The Jews persevered resolutely and obstinately in adhering to the rites of their nation, in keeping the Sabbath, etc. So, the Romans
eventually chose to give them their freedom and assigned them a place in the vicinity of the city across the Tiber River.
240
Here a town was built, which was principally inhabited by
Jews. Josephus mentions that 4,000 Jews were banished
from Rome at one time to Sardinia, and that a still greater number were punished who were unwilling to become
soldiers; Ant. book 18, chapter 3, section 5. Philo ( Legat. a.d.
Caium) says, that many of the Jews at Rome had obtained their freedom; for, says “he, being made captive in war, and
brought into Italy, they were set at liberty by their masters, neither were they compelled to change the rites of their fathers;” see also Josephus, Antiq. book 17, chapter 2, section 1; Suetonius’ Life of Tiberius, 36, and the notes at
Act_6:9. From that large number of Jews, together with those converted from the Gentiles, the church at Rome was
collected, and it is easy to see that in that church there would be a great diversity of sentiment, and, no doubt, warm discussions about the authority of the Mosaic Law.
At what time, or by whom, the gospel was first preached at
Rome has been a matter of controversy. The Roman Catholic
Church has always maintained that it was founded by Peter,
and they have thence drawn an argument for their high claims and infallibility. On this subject they make a confident appeal to some of the fathers. There is strong evidence to be derived from this Epistle itself, and from the Acts , that Paul did not regard Peter as having any such primacy and ascendency in the Roman church as are claimed
for him by the Papists.
When or by whom the gospel was preached first at Rome, it
is not easy, perhaps not possible, to determine. In the account of the day of Pentecost Act_2:10, we find, among others, that there were present strangers of Rome, and it is not
improbable that they carried back the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and they became the founders of the Roman
241
congregation. One design and effect of that miracle was doubtless to spread the knowledge of the Saviour among all
nations; see the notes at Acts 2. In the list of persons who are mentioned in Rom. 16 it is not improbable that some of those
early converts are included; and that Paul thus intended to show honor to their early conversion and zeal in the cause of Christianity. Thus, Rom_16:7, he designates Andronicus
and Junia, his kinsmen and fellow-prisoners who were
distinguished among the apostles and who had been
converted before Paul, that is, before 34 a.d., at least eight years before it was ever pretended that Peter was in Rome.
Other persons are also mentioned as distinguished, and it is
not improbable that they were the early founders of the church at Rome (Rom_16:12-13, etc.)1
I have not included the dissertation that Dr. Barnes includes in his narrative concerning the extent of proof that is given to prove that Peter was not at Rome and did not start the church at Rome.
That the church at Rome was founded early is evident from
the celebrity status which it had acquired. At the time when
Paul wrote this Epistle (57 a.d.), their faith was spoken of throughout the world Rom_1:8. The character of the church
at Rome cannot be clearly ascertained. Yet it is clear that it was not made up merely of the lower classes of the
community. In Php_4:22, it appears that the gospel had made
its way into the family of Caesar, and that a part of his household had been converted to the Christian faith. Some
of the church fathers affirm that Nero himself in the beginning of his reign was favorably impressed with regard
to Christianity, and it is possible that this might have been through the instrumentality of his family. But little on this subject can be known. While it is probable that the great mass of believers in all the early churches was of obscure 242
and plebeian origin, it is also certain that some who were rich, and noble, and learned, became members of the church
of Christ (see 1Ti_2:9; 1Pe_3:3; 1Ti_6:20; Col_2:8;
1Co_1:26; Act_17:34).
This Epistle has been usually deemed the most difficult of
interpretation of any part of the New Testament; and no small part of the controversies in the Christian church have
grown out of discussions about its meaning. Early in the history of the church, even before the death of the apostles, we learn from 2Pe_3:16, that the writings of Paul were some
of them regarded as being “hard to be understood”; and that
“the unlearned and unstable wrested them to their own destruction.” It is probable that Peter has reference here to the high and mysterious doctrines about justification and the sovereignty of God, and the doctrines of election and decrees. From the Epistle of James, it would seem probable
also, that already the apostle Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith had been perverted and abused. It seems to have been inferred that good works were unnecessary; and here
was the beginning of the cheerless and withering system of
Antinomianism - than which a more destructive or
pestilential heresy never found its way into the Christian church. Several reasons might be assigned for the
controversies which have grown out of this Epistle:
(1) The very structure of the argument, and the uniqueness
of the apostle’s manner of writing. Paul is rapid, mighty, profound, often involved, readily following a new thought,
leaving the regular subject, and returning again after a considerable interval. Hence, his writings abound with
parentheses and with complicated paragraphs.
(2) Objections are often introduced, so that it requires close attention to determine their precise bearing. Though Paul 243
employs no small part of the Epistle in answering objections, yet an objector is never once formally introduced or
mentioned.
(3) Many of Paul’s expressions and phrases are liable to be
misunderstood, and capable of perversion. Of this class are
such expressions as “the righteousness of faith,” “the righteousness of God,” etc.
(4) The doctrines themselves are high and mysterious. They
are those subjects upon which the most profound minds have
been in all ages exercised in vain. On them there has been,
and always will be a difference of opinion. Even with the most honest intentions that people ever have, they find it difficult or impossible to approach the investigation of them without the bias of early education or the prejudice of previous opinion. In this world, it is not given to human beings to fully understand these great doctrines. ….
(5) It cannot be denied that one reason why the epistles of
Paul have been regarded as so difficult has been an
unwillingness to admit the truth of the plain doctrines which he teaches. The heart is by nature opposed to them and comes to believe them with great reluctance. This feeling will account for no small part of the difficulties felt in regard to this Epistle. There is one great maxim in interpreting the Scriptures that can never be departed from. It is, that people can never understand them aright, until they are willing to allow them to speak out their fair and proper meaning. When
people are determined not to find certain doctrines in the Bible, nothing is more natural than that they should find difficulties in it, and complain much of its great obscurity and mystery. I add,
244
(6) That one principal reason why so much difficulty has been felt here, has been an unwillingness to stop where the
apostle does. People have desired to advance further, and penetrate the mysteries which the Spirit of inspiration has not disclosed. Where Paul states a simple fact, people often
advance a theory. The fact may be clear and plain; their theory is obscure, involved, mysterious, or absurd. By degrees they learn to unite the fact and the theory. They regard their explanation as the only possible one; and, since the fact in question has the authority of divine revelation, so they insensibly come to regard their theory in the same light; and the one who calls into question their speculation about
the cause, or the mode, is set down as heretical, and as denying the doctrine of the apostle. A melancholy instance
of this we have in the account which the apostle gives Rom.
5 about the effect of the sin of Adam. The simple fact is stated that that sin was followed by the sin and ruin of all his posterity.
Yet he offers no explanation of the fact. He leaves it as indubitable; and as not demanding an explanation in his argument - perhaps as not admitting it. This is the whole of
his doctrine on that subject. Yet people have not been satisfied with that. They have sought for a theory to account for it. And many suppose that they have found it in the doctrine that the sin of Adam is imputed, or set over by an
arbitrary arrangement to Beings otherwise innocent, and that
they are held to be responsible for a deed committed by a man thousands of years before they were born. This is the theory; and people insensibly forget that it is mere theory, and they blend that and the fact which the apostle states together; and deem the denial of the one, heresy as much as
the denial of the other, i. e., they make it as impious to call into question their philosophy, as to doubt the facts stated on 245
the authority of the apostle Paul. If people desire to understand the epistles of Paul, and avoid difficulties, they should be willing to leave it where he does; and this single
rule would have made useless several years and entire volumes of controversy.
Perhaps, on the whole, there is no book of the New
Testament that demands more a humble, docile, and
prayerful disposition in its interpretation than this Epistle. Its profound doctrines, its abstruse inquiries, and the opposition of many of those doctrines to the views of the unrenewed and unsubdued heart of man, make a spirit of docility and
prayer especially necessary in its investigation. No one has
ever understood the reasonings and views of the apostle Paul
except under the influence of elevated piety. No one has ever found opposition to his doctrines recede, and difficulties vanish, who did not bring the mind in an humble frame to
receive all that has been revealed; and that, in a spirit of humble prayer, did not purpose to lay aside all bias and open the heart to the full influence of the elevated truths which the apostle Paul inculcates. Where there is a willingness that God should reign and do all His pleasure, this Epistle to the Romans may, in its general character, be easily understood.
Where this is something lacking, it will appear full of mystery and perplexity; the mind will be embarrassed, and
the heart dissatisfied with its doctrines; and the unhumbled
spirit will rise from its study only confused, irritated, perplexed, and dissatisfied.2
Conclusion
In the next part, we will take up Paul’s journey as he continues on toward Jerusalem.
246
1 eSword 13.0.0, Rick Meyers, copyright 2000-2021: Albert Barnes Commentary on Romans 2 IBID
247