Romans 1:1–1:17

Romans 1:1-7 1. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 1. Paulus, servus Iesu Christi, vocatus Apostolus, selectus in Evangelium Dei, 2. (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 2. Quod ante promiserat per Prophetas suos in Scripturis Sanctis, 3. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 3. De Filio suo, qui factus est ? semine David secundum carnem, 4. And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: 4. Declaratus Filius Dei in potentia, per Spiritum sanctificationis, ex resurrectione mortuorum, Iesu Christo Domino nostro: 5. By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: 5. Per quem accepimus gratiam et Apostolatum, in obedientiam fidei inter omnes gentes, pro nomine ipsius; 6. Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: 6. Inter quas estis etiam vos, vocati Iesu Christi: 7. To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. 7. Omnibus qui Rom? estis, dilectis Deo, vocatis sanctis: gratia vobis, et pax a Deo Patre nostro, et Domino Iesu Christo. 1. Paul, etc. [11] -- With regard to the word Paul, as it is a subject of no such moment as ought to detain us, and as nothing can be said which has not been mentioned by other expounders, I should say nothing, were it not proper to satisfy some at small expense without being tedious to others; for the subject shall be despatched in a very few words. They who think that the Apostle attained this name as a trophy for having brought Sergius, the proconsul, to the faith of Christ, are confuted by the testimony of Luke, who shows that he was so called before that time. ( Acts 13:7 , 9.) Nor does it seem probable to me, that it was given him when he was converted to Christ; though this idea so pleased Augustine, that he took occasion refinedly to philosophize on the subject; for he says, that from a proud Saul he was made a very little (parvulum [12] ) disciple of Christ. More probable is the opinion of Origen, who thought that he had two names; for it is not unlikely to be true, that his name, Saul, derived from his kindred, was given him by his parents to indicate his religion and his descent; and that his other name, Paul, was added, to show his right to Roman citizenship; [13] they would not have this honor, then highly valued, to be otherwise than made evident; but they did not so much value it as to withhold a proof of his Israelitic descent. But he has commonly taken the name Paul in his Epistles, and it may be for the following reasons: because in the churches to which he wrote, it was more known and more common, more acceptable in the Roman empire, and less known among his own nation. It was indeed his duty to avoid the foolish suspicion and hatred under which the name of a Jew then labored among the Romans and in their provinces, and to abstain from inflaming the rage of his own countrymen, and to take care of himself. A servant of Jesus Christ, etc. -- He signalizes himself with these distinctions for the purpose of securing more authority to his doctrine; and this he seeks to secure by two things -- first, by asserting his call to the Apostleship; [14] and secondly, by showing that his call was not unconnected with the Church of Rome: for it was of great importance that he should be deemed an Apostle through God's call, and that he should be known as one destined for the Roman Church. He therefore says, that he was a servant of Christ, and called to the office of an Apostle, thereby intimating that he had not presumptuously intruded into that office. He then adds, that he was chosen, (selectum -- selected, [15] ) by which he more fully confirms the fact, that he was not one of the people, but a particular Apostle of the Lord. Consistently with this, he had before proceeded from what was general to what was particular, as the Apostleship was an especial service; for all who sustain the office of teaching are to be deemed Christ's servants, but Apostles, in point of honor, far exceed all others. But the choosing for the gospel, etc., which he afterwards mentions, expresses the end as well as the use of the Apostleship; for he intended briefly to show for what purpose he was called to that function. By saying then that he was servant of Christ, he declared what he had in common with other teachers; by claiming to himself the title of an Apostle, he put himself before others; but as no authority is due to him who willfully intrudes himself, he reminds us, that he was appointed by God. Then the meaning is, -- that Paul was a servant of Christ, not any kind of servant, but an Apostle, and that by the call of God, and not by presumptuous intrusion: then follows a clearer explanation of the Apostolic office, -- it was ordained for the preaching of the Gospel. For I cannot agree with those who refer this call of which he speaks to the eternal election of God; and who understand the separation, either that from his mother's womb, which he mentions in Galatians 1:15 , or that which Luke refers to, when Paul was appointed for the Gentiles: but I consider that he simply glories in having God as the author of his call, lest any one should think that he had through his own rashness taken this honor to himself. [16] We must here observe, that all are not fitted for the ministry of the word; for a special call is necessary: and even those who seem particularly fitted ought to take heed lest they thrust themselves in without a call. But as to the character of the Apostolic and of the Episcopal call, we shall consider it in another place. We must further observe, that the office of an Apostle is the preaching of the gospel. It hence appears what just objects of ridicule are those dumb dogs, who render themselves conspicuous only by their mitre and their crook, and boast themselves to be the successors of the Apostles! The word, servant, imports nothing else but a minister, for it refers to what is official. [17] I mention this to remove the mistake of those who too much refine on this expression and think that there is here to be understood a contrast between the service of Moses and that of Christ. 2. Which he had before promised, etc. -- As the suspicion of being new subtracts much from the authority of a doctrine, he confirms the faith of the gospel by antiquity; as though he said, "Christ came not on the earth unexpectedly, nor did he introduce a doctrine of a new kind and not heard of before, inasmuch as he, and his gospel too, had been promised and expected from the beginning of the world." But as antiquity is often fabulous, he brings witnesses, and those approved, even the Prophets of God, that he might remove every suspicion. He in the third place adds, that their testimonies were duly recorded, that is, in the Holy Scriptures. We may learn from this passage what the gospel is: he teaches us, not that it was promulgated by the Prophets but only promised. If then the Prophets promised the gospel, it follows, that it was revealed, when our Lord was at length manifested in the flesh. They are then mistaken who confound the promises with the gospel, since the gospel is properly the appointed preaching of Christ as manifested, in whom the promises themselves are exhibited. [18] 3. Concerning his own Son, etc. -- This is a remarkable passage, by which we are taught that the whole gospel is included in Christ, so that if any removes one step from Christ, he withdraws himself from the gospel. For since he is the living and express image of the Father, it is no wonder, that he alone is set before us as one to whom our whole faith is to be directed and in whom it is to center. It is then a definition of the gospel, by which Paul expresses what is summarily comprehended in it. I have rendered the words which follow, Jesus Christ our Lord, in the same case; which seems to me to be most agreeable with the context. We hence learn, that he who has made a due proficiency in the knowledge of Christ, has acquired every thing which can be learned from the gospel; and, on the other hand, that they who seek to be wise without Christ, are not only foolish, but even completely insane. Who was made, etc. -- Two things must be found in Christ, in order that we may obtain salvation in him, even divinity and humanity. His divinity possesses power, righteousness, life, which by his humanity are conveyed to us. Hence the Apostle has expressly mentioned both in the Summary he gives of the gospel, that Christ was manifested in the flesh -- and that in it he declared himself to be the Son of God. So John says; after having declared that the Word was made flesh, he adds, that in that flesh there was a glory as of the only-begotten Son of God. ( John 1:14 .) That he specially notices the descent and lineage of Christ from his ancestor David, is not superfluous; for by this he calls back our attention to the promise, that we may not doubt but that he is the very person who had been formerly promised. So well known was the promise made to David, that it appears to have been a common thing among the Jews to call the Messiah the Son of David. This then -- that Christ did spring from David -- was said for the purpose of confirming our faith. He adds, according to the flesh; and he adds this, that we may understand that he had something more excellent than flesh, which he brought from heaven, and did not take from David, even that which he afterwards mentions, the glory of the divine nature. Paul does further by these words not only declare that Christ had real flesh, but he also clearly distinguishes his human from his divine nature; and thus he refutes the impious raving of Servetus, who assigned flesh to Christ, composed of three untreated elements. 4. Declared [19] the Son of God, etc.: or, if you prefer, determined (definitus); as though he had said, that the power, by which he was raised from the dead, was something like a decree by which he was proclaimed the Son of God, according to what is said in Psalm 2:7 , "I have this day begotten thee:" for this begetting refers to what was made known. Though some indeed find here three separate evidences of the divinity of Christ -- "power," understanding thereby miracles -- then the testimony of the Spirit -- and, lastly, the resurrection from the dead -- I yet prefer to connect them together, and to reduce these three things to one, in this manner -- that Christ was declared the Son of God by openly exercising a real celestial power, that is, the power of the Spirit, when he rose from the dead; but that this power is comprehended, when a conviction of it is imprinted on our hearts by the same Spirit. The language of the Apostle well agrees with this view; for he says that he was declared by power, because power, peculiar to God, shone forth in him, and uncontestably proved him to be God; and this was indeed made evident by his resurrection. Paul says the same thing in another place; having stated, that by death the weakness of the flesh appeared, he at the same time extols the power of the Spirit in his resurrection; ( 2 Corinthians 13:4 ) This glory, however, is not made known to us, until the same Spirit imprints a conviction of it on our hearts. And that Paul includes, together with the wonderful energy of the Spirit, which Christ manifested by rising from the dead, the testimony which all the faithful feel in their hearts, is even evident from this -- that he expressly calls it the Spirit of Holiness; as though he had said, that the Spirit, as far as it sanctifies, confirms and ratifies that evidence of its power which it once exhibited. For the Scripture is wont often to ascribe such titles to the Spirit, as tend to illustrate our present subject. Thus He is called by our Lord the Spirit of Truth, on account of the effect which he mentions; ( John 14:17 ) Besides, a divine power is said to have shone forth in the resurrection of Christ for this reason -- because he rose by his own power, as he had often testified: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again," ( John 2:19 ;) "No man taketh it from me," etc.; ( John 10:18 ) For he gained victory over death, (to which he yielded with regard to the weakness of the flesh,) not by aid sought from another, but by the celestial operation of his own Spirit. 5. Through whom we have received, etc. -- Having completed his definition of the gospel, which he introduced for the recommendation of his office, he now returns to speak of his own call; and it was a great point that this should be proved to the Romans. By mentioning grace and apostleship apart, he adopts a form of speech, [20] which must be understood as meaning, gratuitous apostleship or the favor of the apostleship; by which he means, that it was wholly through divine favor, not through his own worthiness, that he had been chosen for so high an office. For though it has hardly any thing connected with it in the estimation of the world, except dangers, labors, hatred, and disgrace; yet before God and his saints, it possesses a dignity of no common or ordinary kind. It is therefore deservedly counted a favor. If you prefer to say, "I have received grace that I should be an Apostle," the sense would be the same. [21] The expression, on account of his name, is rendered by Ambrose, "in his name," as though it meant, that the Apostle was appointed in the place of Christ to preach the gospel, according to that passage, "We are ambassadors for Christ," etc. ( 2 Corinthians 5:20 .) Their opinion, however, seems better, who take name for knowledge; for the gospel is preached for this end -- that we may believe on the name of the Son of God. ( John 3:23 .) And Paul is said to have been a chosen vessel, to carry the name of Christ among the Gentiles. ( Acts 9:15 .) On account then of his name, which means the same, as though he had said, that I might make known what Christ is. [22] For the obedience of faith, etc. -- That is, we have received a command to preach the gospel among all nations, and this gospel they obey by faith. By stating the design of his calling, he again reminds the Romans of his office, as though he said, "It is indeed my duty to discharge the office committed to me, which is to preach the word; and it is your duty to hear the word and willingly to obey it; you will otherwise make void the vocation which the Lord has bestowed on me." We hence learn, that they perversely resist the authority of God and upset the whole of what he has ordained, who irreverently and contemptuously reject the preaching of the gospel; the design of which is to constrain us to obey God. We must also notice here what faith is; the name of obedience is given to it, and for this reason -- because the Lord calls us by his gospel; we respond to his call by faith; as on the other hand, the chief act of disobedience to God is unbelief, I prefer rendering the sentence, "For the obedience of faith," rather than, "In order that they may obey the faith;" for the last is not strictly correct, except taken figuratively, though it be found once in the Acts 6:7 . Faith is properly that by which we obey the gospel. [23] Among all nations, etc. It was not enough for him to have been appointed an Apostle, except his ministry had reference to some who were to be taught: hence he adds, that his apostleship extended to all nations. He afterwards calls himself more distinctly the Apostle of the Romans, when he says, that they were included in the number of the nations, to whom he had been given as a minister. And further, the Apostles had in common the command to preach the gospel to all the world; and they were not, as pastors and bishops, set over certain churches. But Paul, in addition to the general undertaking of the apostolic function, was constituted, by a special appointment, to be a minister to proclaim the gospel among the Gentiles. It is no objection to this, that he was forbidden to pass through Macedonia and to preach the word in Mysia: for this was done, not that there were limits prescribed to him, but that he was for a time to go elsewhere; for the harvest was not as yet ripe there. Ye are the called of Jesus Christ, etc. He assigns a reason more nearly connected with them -- because the Lord had already exhibited in them an evidence by which he had manifested that he had called them to a participation of the gospel. It hence followed, that if they wished their own calling to remain sure, they were not to reject the ministry of Paul, who had been chosen by the same election of God. I therefore take this clause, "the called of Jesus Christ," as explanatory, as though the particle "even" were inserted; for he means, that they were by calling made partakers of Christ. For they who shall be heirs of eternal life, are chosen by the celestial Father to be children in Christ; and when chosen, they are committed to his care and protection as their shepherd. [24] 7. To all of you who are at Rome, etc. By this happy arrangement he sets forth what there is in us worthy of commendation; he says, that first the Lord through his own kindness made us the objects of his favor and love; and then that he has called us; and thirdly, that he has called us to holiness: but this high honor only then exists, when we are not wanting to our call. Here a rich truth presents itself to us, to which I shall briefly refer, and leave it to be meditated upon by each individual: Paul does by no means ascribe the praise of our salvation to ourselves, but derives it altogether from the fountain of God's free and paternal love towards us; for he makes this the first thing -- God loves us: and what is the cause of his love, except his own goodness alone? On this depends our calling, by which in his own time he seals his adoption to those whom he had before freely chosen. We also learn from this passage that none rightly connect themselves with the number of the faithful, except they feel assured that the Lord is gracious, however unworthy and wretched sinners they may be, and except they be stimulated by his goodness and aspire to holiness, for he hath not called us to uncleanness, but to holiness. ( 1 Thessalonians 4:7 .) As the Greek can be rendered in the second person, I see no reason for any change. Grace to you and peace, etc. Nothing is more desirable than to have God propitious to us, and this is signified by grace; and then to have prosperity and success in all things flowing from him, and this is intimated by peace; for however things may seem to smile on us, if God be angry, even blessing itself is turned to a curse. The very foundation then of our felicity is the favor of God, by which we enjoy true and solid prosperity, and by which also our salvation is promoted even when we are in adversities. [25] And then as he prays to God for peace, we must understand, that whatever good comes to us, it is the fruit of divine benevolence. Nor must we omit to notice, that he prays at the same time to the Lord Jesus Christ for these blessings. Worthily indeed is this honor rendered to him, who is not only the administrator and dispenser of his Father's bounty to us, but also works all things in connection with him. It was, however, the special object of the Apostle to show, that through him all God's blessings come to us. [26] There are those who prefer to regard the word peace as signifying quietness of conscience; and that this meaning belongs to it sometimes, I do not deny: but since it is certain that the Apostle wished to give us here a summary of God's blessings, the former meaning, which is adduced by Bucer, is much the most suitable. Anxiously wishing then to the godly what makes up real happiness, he betakes himself, as he did before, to the very fountain itself, even the favor of God, which not only alone brings to us eternal felicity but is also the source of all blessings in this life. Footnotes: [11] "The inscription of the Pauline Epistles," says Turrettin, "is according to the manner of the ancients, both Greeks and Romans. They were wont to prefix their name; and to those to whom they wrote they added their good wishes." We have an example in Acts 23:26 . -- Ed. [12] Thereby expressing the meaning of Paulus, which in Latin is little. "Paul," says the quaint Elnathan Parr, "as signifies little, and indeed not unfitly, for he is reported to have been low in stature, and to have had a very small voice," which is thought to have been objected to him in 2 Corinthians 10:10 -- Ed. [13] Most writers agree in this view, regarding Saul as his Hebrew name and Paul as his Roman name. -- Ed. [14] "A called Apostle -- vocatus apostolus -- kletos apostolos;" our version is, "called to be an Apostle". Most consider "called" here in the sense of chosen or elected, "a chosen Apostle." Professor Stuart observes, that kletos in the writings of Paul has always the meaning of efficient calling, and signifies not only the invited, but the effectually invited. He refers to 1 Corinthians 1:1 , 2; 1 Corinthians 1:24 ; Romans 1:6 , 7; Romans 8:28 ; compared with Galatians 1:15 ; Jude 1:1 ; Hebrews 3:1 ; Romans 11:29 ; Ephesians 4:1 He was an Apostle by a call, or as Beza renders it, "by the call of God -- ex Dei vocatione apostolus." The meaning is the same as what he himself expresses it in Galatians 1:1 . Turrettin renders it, "Apostolus vocatione divina -- an Apostle by divine vocation." The difference between "a called Apostle" and "called to be an Apostle," is this, that the first conveys the idea that he obeyed the call, and the other does not. -- Ed. [15] Aphorismenos separated, set apart; "segregatus," Vulgate; "separatus, Beza. "The Pharisees," says Leigh, "were termed aphorismenos we may English them Separatists: they separated themselves to the study of the law, in which respect they might be called aphorismenos eis ton nomon, separated to the law. In allusion to this, saith Drusius, the Apostle is thought to have styled himself, Romans 1:1 , aphorismenon eis euangelion, separated unto the Gospel, when he was called from being a Pharisee to be a preacher of the Gospel." Separated is the word adopted both by Doddridge and Macknight, as well as by our own version. -- Ed. [16] Some combine the four separations. "Set apart in the eternal counsel of God, and from his mother's womb, Galatians 1:15 , and by the special commandment of the Holy Ghost, Acts 13:2 , confirmed by constitution of the Church, Acts 13:3 ; Galatians 2:9 ." -- Parr. But the object here seems to have been that stated by Calvin: nor is it just or prudent to connect any other idea with the word except that which the context requires; for to do so only tends to create confusion. -- Ed. [17] Moses, Joshua, David, Nehemiah, etc., where, in a similar sense, called servants; and also our Savior. They were officially servants. -- Ed [18] The verb is proepengeilato only here; it comes from epangellomai, which Schleusner says, means in the middle voice, to promise. "Which he had before promised." is then the proper rendering, and not "Which he formerly published," as proposed by Professor Stuart. Both Doddridge and Macknight have retained our version, with which that of Beza agrees. -- Ed. [19] "Declaratus," horisthentos. Some of the ancients, such as Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, and others, have given to this verb the meaning of is "proved -- deichthentos;" demonstrated -- apophanthentos;" "exhibited -- apodeichthontos;"etc. But it is said that the word has not this meaning in the New Testament, and that it means, limited, determined, decreed, constituted. Besides here, it is found only in Luke 22:22 ; Acts 2:23 ; Acts 10:42 ; Acts 11:29 ; Acts 17:26 ; Hebrews 4:7 . The word, determined, or constituted, if adopted here, would amount to the same thing, that is, that Christ was visibly determined or constituted the Son of God through the resurrection, or by that event. It was that which fixed, settled, determined, and manifestly exhibited him as the Son of God, clothed and adorned with his own power. Professor Stuart has conjured a number of difficulties in connection with this verse, for which there seems to be no solid reason. The phrase, the Son of God, is so well known from the usage of Scripture, that there is no difficulty connected with it: the full phrase is the only-begotten Son. To say that Christ's resurrection was no evidence of his divine nature, as Lazarus and others had been raised from the dead, appears indeed very strange. Did Lazarus rise through his own power? Did Lazarus rise again for our justification? Was his resurrection an attestation of any thing he had previously declared? The Revelation A. Barnes very justly says, that the circumstances connected with Christ were those which rendered his resurrection a proof of his divinity. Professor Hodge gives what he conceives to be the import of the two verses in these words, "Jesus Christ was, as to his human nature, the Son of David; but he was clearly demonstrated to be, as to his divine nature, the Son of God, by the resurrection from the dead." This view is taken by many, such as Pareus, Beza, Turrettin, etc. But the words, "according to the Spirit of Holiness" -- kata pneuma hagiosunes, are taken differently by others, as meaning the Holy Spirit. As the phrase is nowhere else found, it may be taken in either sense. That the divine nature of Christ is called Spirit, is evident. See 1 Corinthians 15:45 ; 2 Corinthians 3:17 ; Hebrews 9:14 , 1 Peter 3:18 Doddridge, Scott, and Chalmers, consider The Holy Spirit to be intended. The last gives this paraphrase: -- "Declared, or determinately marked out to be the Son of God and with power. The thing was demonstrated by an evidence, the exhibition of which required a putting forth of power, which Paul in another place represents as a very great and strenuous exertion, According to the working of his mighty power when he raised him from the dead.' -- The Spirit of Holiness, or the Holy Spirit. It was through the operation of the Holy Spirit that the divine nature was infused into the human at the birth of Jesus Christ; and the very same agent, it is remarkable, was employed in the work of the resurrection. Put to death in the flesh,' says Peter, and quickened by the Spirit.' We have only to do with the facts of the case. He was demonstrated to be the Son of God by the power of the Holy Spirit having been put forth in raising him from the dead." As to the genitive case after "resurrection," see a similar instance in Acts 17:32 The idea deduced by Calvin, that he is called here "the Spirit of Holiness," on account of the holiness he works in us, seems not well-founded, though advanced by Theodoret and Augustine. -- Ed. [20] "Hypellage," a figure in grammar, by which a noun or an adjective is put in a form or in a case different from that in which it ought grammatically to be. -- Ed. [21] If this view be taken, the best mode would be to render kai, even "favor, even the apostleship." But, as Wolfius says, "both words would perhaps be better rendered separately, and "grace" or favor be referred to the conversion of the Apostle himself, and "apostleship" to his office. See 1 Timothy 1:12-14 , and Acts 9:15 , Acts 13:2 ; Acts 22:21 . -- Ed [22] He has taken this clause before that which follows, contrary to the order of the text, because he viewed it as connected with the receiving of the apostleship. "Pro nomine ipsius," -- huper tou onomatos autou; "ad nominis ejus gloriam -- to the glory of his name," Turrettin; "for the purpose of magnifying his name," Chalmers Hodge observes, "Paul was an apostle that all nations might be obedient, to the honor of Jesus Christ, that is, so that his name may be known." Some, as Tholuck, connect the words with "obedience to the faith," as they render the phrase, and, in this sense, "that obedience might be rendered to the faith among all nations for the sake of his name." But it is better to connect the words with the receiving of the apostleship: it was received for two purposes -- that there might be the obedience of faith, and that the name of Christ might be magnified. -- Ed. [23] It might be rendered, "that there might be the obedience of faith," or, "in order to produce," or, "Promote the obedience of faith." The obedience is faith. The command is, "believe," and the obedience must correspond with it. To obey the faith, as in Acts 6:7 , is a different form of expression: the article is prefixed there, it is the faith, meaning the gospel. -- See 2 Thessalonians 1:8 . Professor Stuart and Haldane, agree in this view. The latter refers to Romans 10:3 , where the Israelites are charged for not submitting to God's righteousness; and, in verse 16, it is said, that they had not all obeyed the gospel, "for Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?" Then to believe the gospel is in an especial manner to obey it. -- Ed. [24] "The called of Jesus Christ," i.e., the called who belong to Christ. Kletos means, not only those to whom the external call of the gospel has been addressed, but those who have been also internally called." -- Stuart. The same author renders the words kletois hagiois, in the next verse, "chosen saints," or, "saints effectually called." -- Ed. [25] "The ancient Greeks and Romans," says Turrettin, "wished to those to whom they wrote, in the inscription of their epistles, health, joy, happiness; but Paul prays for far higher blessings even the favor of God, the fountain of all good things, and peace, in which the Hebrews included all blessings." -- Ed. [26] "From God our Father, -- if God, then able; if our Father, then willing to enrich us with his gifts: and from our Lord Jesus Christ, -- from our Lord, who has purchased them for us; from Jesus, for without these we cannot be saved; from Christ, for he is anointed with grace and peace, John 1:16 ." -- Parr

Paul, {1} a {2} {a} servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an {b} apostle, {c} separated unto the gospel of God, (1) The first part of the epistle contains a most profitable preface down to verse six. (2) Paul, exhorting the Romans to give diligent heed to him, in that he shows that he comes not in his own name, but as God's messenger to the Gentiles, entreats them with the weightiest matter that exists, promised long ago by God, by many good witnesses, and now at length indeed performed. (a) Minister, for this word servant is not taken in this place as set against the word freeman, but rather refers to and declares his ministry and office. (b) Whereas he said before in a general term that he was a minister, now he comes to a more special name, and says that he is an apostle, and that he did not take this office upon himself by his own doing, but that he was called by God, and therefore in this letter of his to the Romans he is doing nothing but his duty. (c) Appointed by God to preach the gospel.

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, Paul — A little man, it should seem by his name (such as was James the Less, Mark 15:40 ): but as the Church of Philadelphia (discommended for nothing), though she had but a little strength, yet had a great door set open; and as Bethlehem was the least, and yet not the least among the princes of Judah; so was this apostle the last, 1 Corinthians 15:8 ; 1 Corinthians 15:8 ; (and perhaps the least in stature), as one born out of due time. See Trapp on " Acts 13:9 " Revelation 3:9 ; Matthew 2:6 ; cf. Micah 5:2 ; 1 Corinthians 15:8 . But God (who loves to be maximus in minimis the greatest in the least) had designed him to great services, and gifted him accordingly, so that he was no whit behind the very chiefest of the apostles, 2 Corinthians 11:5 ; and for painstaking, he laboured more abundantly than they all, 1 Corinthians 15:10 . Hence Chrysostom calleth him insatiabilem Dei cultorem, an insatiable servant of Christ. And himself seems as insatiable a praiser of this apostle (the apostle he commonly nameth him "by an excellency"), for he hath written eight homilies in his commendation. And if any think he hath said too much, it is because either they have not read him, or cannot judge his worth. Qui tricubitalis caelos transcendit (as the same father saith), little though he were, yet he got above the heavens. b A servant of Jesus Christ — This is a higher title than monarch of the world, as Numa, second king of Rome, could say. του θεου υπηρεσιαν βασιλευειν ενομιζεν . Plut. Constantinus, Valentinus, and Theodosius, three emperors, called themselves Vasallos Christi, the vassals of Christ, as Socrates reporteth.

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ,.... The name of the author of this epistle is Paul, who formerly was called Saul. Some think his name was changed upon his own conversion; others, upon the conversion of the Roman deputy Sergius Paulus, Acts 13:7 ; others, that he was so called from the littleness of his stature; but rather it should seem that he had two names, which was usual with the Jews; one by which they went among the Gentiles, and another by they were called in their own land; See Gill on Acts 13:9 . "A servant of Jesus Christ"; not a servant of sin, nor of Satan, nor of man, nor of Moses and his law, nor of the traditions of the elders, but of Jesus Christ; and not by creation only, but by redemption, and by powerful efficacious grace in conversion; which is no ways contrary to true liberty; nor a disgraceful, but a most honourable character; and which chiefly regards him as a minister of the Gospel: called to be an apostle: an apostle was one that was immediately sent by Christ, and had his authority and doctrine directly from him, and had a power of working miracles from him, in confirmation of the truth of his mission, authority, and doctrine; all which were to be found in the author of this epistle, who did not thrust himself into this office, or take this honour to himself, of which he always judged himself unworthy, but was "called" to it according to the will, and by the grace of God: separated unto the Gospel of God. This may regard either God's eternal purpose concerning him, his preordination of him from eternity to be a preacher of the Gospel, to which he was separated from his mother's womb, Galatians 1:15 ; or the separation of him to that work made by the order of the Spirit of God, Acts 13:2 . The phrase used is either in allusion to the priests and Levites, who were separated from their brethren the children of Israel, to their sacred employments; or rather to the apostle's having been "a Pharisee", which signifies "one separated", as he was now; only with this difference, before he was separated to the law, but now "to the Gospel", to preach and defend it, which he did with all faithfulness and integrity; the excellency of which Gospel is signified by its being called "the Gospel of God": he is the author of it; his grace is the subject of it; and he it is who commits it to men, qualifies them for the preaching of it, and succeeds them in it.

The doctrine of which the apostle Paul wrote, set forth the fulfilment of the promises by the prophets. It spoke of the Son of God, even Jesus the Saviour, the promised Messiah, who came from David as to his human nature, but was also declared to be the Son of God, by the Divine power which raised him from the dead. The Christian profession does not consist in a notional knowledge or a bare assent, much less in perverse disputings, but in obedience. And all those, and those only, are brought to obedience of the faith, who are effectually called of Jesus Christ. Here is, 1. The privilege of Christians; they are beloved of God, and are members of that body which is beloved. 2. The duty of Christians; to be holy, hereunto are they called, called to be saints. These the apostle saluted, by wishing them grace to sanctify their souls, and peace to comfort their hearts, as springing from the free mercy of God, the reconciled Father of all believers, and coming to them through the Lord Jesus Christ.

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE ROMANS Commentary by David Brown INTRODUCTION The Genuineness of the Epistle to the Romans has never been questioned. It has the unbroken testimony of all antiquity, up to Clement of Rome, the apostle's "fellow laborer in the Gospel, whose name was in the Book of Life" (Php 4:3), and who quotes from it in his undoubted Epistle to the Corinthians, written before the close of the first century. The most searching investigations of modern criticism have left it untouched. When and Where this Epistle was written we have the means of determining with great precision, from the Epistle itself compared with the Acts of the Apostles. Up to the date of it the apostle had never been at Rome (Ro 1:11, 13, 15). He was then on the eve of visiting Jerusalem with a pecuniary contribution for its Christian poor from the churches of Macedonia and Achaia, after which his purpose was to pay a visit to Rome on his way to Spain (Ro 15:23-28). Now this contribution we know that he carried with him from Corinth, at the close of his third visit to that city, which lasted three months (Ac 20:2, 3; 24:17). On this occasion there accompanied him from Corinth certain persons whose names are given by the historian of the Acts (Ac 20:4), and four of these are expressly mentioned in our Epistle as being with the apostle when he wrote it—Timotheus, Sosipater, Gaius, and Erastus (Ro 16:21, 23). Of these four, the third, Gaius, was an inhabitant of Corinth (1Co 1:14), and the fourth, Erastus, was "chamberlain of the city" (Ro 16:23), which can hardly be supposed to be other than Corinth. Finally, Phœbebe, the bearer, as appears, of this Epistle, was a deaconess of the Church at Cenchrea, the eastern port of Corinth (Ro 16:1). Putting these facts together, it is impossible to resist the conviction, in which all critics agree, that Corinth was the place from which the Epistle was written, and that it was despatched about the close of the visit above mentioned, probably in the early spring of the year 58. The Founder of this celebrated church is unknown. That it owed its origin to the apostle Peter, and that he was its first bishop, though an ancient tradition and taught in the Church of Rome as a fact not to be doubted, is refuted by the clearest evidence, and is given up even by candid Romanists. On that supposition, how are we to account for so important a circumstance being passed by in silence by the historian of the Acts, not only in the narrative of Peter's labors, but in that of Paul's approach to the metropolis, of the deputations of Roman "brethren" that came as far as Appii Forum and the Three Taverns to meet him, and of his two years' labors there (Ac 28:15, 30)? And how, consistently with his declared principle—not to build on another man's foundation (Ro 15:20)—could he express his anxious desire to come to them that he might have some fruit among them also, even as among other Gentiles (Ro 1:13), if all the while he knew that they had the apostle of the circumcision for their spiritual father? And how, if so, is there no salutation to Peter among the many in this Epistle? or, if it may be thought that he was known to be elsewhere at that particular time, how does there occur in all the Epistles which our apostle afterwards wrote from Rome not one allusion to such an origin of the church at Rome? The same considerations would seem to prove that this church owed its origin to no prominent Christian laborer; and this brings us to the much-litigated question. For What Class of Christians was this Epistle principally designed—Jewish or Gentile? That a large number of Jews and Jewish proselytes resided at this time at Rome is known to all who are familiar with the classical and Jewish writers of that and the immediately subsequent periods; and that those of them who were at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Ac 2:10), and formed probably part of the three thousand converts of that day, would on their return to Rome carry the glad tidings with them, there can be no doubt. Nor are indications wanting that some of those embraced in the salutations of this Epistle were Christians already of long standing, if not among the earliest converts to the Christian faith. Others of them who had made the apostle's acquaintance elsewhere, and who, if not indebted to him for their first knowledge of Christ, probably owed much to his ministrations, seemed to have charged themselves with the duty of cherishing and consolidating the work of the Lord in the capital. And thus it is not improbable that up to the time of the apostle's arrival the Christian community at Rome had been dependent upon subordinate agency for the increase of its numbers, aided by occasional visits of stated preachers from the provinces; and perhaps it may be gathered from the salutations of the last chapter that it was up to that time in a less organized, though far from less flourishing state, than some other churches to whom the apostle had already addressed Epistles. Certain it is, that the apostle writes to them expressly as a Gentile Church (Ro 1:13, 15; 15:15, 16); and though it is plain that there were Jewish Christians among them, and the whole argument presupposes an intimate acquaintance on the part of his readers with the leading principles of the Old Testament, this will be sufficiently explained by supposing that the bulk of them, having before they knew the Lord been Gentile proselytes to the Jewish faith, had entered the pale of the Christian Church through the gate of the ancient economy. It remains only to speak briefly of the Plan and Character Of this Epistle. Of all the undoubted Epistles of our apostle, this is the most elaborate, and at the same time the most glowing. It has just as much in common with a theological treatise as is consistent with the freedom and warmth of a real letter. Referring to the headings which we have prefixed to its successive sections, as best exhibiting the progress of the argument and the connection of its points, we here merely note that its first great topic is what may be termed the legal relation of man to God as a violator of His holy law, whether as merely written on the heart, as in the case of the heathen, or, as in the case of the Chosen People, as further known by external revelation; that it next treats of that legal relation as wholly reversed through believing connection with the Lord Jesus Christ; and that its third and last great topic is the new life which accompanies this change of relation, embracing at once a blessedness and a consecration to God which, rudimentally complete already, will open, in the future world, into the bliss of immediate and stainless fellowship with God. The bearing of these wonderful truths upon the condition and destiny of the Chosen People, to which the apostle next comes, though it seem but the practical application of them to his kinsmen according to the flesh, is in some respects the deepest and most difficult part of the whole Epistle, carrying us directly to the eternal springs of Grace to the guilty in the sovereign love and inscrutable purposes of God; after which, however, we are brought back to the historical platform of the visible Church, in the calling of the Gentiles, the preservation of a faithful Israelitish remnant amidst the general unbelief and fall of the nation, and the ultimate recovery of all Israel to constitute, with the Gentiles in the latter day, one catholic Church of God upon earth. The remainder of the Epistle is devoted to sundry practical topics, winding up with salutations and outpourings of heart delightfully suggestive. CHAPTER 1 Ro 1:1-17. Introduction. 1. Paul—(See on [2162]Ac 13:9). a servant of Jesus Christ—The word here rendered "servant" means "bond-servant," or one subject to the will and wholly at the disposal of another. In this sense it is applied to the disciples of Christ at large (1Co 7:21-23), as in the Old Testament to all the people of God (Isa 66:14). But as, in addition to this, the prophets and kings of Israel were officially "the servants of the Lord" (Jos 1:1; Ps 18:1, title), the apostles call themselves, in the same official sense, "the servants of Christ" (as here, and Php 1:1; Jas 1:1; 2Pe 1:1; Jude 1), expressing such absolute subjection and devotion to the Lord Jesus as they would never have yielded to a mere creature. (See on [2163]Ro 1:7; [2164]Joh 5:22, 23). called to be an apostle—when first he "saw the Lord"; the indispensable qualification for apostleship. (See on [2165]Ac 9:5; [2166]Ac 22:14; [2167]1Co 9:1). separated unto the—preaching of the gospel—neither so late as when "the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul" (Ac 13:2), nor so early as when "separated from his mother's womb" (see on [2168]Ga 1:15). He was called at one and the same time to the faith and the apostleship of Christ (Ac 26:16-18). of God—that is, the Gospel of which God is the glorious Author. (So Ro 15:16; 1Th 2:2, 8, 9; 1Pe 4:17). Rom 1:1-7 Paul, commending to the Romans his calling, greets them, Rom 1:8-15 and professes his concern for, and desire of coming to see them. Rom 1:16,17 He shows that the gospel is for the justification of all mankind through faith. Rom 1:18-32 And having premised that sinners in general are obnoxious to God's wrath, he describes at large the corruption of the Gentile world. A servant of Jesus Christ, is a higher title than monarch of the world: several great emperors styled themselves Christ's vassals. He so calls himself, either in respect of his condition, which was common with him to all true Christians; or else in respect of his office. Of old, they who were in great offices were called the servants of God: see Jos 1:1 Neh 1:6 Psa 132:10 . Or else in respect of his singular and miraculous conversion: by reason of which, he thought himself so obliged to Christ, that he wholly addicted or devoted himself to his service. Called to be an apostle; appointed to that high office by the immediate call of Christ himself: see Gal 1:1 Tit 1:3 . The history of this call you have in Act 9:15 . Two things are couched in this phrase: 1. That he did not take this honour to himself, but was thereunto appointed and called of God. 2. That this apostolical dignity was not by any desert of his, but by grace only, and the free gift of him that calleth. It was formerly matter of admiration, and so it became a proverb in Israel: Is Saul also among the prophets? And we may say, with great astonishment, Is Saul also among the apostles? He that a little before had seen him doing what he is recorded to have done, Act 26:10,11 , would never have dreamed of any such thing. Separated; either from his mother's womb, in the purpose of God, Gal 1:15 ; so Jeremiah of old, Jer 1:5 . Or else it may have respect to Act 13:2 , where the Holy Ghost did actually order he should be separated for the work to which he had called him. The Greek word, in both places, is the same. Or else it may respect the more immediate commission he had from Christ himself, Act 9:15 26:16-18 . Some think he alludes to the name of Pharisee, which is from separating: when he was a Pharisee, he was separated to the law of God; and now, being a Christian, he was separated to the gospel of God. Unto the gospel of God; that is, to the preaching and publishing of it. The gospel is sometimes called the gospel of God, as in this place; and sometimes the gospel of Christ, as in Rom 1:16 : it is said to be the gospel of God, because he is the author of it, it is not a human invention; and it is said to be the gospel of Christ, because he is the matter and subject of it.

Paul - The original name of the author of this Epistle was "Saul." Acts 7:58 ; Acts 7:1 ; Acts 8:1 , etc. This was changed to Paul (see the note at Acts 13:9 ), and by this name he is generally known in the New Testament. The reason why he assumed this name is not certainly known. It was, however, in accordance with the custom of the times; see the note at Acts 13:9 . The name Saul was Hebrew; the name Paul was Roman. In addressing a letter to the Romans, he would naturally make use of the name to which they were accustomed, and which would excite no prejudice among them. The ancient custom was to begin an epistle with the name of the writer, as Cicero to Varro, etc. We record the name at the end. It may be remarked, however, that the placing the name of the writer at the beginning of an epistle was always done, and is still, when the letter was one of authority, or when it conferred any special privileges. Thus, in the proclamation of Cyrus Ezra 1:2 , "Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia," etc.; see also Ezra 4:11 ; Ezra 7:12 . "Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the priest," etc. Daniel 4:1 . The commencement of a letter by an apostle to a Christian church in this manner was especially proper as indicating authority. A servant - This name was what the Lord Jesus himself directed His disciples to use, as their general appellation; Matthew 10:25 ; Matthew 20:27 ; Mark 10:44 . And it was the customary name which they assumed; Galatians 1:10 ; Colossians 4:12 ; 2 Peter 1:1 ; Jde 1:1; Acts 4:29 ; Titus 1:1 ; James 1:1 . The proper meaning of this word servant, δοῦλος doulos, is slave, one who is not free. It expresses the condition of one who has a master, or who is at the control of another. It is often, however, applied to courtiers, or the officers that serve under a king: because in an eastern monarchy the relation of an absolute king to his courtiers corresponded nearly to that of a master and a slave. Thus, the word is expressive of dignity and honor; and the servants of a king denote officers of a high rank and station. It is applied to the prophets as those who were honored by God, or especially entrusted by him with office; Deuteronomy 34:5 ; Joshua 1:2 ; Jeremiah 25:4 . The name is also given to the Messiah, Isaiah 42:1 , "Behold my servant in whom my soul delighteth," etc.; Isaiah 53:11 , "shall my righteous servant justify many." The apostle uses it here evidently to denote his acknowledging Jesus Christ as his master; as indicating his dignity, as especially appointed by him to his great work; and as showing that in this Epistle he intended to assume no authority of his own, but simply to declare the will of his master, and theirs. Called to be an apostle - This word called means here not merely to be invited, but has the sense of appointed. It indicates that he had not assumed the office himself, but that he was set apart to it by the authority of Christ himself. It was important for Paul to state this, (1) Because the other apostles had been called or chosen to this work John 15:16 , John 15:19 ; Matthew 10:1 ; Luke 6:13 ; and, (2) Because Paul was not one of those originally appointed. It was of consequence for him therefore, to affirm that he had not taken this high office to himself, but that he had been called to it by the authority of Jesus Christ. His appointment to this office he not infrequently takes occasion to vindicate; 1 Corinthians 9:1 , etc.: Galatians 1:12-24 ; 2 Corinthians 12:12 ; 1 Timothy 2:7 ; 2 Timothy 1:11 ; Romans 11:13 . An apostle - One sent to execute a commission. It is applied because the apostles were sent out by Jesus Christ to preach his gospel, and to establish his church; Matthew 10:2 note; Luke 6:13 note. Separated - The word translated "separated unto," ἀφορίζω aphorizō, means to designate, to mark out by fixed limits, to bound as a field, etc. It denotes those who are "separated," or called out from the common mass; Acts 19:9 ; 2 Corinthians 6:17 . The meaning here does not materially differ from the expression, "called to be an apostle," except that perhaps this includes the notion of the purpose or designation of God to this work. Thus, Paul uses the same word respecting himself; Galatians 1:15 , "God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace," that is, God designated me; marked me out; or designed that I should be an apostle from my infancy. In the same way Jeremiah was designated to be a prophet; Jeremiah 1:5 . Unto the gospel of God - Designated or designed by God that I should make it "my business" to preach the gospel. Set apart to this, as the special, great work of my life; as having no other object for which I should live. For the meaning of the word "gospel," see the note at Matthew 1:1 . It is called the gospel of God because it is his appointment; it has been originated by him, and has his authority. The function of an apostle was to preach the gospel Paul regarded himself as separated to this work. It was not to live in splendor, wealth, and ease, but to devote himself to this great business of proclaiming good news, that God was reconciled to people in his Son. This is the sole business of all ministers of "religion."

The Apostle Paul When Paul and the other Apostles were called to enter upon their important duties, the world was in a deplorable and yet most interesting state. Both Heathenism and Judaism were in the last stages of decay. The polytheism of the Greeks and Romans had been carried to such an extent as to shock the common sense of mankind, and to lead the more intelligent among them openly to reject and ridicule it. This skepticism had already extended itself to the mass of the people, and become almost universal. As the transition from infidelity to superstition is certain, and generally immediate, all classes of the people were disposed to confide in dreams, enchantments, and other miserable substitutes for religion. The two reigning systems of philosophy, the Stoic and Platonic, were alike insufficient to satisfy the agitated minds of men. The former sternly repressed the best natural feelings of the soul, insulating nothing but a blind resignation to the unalterable course of things, and promising nothing beyond an unconscious existence hereafter. The latter regarded all religions as but different forms of expressing the same general truths, and represented the whole mythological system as an allegory, as incomprehensible to the common people as the pages of a book to those who cannot read. This system promised more than it could accomplish. It excited feelings which it could not satisfy, and thus contributed to produce that general ferment which existed at this period. Among the Jews, generally, the state of things was hardly much better. They had, indeed, the form of true religion, but were in a great measure destitute of its spirit. The Pharisees were contented with the form; the Sadducees were skeptics; the Essenes were enthusiasts and mystics. Such being the state of the world, men were led to feel the need of some surer guide than either reason or tradition, and some better foundation of confidence than either heathen philosophers or Jewish sects could afford. Hence, when the glorious gospel was revealed, thousands of hearts, in all parts of the world, were prepared, by the grace of God, to exclaim, This is all our desire and all our salvation! The history of the apostle Paul shows that he was prepared to act in such a state of society. In the first place, he was born, and probably educated in part, at Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia; a city almost on a level with Athens and Alexandria, for its literary zeal and advantages. In one respect, it is said by ancient writers to have been superior to either of them. In the other cities mentioned, the majority of students were strangers, but in Tarsus they were the inhabitants themselves. ‹1› That Paul passed the early part of his life here is probable, because the trade which he was taught, in accordance with the custom of the Jews, was one peculiarly common in Cilicia. From the hair of the goats, with which that province abounded, a rough cloth was made, which was much used in the manufacture of tents. The knowledge which the apostle manifests of the Greek authors, 1 Corinthians 15:33 ; Titus 1:12 , would also lead us to suppose that he had received at least part of his education in a Grecian city. Many of his characteristics, as a writer, lead to the same conclusion. He pursues, far more than any other of the sacred writers of purely Jewish education, the logical method in presenting truth. There is almost always a regular concatenation in his discourses, evincing the spontaneous exercise of a disciplined mind, even when not carrying out a previous plan. His epistles, therefore, are far more logical than ordinary letters, without the formality of regular dissertations. Another characteristic of his manner is, that in discussing any question, he always presents the ultimate principle on which the decision depends. These and similar characteristics of this apostle are commonly, and probably with justice, ascribed partly to his turn of mind, and partly to his early education. We learn from the Scriptures themselves, that the Holy Spirit, in employing men as his instruments in conveying truth, did not change their mental habits; he did not make Jews write like Greeks, or force all into the same mold. Each retained his own peculiarities of style and manner, and, therefore, whatever is peculiar to each, is to be referred, not to his inspiration, but to his original character and culture. While the circumstances just referred to, render it probable that the apostles habits of mind were in some measure influenced by his birth and early education in Tarsus, there are others (such as the general character of his style) which show that his residence there could not have been long, and that his education was not thoroughly Grecian. We learn from himself, that he was principally educated at Jerusalem, being brought up, as he says, at the feet of Gamaliel. ( Acts 22:3 ). This is the second circumstance in the providential preparation of the apostle for his work, which is worthy of notice. As Luther was educated in a Roman Catholic seminary, and thoroughly instructed in the scholastic theology of which he was to be the great opposer, so the apostle Paul was initiated into all the doctrines and modes of reasoning of the Jews, with whom his principal controversy was to be carried on. The early adversaries of the gospel were all Jews. Even in the heathen cities they were so numerous, that it was through them and their proselytes that the church in such places was founded. We find, therefore, that in almost all his epistles, the apostle contends with Jewish terrorists, the corrupters of the gospel by means of Jewish doctrines. Paul, the most extensively useful of all the apostles, was thus a thoroughly educated man; a man educated with a special view to the work which he was called to perform. We find, therefore, in this, as in most similar cases, that God effects his purposes by those instruments which he has, in the ordinary course of his providence, specially fitted for their accomplishment. In the third place, Paul was converted without the intervention of human instrumentality, and was taught the gospel by immediate revelation. “I certify you, brethren,” he says to the Galatians, “that the gospel which was preached of me, is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” These circumstances are important, as he was thus placed completely on a level with the other apostles. He had seen the Lord Jesus, and could therefore be one of the witnesses of his resurrection; he was able to claim the authority of an original inspired teacher and messenger of God. It is obvious that he laid great stress upon this point, from the frequency with which he refers to it. He was thus furnished not only with the advantages of his early education, but with the authority and power of an apostle of Jesus Christ. His natural character was ardent, energetic, uncompromising, and severe. How his extravagance and violence were subdued by the grace of God, is abundantly evident from the moderation, mildness, tenderness, and conciliation manifested in all his epistles. Absorbed in the one object of glorifying Christ, he was ready to submit to anything, and to yield any thing necessary for this purpose. He no longer insisted that others should think and act just as he did. So that they obeyed Christ, he was satisfied; and he willingly conformed to their prejudices, and tolerated their errors, so far as the cause of truth and righteousness allowed. By his early education, by his miraculous conversion and inspiration, by his natural disposition, and by the abundant grace of God, was this apostle fitted for his work, and sustained under his multiplied and arduous labors. Origin and Condition of the Church at Rome One of the providential circumstances which most effectually contributed to the early propagation of Christianity, was the dispersion of the Jews among surrounding nations. They were widely scattered through the East, Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy, especially at Rome. As they were permitted, throughout the wide extent of the Roman Empire, to worship God according to the traditions of their fathers, synagogues were everywhere established in the midst of the heathen. The apostles, being Jews, had thus always a ready access to the people. The synagogues furnished a convenient place for regular assemblies, without attracting the attention or exciting the suspicion of the civil authorities. In these assemblies they were sure of meeting not only Jews, but the heathen also, and precisely the class of heathen best prepared for the reception of the gospel. The infinite superiority of the pure theism of the Old Testament Scriptures to any form of religion known to the ancients, could not fail to attract and convince multitudes among the pagans, wherever the Jewish worship was established. Such persons became either proselytes or “devout,” that is, worshippers of the true God. Being free from the inveterate national and religious prejudices of the Jews, and at the same time convinced of the falsehood of polytheism, they were the most susceptible of all the early hearers of the gospel. It was by converts from among this class of persons, that the churches in all the heathen cities were in a great measure founded. There is abundant evidence that the Jews were very numerous at Rome, and that the class of proselytes or devout persons among the Romans was also very large. Philo says ( Legatio in Caium, p. 1041, ed. Frankf.) that Augustus had assigned the Jews a large district beyond the Tiber for their residence. He accounts for their being so numerous, from the fact that the captives carried thither by Pompey were liberated by their masters, who found it inconvenient to have servants who adhered so strictly to a religion which forbade constant and familiar intercourse with the heathen. Dion Cassius ( Lib . 60, c. 6) mentions that the Jews were so numerous at Rome, that Claudius was at first afraid to banish them, but contented himself with forbidding their assembling together. That he afterwards, on account of the tumult which they occasioned, did banish them from the city, is mentioned by Suetonius ( Vita Claudii, c. 25), and by Luke, Acts 18:2 . That the Jews, on the death of Claudius, returned to Rome, is evident from the fact that Suetonius and Dion Cassius speak of their being very numerous under the following reigns: and also from the contents of this epistle, especially the salutations (Romans 16) addressed to Jewish Christians. That the establishment of the Jewish worship at Rome had produced considerable effect on the Romans, is clear from the statements of the heathen writers themselves. Ovid speaks of the synagogues as places of fashionable resort; Juvenal ( Satire 14) ridicules his countrymen for becoming Jews; ‹2› and Tacitus ( Hist. Lib. 5, chap. 5) ‹3› refers to the presents sent by Roman proselytes to Jerusalem. The way was thus prepared for the early reception and rapid extension of Christianity in the imperial city. When the gospel was first introduced there, or by whom the introduction was effected, is unknown. Such was the constant intercourse between Rome and the provinces, that it is not surprising that some of the numerous converts to Christianity made in Judea, Asia Minor, and Greece, should at an early period find their way to the capital. It is not impossible that many who had enjoyed the personal ministry of Christ, and believed in his doctrines, might have removed or returned to Rome, and been the first to teach the gospel in that city. Still less improbable is it, that among the multitudes present at Jerusalem at the day of Pentecost, among whom were “strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,” there were some who carried back the knowledge of the gospel. That the introductory of Christianity occurred at an early period, may be inferred not only from the probabilities just referred to, but from other circumstances. When Paul wrote this epistle, the faith of the Romans was spoken of throughout the world, which would seem to imply that the church had already been long established. Aquila and Priscilla, who left Rome on account of the decree of Claudius banishing the Jews, were probably Christians before their departure; nothing at least is said of their having been converted by the apostle. He found them at Corinth, and being of the same trade, he abode with them, and on his departure took them with him into Syria. The tradition of some of the ancient fathers, that Peter was the founder of the church at Rome, is inconsistent with the statements given in the Acts of the Apostles. Irenaeus ( Haeres. 3:1) says, that “Matthew wrote his gospel, while Peter and Paul were in Rome preaching the gospel and founding the church there.” And Eusebius (Chron. ad ann. 2 Claudii ) says, “Peter having founded the church at Antioch, departed for Rome, preaching the gospel.” Both these statements are incorrect. Peter did not found the church at Antioch, nor did he and Paul preach together at Rome. That Peter was not at Rome prior to Paul’s visit, appears from the entire silence of this epistle on the subject; and from no mention being made of the fact in any of the letters written from Rome by Paul during his imprisonment. The tradition that Peter ever was at Rome, rests on very uncertain authority. It is first mentioned by Dionysius of Corinth, in the latter half of the second century, and from that time it seems to have been generally receded. This account is in itself improbable, as Peter’s field of labor was in the East, about Babylon; and as the statement of Dionysius is full of inaccuracies. He makes Peter and Paul the founders of the church at Corinth, and makes the same assertion regarding the church at Rome, neither of which is true. He also says that Paul and Peter suffered martyrdom at the same time at Rome, which, from the silence of Paul respecting Peter, during his last imprisonment, is in the highest degree improbable. ‹4› History, therefore, has left us ignorant of the time when this church was founded, and the persons by whom the work was effected. The condition of the congregation may be inferred from the circumstances already mentioned, and from the drift of the apostle’s letter. As the Jews and proselytes were very numerous at Rome, the early converts, as might be expected, were from both these classes. The latter, however, seem greatly to have predominated, because we find no such evidence of a tendency to Judaism, as is supposed in the Epistle to the Galatians. Paul no where seems to apprehend that the church at Rome would apostatize, as the Galatian Christians had already done. And in Acts 14 and 15 his exhortations imply that the Gentile party were more in danger of oppressing the Jewish, than the reverse. Paul, therefore, writes to them as Gentiles ( Romans 1:13 ) and claims, in virtue of his office as apostle to the Gentiles, the right to address them with all freedom and authority ( Romans 15:16 ). The congregation, however, was not composed exclusively of this class; many converts, originally Jews, were included in their numbers, and those belonging to the other class were more or less under the influence of Jewish opinions. The apostle, therefore, in this, as in all his other epistles addressed to congregations similarly situated, refutes those doctrines of the Jews which were inconsistent with the gospel, and answers those objections which they and those under their influence were accustomed to urge against it. These different elements of the early churches were almost always in conflict, both as to points of doctrine and discipline. The Jews insisted, to a greater or less extent, on their peculiar privileges and customs; and the Gentiles disregarded, and at times despised the scruples and prejudices of their weaker brethren. The opinions of the Jews particularly controverted in this epistle are: 1. That connection with Abraham by natural descent, and by the bond of circumcision, together with the observance of the law, is sufficient to secure the favor of God. 2. That the blessings of the Messiah’s reign were to be confined to Jews and those who would consent to become proselytes. 3. That subjection to heathen magistrates was inconsistent with the dignity of the people of God, and with their duty to the Messiah as King. There are clear indications in other parts of Scripture, as well as in their own writings, that the Jews placed their chief dependence upon the covenant of God with Abraham, and the peculiar rites and ordinances connected with it. The Baptist, when speaking to the Jews, tells them, “Say not, We have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham,” ( Luke 3:8 ). It is clearly implied in this passage, that the Jews supposed that to have Abraham as their father was sufficient to secure the favor of God. The Rabbins taught that God had promised Abraham, that his descendants, though wicked, should be saved on account of his merit. Justin Martyr mentions this as the ground of confidence of the Jews in his day. “Your Rabbins,” he says, “deceive themselves and us, in supposing that the kingdom of heaven is prepared for all those who are the natural seed of Abraham, even though they be sinners and unbelieves.” ( Dialogue with Trypho ). They were accustomed to say, “Great is the virtue of circumcision; no circumcised person enters hell.” And one of their standing maxims was, “All Israel hath part in eternal life.” ‹5› The second leading error of the Jews was a natural result of the one just referred to. If salvation was secured by connection with Abraham, then none who were not united to their great ancestor could be saved. There is no opinion of the Jews more conspicuous in the sacred writings, than that they were greatly superior to the Gentiles; that the theocracy and all its blessings belonged to them; and that others could attain even an inferior station in the kingdom of the Messiah only by becoming Jews. The indisposition of the Jews to submit to heathen magistrates, arose partly from their high ideas of their own dignity, and their contempt for other nations; partly from their erroneous opinions of the nature of the Messiah’s kingdom; and partly, no doubt, from the peculiar hardships and oppressions to which they were exposed. The prevalence of this indisposition among them is proved by its being a matter of discussion whether it was even lawful to pay tribute to Caesar; by their assertion that, as Abraham’s seed, they were never in bondage to any man; and by their constant tumults and rebellions, which led first to their banishment from Rome, and finally to the utter destruction of their city. The circumstance of the church at Rome, composed of both Jewish and Gentile converts; surrounded by Jews who still insisted on the necessity of circumcision, of legal obedience, and of connection with the family of Abraham, in order to salvation; and disposed on many points to differ among themselves sufficiently account for the character of this epistle. Time and Place of its Composition There are no sufficient data for fixing accurately and certainly the chronology of the life and writings of the apostle Paul. It is, therefore, in most cases, only by a comparison of various circumstances, that an approximation to the date of the principal events of his life can be made. With regard to this epistle, it is plain, from its contents, that it was written just as Paul was about to set out on his last journey to Jerusalem. In the fifteenth chapter he says, that the Christians of Macedonia and Achaia had made a collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem, and that he was on this eve of his departure for that city ( Acts 15:25 ). This same journey is mentioned in Acts 15, and occurred most probably in the spring (see Acts 20:16 ) of the year 58 or 59. This date best suits the account of his long imprisonment, first at Cesarea, and then at Rome, of four years, and his probable liberation in 62 or 63. His subsequent labors and second imprisonment would fill up the intervening period of two or three years, to the date of his martyrdom, towards the close of the reign of Nero. That this epistle was written from Corinth, appears from the special recommendation of Phebe, a deaconess of the neighboring church, who was probably the bearer of the letter ( Romans 16:1 ); from the salutations of Erastus and Gaius, both residents of Corinth, to the Romans ( Romans 16:23 ); compare 2 Timothy 4:20 and 1 Corinthians 1:14 ; and from the account given in Acts 20:2 , Acts 20:3 , of Paul’s journey through Macedonia into Greece, before his departure for Jerusalem, for the purpose of carrying the contributions of the churches for the poor in that city. Authenticity of the Epistle That this epistle was written by the apostle Paul, admits of no reasonable doubt. 1. It, in the first place, purports to be his. It bears his signature, and speaks throughout in his name. 2. It has uniformly been recognized as his. From the apostolic age to the present time, it has been referred to, and quoted by a regular series of authors, and recognized as of divine authority in all the churches. It would be requisite, in order to disprove its authenticity, to account satisfactorily for these facts, on the supposition of the epistle being spurious. The passages in the early writers, in which this epistle is alluded to or cited, are very numerous, and may be seen in Eardner’s Credibility , Vol. 2. 3. The internal evidence is no less decisive in its favor. (a) In the first place, it is evidently the production of a Jew, familiar with the Hebrew text and the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, because the language and style are such as no one, not thus circumstanced, could adopt; and because the whole letter evinces such an intimate acquaintance with Jewish opinions and prejudices. (b It agrees perfectly in style and manner with the other epistles of this apostle. (c) It is, in the truth and importance of its doctrines, and in the elevation and purity of its sentiments, immeasurably superior to any uninspired production of the age in which it appeared. A comparison of the genuine apostolic writings with the spurious productions of the first and second centuries, affords one of the strongest collateral evidences of the authenticity and inspiration of the former. (d) The incidental or undesigned coincidences, as to matters of fact, between this epistle and other parts of the New Testament, are such as to afford the clearest evidence of its having proceeded from the pen of the apostle. Compare Romans 15:25-31 with Acts 20:2 , Acts 20:3 , Acts 24:17 ; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 ; 2 Corinthians 8:1-4 , 2 Corinthians 9:2 . Romans 16:21-23 with Acts 20:4 . Romans 16:3 et seq. with Acts 18:2 , Acts 18:18-26 ; 1 Corinthians 16:19 etc. (see Paley’s Horae Paulinae ). 4. Besides these positive proofs, there is the important negative consideration, that there are no grounds for questioning its authenticity. There are no discrepancies between this and other sacred writings; no counter testimony among the early Fathers; no historical or critical difficulties which must be solved before it can be recognized as the work of Paul. There is, therefore, no book in the Bible, and there is no ancient book in the world, of which the authenticity is more certain than that of this epistle. Analysis of the Epistle The epistle consists of three parts. The first, which includes the first eight chapters, is occupied in the discussion of the doctrine of justification and its consequences. The second, embracing Romans 9-11, treats of the calling of the Gentiles, the rejection and future conversion of the Jews. The third consists of practical exhortations and salutations to the Christians at Rome. The first part the apostle commences by saluting the Roman Christians, commending them for their faith, and expressing his desire to see them, and his readiness to preach the gospel at Rome. This readiness was founded on the conviction that the gospel revealed the only method by which men can be saved, viz., by faith in Jesus Christ, and this method is equally applicable to all mankind, Gentiles as well as Jews, Romans 1:1-17. Paul thus introduces the two leading topics of the epistle. In order to establish his doctrine respecting justification, he first proves that the Gentiles cannot be justified by their own works, Romans 1:18-32 ; and then establishes the same position in reference to the Jews, Romans 2; 3:1-20. Having thus shown that the method of justification by works is unavailable for sinners, he unfolds that method which is taught in the gospel, Romans 3:21-31 . The truth and excellence of this method he confirms in Romans 4 and 5. The obvious objection to the doctrine of gratuitous acceptance, that it must lead to the indulgence of sin, is answered, and the true design and operation of the law are exhibited in Romans 6 and 7; and the complete security of all who confide in Christ is beautifully unfolded in Romans 8. In arguing against the Gentiles, Paul assumes the principle that God will punish sin, Romans 1:18 , and then proves that they are justly chargeable both with impiety and immorality, because though they possessed a competent knowledge of God, they did not worship him, but turned unto idols, and gave themselves up to all kinds of iniquity, Romans 1:19-32 . He commences his argument with the Jews by expanding the general principle of the divine justice, and especially insisting on God’s impartiality by showing that he will judge all men, Jews and Gentiles, according to their works, and according to the light they severally enjoyed, Romans 2:1-16. He shows that the Jews, when tried by these rules, are as justly and certainly exposed to condemnation as the Gentiles, Romans 2:17-29 . The peculiar privileges of the Jews afford no ground of hope that they will escape being judged on the same principles with other men, and when thus judged, they are found to be guilty before God. All men, therefore, are, as the Scriptures abundantly teach, under condemnation, and consequently cannot be justified by their own works, Romans 3:1-20. The gospel proposes the only method by which God will justify men — a method which is entirely gratuitous; the condition of which is faith; which is founded on the redemption of Christ; which reconciles the justice and mercy of God; humbles man; lays the foundation for an universal religion, and establishes the law, Romans 3:21-31 . The truth of this doctrine is evinced from the example of Abraham, the testimony of David, the nature of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed, and from the nature of the law. He proposes the conduct of Abraham as an example and encouragement to Christians, Romans 4:1-25. Justification by faith in Christ secures peace with God, present joy, and the assurance of eternal life, Romans 5:1-11 . The method, therefore, by which God proposes to save sinners, is analogous to that by which they were first brought under condemnation. As on account of the offense of one, sentence has passed on all men to condemnation; so on account of the righteousness of one, all are justified, Romans 5:12-21 . The doctrine of the gratuitous justification of sinners cannot lead to the indulgence of sin, because such is the nature of union with Christ, and such the object for which he died, that all who receive the benefits of his death, experience the sanctifying influence of his life, Romans 6:1-11 . Besides, the objection in question is founded on a misapprehension of the effect and design of the law, and of the nature of sanctification. Deliverance from the bondage of the law and from a legal spirit is essential to holiness. When the Christian is delivered from this bondage, he becomes the servant of God, and is brought under an influence which effectually secures his obedience, Romans 6:12-23 . As, therefore, a woman, in order to be married to a second husband, must first be freed from her former one, so the Christian, in order to be united to Christ, and to bring forth fruit unto God, must first be freed from the law, Romans 7:1-6 . This necessity of deliverance from the law, does not arise from the fact that the law is evil, but from the nature of the case. The law is but the authoritative declaration of duty; which cannot alter the state of the sinner’s heart. Its real operation is to produce the conviction of sin ( Romans 7:7-13 ), and, in the renewed mind, to excite approbation and complacency in the excellence which it exhibits, but it cannot effectually secure the destruction of sin. This can only be done by the grace of God in Jesus Christ, Romans 7:7-25. Those who are in Christ, therefore, are perfectly safe. They are freed from the law; they have the indwelling of the life-giving Spirit: they are the children of God; they are chosen, called, and justified according to the divine purpose; and they are the objects of the unchanging love of God, Romans 8:1-39. The second part of the epistle relates to the persons to whom the blessings of Christ’s kingdom may properly be offered, and the purposes of God respecting the Jews. In entering upon this subject, the apostle after assuring his kindred of his affection, establishes the position that God has not bound himself to regard as his children all the natural descendants of Abraham, but is at perfect liberty to choose whom he will to be heirs of his kingdom. The right of God to have mercy on whom he will have mercy, he proves from the declarations of Scripture, and from the dispensations of his providence. He shows that this doctrine of the divine sovereignty is not inconsistent with the divine character or man’s responsibility, because God simply chooses from among the undeserving whom he will as the objects of his mercy, and leaves others to the just recompense of their sins, Romans 9:1-24. God accordingly predicted of old, that he would call the Gentiles and reject the Jews. The rejection of the Jews was on account of their unbelief, Romans 9:25-33 , Romans 10:1-5 . The two methods of justification are then contrasted for the purpose of showing that the legal method is impracticable, but that the method proposed in the gospel is simple and easy, and adapted to all men. It should, therefore, agreeably to the revealed purpose of God, be preached to all men, Romans 10:6-21. The rejection of the Jews is not total; many of that generation were brought into the church, who were of the election of grace, Romans 11:1-10 . Neither is this rejection final. There is to be a future and general conversion of the Jews to Christ, and thus all Israel shall be saved, Romans 11:11-36. The third or practical part of the epistle, consists of directions, first, as to the general duties of Christians in their various relations to God, Romans 12; secondly, as to their political or civil duties, Romans 13:1-14 ; and thirdly, as to their ecclesiastical duties, or those duties which they owe to each other as members of the church, Romans 14, 15, 1-13. The epistle concludes with some account of Paul’s labors and purposes, Romans 15:14-33, and with the usual salutations, Romans 16. Contents This chapter consists of two parts. The first extends to the close of Romans 1:17 , and contains the general introduction to the epistle. The second commences with Romans 1:18 , and extends to the end of the chapter: it contains the argument of the apostle to prove that the declaration contained in Romans 1:16 , Romans 1:17 , that justification can only be obtained by faith, is true with regard to the heathen. Romans 1:1-17 This section consists of two parts. The first from Romans 1:1-7 inclusive, is a salutatory address; the second, from Romans 1:8-17 , is the introduction to the epistle. Paul commences by announcing himself as a divinely commissioned teacher, set apart to the preaching of the gospel, Romans 1:1 . Of this gospel, he says, 1. That it was promised, and of course partially exhibited in the Old Testament, Romans 1:2 . 2. That its great subject was Jesus Christ, Romans 1:3 . Of Christ he says, that he was, as to his human nature, the Son of David; but as to his divine nature, the Son of God, Romans 1:3 , Romans 1:4 . From this Divine Person he had received his office as an apostle. The object of this office was to bring men to believe the gospel; and it contemplated all nations as the field of its labor, Romans 1:5 . Of course the Romans were included, Romans 1:6 . To the Roman Christians, therefore, he wishes grace and peace, Romans 1:7 . Thus far the salutation.