New Testament Study Helps:
    Paul's Letter to the Romans

Letter to the Church in Rome

1. The Church in Rome

1. the Origin of the Church.
   On this subject we know virtually nothing for certain, but there are some indications which help suggest a possible reconstruction. Paul had never visited the church at the time of writing the epistle and it seems by that time to have become fairly well established. The data available may be summarized as follows:

   1. It is almost certain that no apostle founded it. Paul claims, in Romans 15:20 that he did not build upon another man's foundation, and yet he seems to regard the Roman church as within the sphere of his own commission. The claim that Peter founded it is brought under serious suspicion by the fact that Peter was still in Jerusalem at the time of the Council (c.a. 50 AD), whereas it is almost certain that a church existed in Rome prior to this. Suetonius records that Claudius banished Jews from Rome in 49AD because there had been rioting at the instigation of one called Chrestus. While this may not be a reference to Christ, there is a strong possibility that Christians were somehow mixed up in the matter.

   2. There is no reference in this epistle to Peter and it is difficult to imagine that Paul could have written as he did if Peter had in fact founded the church.

   3. There is mention in Acts 2:10 of visiting Jews and proselytes from Rome who were among the crowds on the day of pentecost and may well have been converted. Such converts would have been well grounded in the Old testament scripture. Their knowledge of the life and teaching of Jesus would be continually increasing as christian travellers brought back with them accounts of apostolic preaching and teaching. In this way the Roman church must have heard a good deal about the work and ministry of paul before he wrote to them.

   4. Early external evidence connects the names of both Peter and paul with Rome. Clement of Rome (Adv Cor v.4) suggests they were both martyred there, while by the time of Tertullian the tradition of a double martyrdom was generally accepted.

2. The Composition of the Church.
   Of greater importance than its origin is the question whether the church was Jewish Christian, Gentile Christian, or a mixture of both, for the answer to this question affects our understanding of the historical situation to which Paul addressed himself. It has been suggested that the major portion of the church was Jewish on the grounds that the argument throughout the epistle is more applicable to Jews than to Gentiles, as for instance in the reference to Abraham as our father and the strong appeal to Old testament Scriptures. Yet in 1:5ff, paul includes the readers among the Gentiles to whom he has been particularly commissioned, while in 1:12-14 he compares them with "other Gentiles". When in 6:19 Paul states that the readers had offered their bodies in slavery to impurity, it might seem to support a Gentile group rather than a Jewish one. Moreover, in 11:13 the apostle says, "I am talking to you Gentiles", and it cannot easily be maintained that a minority within the church is being addressed here in view of 11:28-31, where the readers are said to have obtained mercy through Jewish unbelief.

2. Occasion and Date

Chapters 15 and 16 supply clear data for fixing the occasion of this letter.

1. Paul had been intending to visit the church but had been prevented (15:21f; 1:13). His purpose was to preach the gospel among them and to impart some spiritual gift (1:11,15).

2. Paul has just completed his collection for the poverty-stricken believers at Jerusalem (15:22ff), after having preached the gospel throughout the district from Jerusalem to Illyrcum. His face is set towards Jerusalem and this would identify the occasion with Acts 20:1 ff, and date the epistle in the year after Paul left Ephesus on the third missionary journey. It may therefore be confidently concluded that Paul was in Greece at the time of writing.

3. This conclusion is confirmed by the commendation of Phoebe (16:1-2) who belonged to the church at Cenchreae, the port of Corinth, the greeting of Gaius (16:23), Paul's host at the time, who may possibly be identified with the Corinthian whom Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 1:14; the greeting of Erastus, who held the important post of city treasurer (16:23) and who may possibly be identified with the man of the same name (who was left in Corinth) as mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:20; and the mention of Timothy and Sopater as sending greetings, since these were Paul's companions when he left Greece on his last journey to Jerusalem.

4. Paul's future missionary plans are directed towards work in Spain (15:24,28) and he hopes to gain the goodwill and support of the Roman Christians for this venture.

5. If the unity of chapters 15 and 16 with the rest of the epistle is maintained, the date for this epistle may be fixed approximately without much difficulty. Working from the time of Gallio's appointment to the proconsular office at Corinth, it is possible to calculate that Paul's departure from Corinth on his third missionary journey, en route for Jerusalem, took place either in 57 AD or 58. Any date for the epistle between 57 and 59 would fall within the quinquennium of Nero when law and order were established throughout the provinces, and this would agree with Paul's exhortation to the readers to respect the "authorities" (13:1).

3. Purpose

The purpose of the epistle arises naturally out of the occasion, but is not as easy to define with any precision. Paul's immediate purpose is to create interest in his Spanish mission, but that would not seem to account for the theological character of the letter. The traditional explanation sees in the epistle a *full* statement of Paul's doctrinal position. This really means it was more a treatise than a letter and bore little reference to the historical situation from which it arose.

4. Structure and Integrity

1. The Problem of chapter 16.

   1. There are several reasons which have prompted the hypothesis that this chapter was the whole or part of an epistle sent not to Rome but to Ephesus.

      1. Paul had never visited Rome and yet sends greetings to a large number of people in the church. This is considered unlikely. But it would be quite reasonable if these greetings were sent to Ephesus, where he had worked for about three years. Moreover, none of those mentioned in this chapter is mentioned in any of the later epistles which are generally thought to have been sent from Rome (ie: the captivity Epistles).

      2. Priscilla and Aquila and the church in their house are mentioned in 1 Corinthians 16:19, written shortly before the Roman epistle, but at that time they were residing in Ephesus. By the time paul writes to Rome after an interval of not more than two years at the most, probably much less, they had not only transferred their household to Rome but had established another Christian center there. The unlikelihood of this is said to be further accentuated by the fact that when 2 Timothy 4:19 was written they were once more at Ephesus.

      3. Epaenetus (16:5) is called "the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia". This is said to be a suitable description if he were then in Ephesus but would have little point if he were in Rome.

      4. Phoebe is commended in 16:1-2 and it is maintained that paul would have been more likely to send such commendation to a church he knew well than to a church he had never visited.

      5. The tone of the warning in 16:17-19 is thought to be alien to the tone of the rest of the epistle, in which the apostle's chief concerns about disunity center in Jewish-Gentile relationships (15:1-13). The warnings in 16:17-19, however, appear to be against a form of antinomianism which is known to have thrived at Ephesus.

      6. Chapter 15 ends with what have been the conclusion of a letter, which would support the contention that the final chapter was appended later dureing the transmission ofthe epistle.

   2. These reasons have appeared to some scholars conclusive that chapter 16 was in fact a letter to Ephesus appended to the Roman letter. But the grounds for the hypothesis are less conclusive than they appear given the following counter-considerations:

      1. There would be no parallel if this long series of greetings were sent to a church such as Ephesus which Paul knew well, for the only other occasion when he appended many personal greetings was when writing to Colossae which he had never visited. It was apparently against his policy to single out any individuals in churches that he knew well since he considered all the Christians to be his friends.

      2. Not only were there at that time extraordinary travel facilities to and from the imperial capital (Rome) which would make it not so improbable as it first seems that so many of Paul's acquaintances had migrated to Rome, but the position of Aquila and Priscilla may possibly be explained in the same way. The fact that at both Rome and Ephesus they had a church in their house suggests that they may have been financially well off. Dodd has argued that they might had had a business establishment in both cities at once. On the edict of Claudius they were obliged to leave, but this does not necessarily mean they had to close doen their business. The appointment of a non-Jewish manager would have been enough.

      3. There seems to be no particular reason why the first convert in Asia must have remained there, and so the reference to Epaenetus contributes nothin of value to the discussion.

      4. In the case of the commendation of Phoebe, it is by no means compelling reasoning that this was more probable when Paul was writing to a church where he was known. It would be so only if the writer were some obscure person of whom the church in question had no knowledge.

      5. Although 15:33 could be the ending of an epistle, it is without precedent among Paul's epistles.

5. Outline

In progress

Chicago-North Shore Therapy.com