Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary)

547 Pages·2016·2.91 MB·English

by  Leon Morris

The Epistle

to the

Romans

LEON MORRIS

THE PILLAR NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY

General Editor
D. A. CARSON

WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN / CAMBRIDGE, U.K.

© 1988 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

All rights reserved

Published 1988 in the U.K. by

APOLLOS (an imprint of Inter-Varsity Press)

38 De Montfront Street, Leicester, England LEI 7GP

and in the United States by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

255 Jefferson Ave. S.E., Grand Rapids, Mich. 49503

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Morris, Leon, 1914-

The Epistle to the Romans / by Leon Morris

Includes indexes.

Eerdmans ISBN 0-8028-3636-4

1. Bible. N.T. Romans-Commentaries. I. Title.

BS2665.3.M58 1987

227’.107 — dc19 87-28076

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Morris, Leon, 1914-

The Epistle to the Romans

1. Bible. N.T. Romans-Commentaries. I. Title.

227’.107

APOLLOS ISBN 0-85111-747-3

Unless otherwise stated, Scripture quotations in this publication are from the Holy Bible:

New International Version. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society.

Used in USA by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and

published in Great Britain by Hodder and Stoughton Ltd.

Contents

Preface
Chief Abbreviations

INTRODUCTION

AUTHORSHIP
DESTINATION

DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING
OCCASION
CONTENTS
THE SHORTER EDITION(S)
THE DESTINATION OF CHAPTER 16

ANALYSIS
TEXT, EXPOSITION, AND NOTES

ROMANS 1
ADDITIONAL NOTE A: THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD
ADDITIONAL NOTE B: TRUTH
ROMANS 2
ADDITIONAL NOTE C: THE LAW IN ROMANS
ADDITIONAL NOTE D: JUSTIFICATION
ADDITIONAL NOTE E: JUDGMENT
ROMANS 3
ADDITIONAL NOTE F: SIN
ROMANS 4
ROMANS 5
ROMANS 6
ROMANS 7
ROMANS 8
ROMANS 9
ROMANS 10
ROMANS 11
ROMANS 12
ROMANS 13
ROMANS 14
ROMANS 15
ROMANS 16

INDEXES

Subjects
Authors

Preface

Throughout the years I have frequently been occupied with Romans. I have worked with
it extensively while writing books on theology (especially the cross). I have lectured on it
many times, and am indebted to students in Britain, Canada, the United States, and
Australia for their interaction. But prior to this I have never written at length on Romans.
Now in my retirement I have finally had the opportunity to devote time to a commentary
on this great epistle. I offer it as my tribute to an apostle to whom I owe so much.

I have included the text of the New International Version as an aid to the reader.

Occasionally I have made my own translation (without specifically drawing attention to
it) in order to bring out some feature of the original. But the commentary is based on the
Greek text, not the translation. It has been my aim to make clear to the general reader
what I see in the Greek text, and it is my hope that this will be of some help to others who
are grappling with the thought of this great epistle.

LEON MORRIS

Chief Abbreviations

ABR
Australian Biblical Review

Achtemeier
Paul J. Achtemeier: Romans (Atlanta, 1985)

Alford
Henry Alford: The Greek Testament7 (London, 1874)

Althaus
Paul Althaus: Der Brief an die Römer (Gottingen, 1970)

ANF
Ante-Nicene Fathers (American repr. of the Edinburgh edn.; Grand Rapids,
n.d.)

ARV
The American Revised Version

AS
G. Abbott-Smith: A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament
(Edinburgh, 1954)

ASV
The American Standard Version

BAGD
Walter Bauer: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature, rev. and aug. by F. Wilbur Gingrich and
Frederick W. Danker from the 5th edn. (Chicago, 1979)

Barclay
William Barclay: The Letter to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1957)

Barrett
C. K. Barrett: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London,1957)

Barth
Karl Barth: The Epistle to the Romans (Oxford, 1933)

BDF
F. Blass and A. Debrunner: A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, trans.
and rev. R. W. Funk (Chicago, 1961)

Bengel
John Albert Bengel: Gnomon of the New Testament, II (Edinburgh, 1873)

Black
Matthew Black: Romans (London, 1973)

Bowen
Roger Bowen: A Guide to Romans (London, 1975)

Boylan
Patrick Boylan: St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Dublin, 1947)

Brown
John Brown: Analytical Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the
Romans (Grand Rapids, 1981 repr. of 1857 edn.)

Bruce
F. F. Bruce: The Letter of Paul to the Romans2 (Leicester, 1985)

Brunner
Emil Brunner: The Letter to the Romans (London, 1959)

Calvin
John Calvin: The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the
Thessalonians (Edinburgh, 1961)

CBQ
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CBSC
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

CGT
Cambridge Greek Testament

Chamberlain William Douglas Chamberlain: An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New

Testament (New York, 1941)

Christian
Words

Nigel Turner: Christian Words (Edinburgh, 1980)

Cragg
The Interpreter’s Bible, IX, "The Epistle to the Romans," exposition by
Gerald R. Cragg

Cranfield
C. E. B. Cranfield: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to
the Romans (Edinburgh, I [1975]; II [1979])

Denney
James Denney: "St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans" in The Expositor’s Greek

Testament, II (Grand Rapids, 1979 repr.)

DM
H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey: A Manual Grammar of the Greek New
Testament (New York, 1927)

Dodd
C. H. Dodd: The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London, 1944)

Donfried
Karl P. Donfried: The Romans Debate (Minneapolis, 1977)

Earle
Ralph Earle: Word Meanings in the New Testament, III, Romans (Grand
Rapids, 1974)

EGT
W. Robertson Nicoll, ed.: The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 5 vols. (Grand
Rapids, 1979 repr.)

ET
The Expository Times

Foreman
K. J. Foreman: Romans, I & II Corinthians (London, 1962)

Gamble
Harry Gamble, Jr.: The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans (Grand
Rapids, 1977)

Gifford
E. H. Gifford: The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (London, 1886)

GNB
Good News Bible (Today’s English Version)

Godet
F. Godet: Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols.
(Edinburgh, 1895)

Goodspeed
Edgar J. Goodspeed: The New Testament: An American Translation
(Chicago, 1923)

Gore
Charles Gore: St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (London, I [1902]; II
[1907])

Grammatica
l Insights

Nigel Turner: Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh,
1965)

Griffith
Gwilym O. Griffith: St. Paul’s Gospel to the Romans (Oxford,1949)

GT
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, being Grimm’s Wilke’s
Clavis Novi Testamenti, trans. and rev. J. H. Thayer (Edinburgh, 1888)

Haldane
Robert Haldane: The Epistle to the Romans (London, 1966 repr.)

Harrison
Everett F. Harrison: “Romans” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 10
(Grand Rapids, 1976)

Harrisville
Roy A. Harrisville: Romans (Minneapolis, 1980)

Hendriksen
William Hendriksen: New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Paul’s
Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, I [1980]; II [1981])

Hodge
Charles Hodge: A Commentary on Romans (London, 1972 repr. of 1864
edn.)

Hunter
A. M. Hunter: The Epistle to the Romans (London, 1975)

IBNTG
C. F. D. Moule: An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge, 1953)

IDB
The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. (Nashville, 1962);
Supplementary Volume (1976)

JB
The Jerusalem Bible

JBL
The Journal of Biblical Literature

JTS
The Journal of Theological Studies

Käsemann
Ernst Käsemann: Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, 1980)

Kertelge
Karl Kertelge and Gerhard Schneider: The Epistles to the Romans and

Galatians for Spiritual Reading (London, 1977)

Knox
The Interpreter’s Bible, IX, introduction and exegesis by John Knox
(Nashville, 1978)

Knox, R
R. Knox: The Holy Bible, A Translation from the Latin Vulgate (London,
1955)

LAE
A. Deissmann: Light from the Ancient East (London, 1927)

Lagrange
M.-J. Lagrange: Saint Paul Épitre aux Romains (Paris, 1922)

LB
The Living Bible

Leenhardt
Franz J. Leenhardt: The Epistle to the Romans (London, 1961)

Lenski
R. C. H. Lenski: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans
(Minneapolis, n.d.)

Lightfoot
J. B. Lightfoot: Notes on Epistles of St Paul (London, 1904)

Lloyd-Jones
D. M. Lloyd-Jones: Romans: An Exposition of Chapters 3:20–8:39, 6 vols.
(London, 1970-75)

Loane
Marcus Loane: God’s Mere Mercy (Blackwood, South Australia, 1986)

LSJ
A Greek-English Lexicon, comp. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, rev. H. S. Jones
and R. McKenzie, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1940)

Luther
Martin Luther: Lectures on Romans (Library of Christian Classics; London,
1961)

LXX
The Septuagint

M, I
J. H. Moulton: A Grammar of New Testament Greek, I, Prolegomena
(Edinburgh, 1906)

M, II
Ibid., II, Accidence and Word-Formation, ed. W. F. Howard (Edinburgh,
1919)

M, III
Ibid., III, Syntax, by Nigel Turner (Edinburgh, 1963)

M, IV
Ibid., IV, Style, by Nigel Turner (Edinburgh, 1976)

Manson
T. W. Manson: “Romans” in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, ed.
Matthew Black and H. H. Rowley (London, 1980)

Metzger
Bruce M. Metzger: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
(London and New York, 1971)

Michel
Otto Michel: Der Brief an die Römer (Göttingen, 1966)

Minear
Paul S. Minear: The Obedience of Faith (London, 1971)

MM
J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan: The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament
(London, 1914-29)

Moffatt
James Moffatt: The New Testament: A New Translation

Morison
James Morison: A Critical Exposition of the Third Chapter of Paul’s Epistle
to the Romans (London, 1866)

Moule
Handley C. G. Moule: The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (London,
1896)

MS(S)
Manuscript(s)

MT
Ernest de Witt Burton: Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament
Greek (Edinburgh, 1955)

Murray
John Murray: The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids, 1960 and

1965)

NASB
The New American Standard Bible

NBCR
The New Bible Commentary Revised, ed. D. Guthrie et al. (London, 1970)

NEB
The New English Bible

NIDNTT
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin
Brown, 3 vols. (Exeter, 1975-78)

NIV
New International Version

NPNF
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

NTS
New Testament Studies

Nygren
Anders Nygren: Commentary on Romans (London, 1952)

Olshausen
Hermann Olshausen: Studies in the Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis,
1983 repr. of 1849 edn.)

O’Neill
J. C. O’Neill: Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Harmondsworth, 1975)

Parry
R. St John Parry: The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans
(Cambridge, 1912)

Phillips
J. B. Phillips: Letters to Young Churches (Melbourne, 1952)

Rhymer
Joseph Rhymer: Good News in Romans (London, 1974)

Ridderbos
Herman Ridderbos: Paul (Grand Rapids, 1975)

Robertson
A. T. Robertson: A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
Historical Research (London, n.d.)

Robinson
John A. T. Robinson: Wrestling with Romans (London, 1979)

RSV
The Revised Standard Version

RThR
The Reformed Theological Review

RV
The Revised Version

SBk
H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck: Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus
Talmud und Midrasch, 4 vols. (München, 1922-28)

Schonfield
Hugh J. Schonfield: The Authentic New Testament (London, 1956)

Scott
E. F. Scott: Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (London, 1947)

SH
William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam: A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1907)

Shedd
William G. T. Shedd: Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, 1980 repr. of
1879 edn.)

Simeon
Charles Simeon: Horae Homileticae, XV, Romans (London, 1847)

Smart
James D, Smart: Doorway to a New Age (New York, 1972)

Stott
John R. W. Stott: Men Made New (Downers Grove, 1966)

Synonyms
Richard Chevenix Trench: Synonyms of the New Testament (London, 1880)

Tasker
R. V. G. Tasker, ed.: The Greek New Testament (Oxford and Cambridge,
1964)

TDNT
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, a translation by Geoffrey W.
Bromiley of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Grand
Rapids, 1964-76)

TH
Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida: A Translator’s Handbook on
Paul’s Letter to the Romans (New York, 1973)

Thomas
W. H. Griffith Thomas: Romans, 3 vols. (London, 1911-12)

Vaughan
C. J. Vaughan: St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (London, 1880)

Vermes
G. Vermes: The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth, 1972)

Way
Arthur S. Way: The Letters of St. Paul (London, 1921)

Wesley
John Wesley: Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament (London, 1977)

Weymouth
R. F. Weymouth: The New Testament in Modern Speech (London, 1907)

WH
B. F. Westcott and F. J. Hort: The New Testament in the Original Greek
(London, 1907)

Wilckens
Ulrich Wilckens: Der Brief an die Römer, 3 vols. (Zürich, 1978-82)

Wilson
Geoffrey B. Wilson: Romans (Edinburgh, 1976)

WTJ
The Westminster Theological Journal

Wuest
Kenneth S. Wuest: Romans in the Greek New Testament (London, n.d.)

Quotations from the Talmud are from the Soncino edition, and the Mishnah is cited from
Danby’s translation.

Introduction

It is commonly agreed that the Epistle to the Romans is one of the greatest Christian
writings. Its power has been demonstrated again and again at critical points in the history
of the Christian church. Augustine of Hippo, for example, was converted through reading
a passage from this letter, and thus began a period of the greatest importance for the
church. It is not too much to say that at a later time Martin Luther’s spiritual experience
was shaped by his coming to grips with what Paul says in this epistle. The Reformation
may be regarded as the unleashing of new spiritual life as a result of a renewed
understanding of the teaching of Romans. Again, John Wesley’s conversion was triggered
by hearing Luther’s Preface to Romans read, a Preface, of course, inspired by the epistle.
Nearer to our own day it was Karl Barth’s coming to grips with the message of the book
that ended an era of sterile liberalism and ushered in a more fruitful period of biblical
theology. But Romans is not for great minds only. The humble believer also finds
inspiration and direction in these pages. Romans is not an easy book. But it has always
yielded rich dividends to anyone who has taken the time to study it seriously, and it does
so still.1

It is one of a large number of letters, some 14,000 in all, that have come down to us

from antiquity. Many are in copies only, but quite often we have the originals. Some
letters are very private, being intimate communications within the family or among
friends; others are plainly meant for a wider public. In the papyri private letters range in
length from 18 words to 209.2 More literary letters3 tend to be longer, the subject matter

1 The continuing relevance of Romans is illustrated by the articles in the January 1980
issue of Interpretation. This whole number is given over to Romans. The articles cover a
wide range and leave no doubt about the fact that this epistle still plays a vital role in the
life of the church.
2 The statistics in this section are taken from Alfred Wikenhauser, New Testament
Introduction (New York, 1958), pp. 346–47.
3 For a discussion of types of letters in antiquity see especially William G. Doty, “The
Classification of Epistolary Literature”, CBQ, XXXI (1969), pp. 183–99; Martin Luther

obviously having an influence on length. Cicero’s 796 letters average 295 words with a
range from 22 to 2,530 words, while Seneca’s 124 letters range from 149 to 4,134 words
with an average length of 995 words. The New Testament letters tend to be longer,
though 2 and 3 John are quite short. The 13 Pauline letters average around 1,300 words.
Clearly Paul took letter writing very seriously and made it much more of a vehicle for
significant teaching than did most people of the ancient world. Romans is his longest
letter, with about 7,100 words. Its length as well as the profundity of its subject matter
marks it out as a most unusual letter.
AUTHORSHIP
The letter claims to have been written by the apostle Paul (1:1), and no serious objection
appears ever to have been urged against this claim. The few who have objected have not
been able to convince many that their arguments have weight. The style and contents are
what we expect of Paul, and the tradition of the church has always accepted this letter as
a genuine work of the great apostle.
DESTINATION
As it stands, the letter is addressed to the church4 at Rome (1:7, 15). This is supported by
the geographical note in which Paul writes of going to Spain and proceeds, “I hope to

Stirewalt, Jr., “The Form and Function of the Greek Letter-Essay”, Donfried, pp. 175–
206. Doty discerns eight classes with up to seven subclasses grouped under his headings,
and he does not claim to be exhaustive. He points out that the Hellenistic school
handbooks included 21 and later 41 specific types (pp. 196–97).
4 E. A. Judge and G. S. R. Thomas argue that there was no church in Rome when Paul
wrote, nor indeed right up to the time when he came to Rome as a prisoner. That was
when he formed the individual Christians in that city into a church (“The Origin of the
Church at Rome: A New Solution?” RThR, XXV [1966], pp. 81–94). They point to the
lack of reference to an χχλησία
ἐ
at Rome, or to officials like bishops, priests, and

deacons, or to ordinances like baptism (though cf. Rom. 6:3–4) and the Lord’s Supper.
But Paul rarely refers to these anywhere. He has general references to churches, but the
only specific groups to which he applies the term are house churches (including Rom.
16:5) and those at Corinth, Cenchraea, Philippi, Laodicea, and Thessalonica. This despite
the fact that his use of the plural (e.g., Gal. 1:2; 1 Thess. 2:14) shows that he saw the term
as widely applicable. Apart from Rom. 6:4 the only occurrences of βάπτισμα in the
Pauline corpus are in Eph. 4:5 and Col. 2:12, while the corresponding verb is used a
number of times in 1 Corinthians and is found in Gal. 3:27 but occurs nowhere else in the
corpus except Romans. The discussion of the reference in Suetonius (see below, p. 4) I do
not find convincing, while the failure of the Jews Paul met when he eventually came to
Rome to mention a local church (Acts 28:22) does not mean that there was not one there.
It may have been politic on their part to be silent on the matter, as William Neil thinks
(The Acts of the Apostles [London, 1973], pp. 257–58). And Godet held that Roman
Christianity was of Gentile origin; there had been no Christian preaching in the
synagogues and thus no way the Jewish leaders would mention it (Godet, pp. 60–70). The
article is a warning not to be overconfident and it reminds us that the small amount of
evidence can be understood in more ways than one. But the best explanation of the
evidence still seems to be that there was a church in Rome (Rom. 1:8). SH, of course,
long ago suggested that Peter and Paul may have “founded” the church in Rome in the
sense that they organized scattered groups into one whole (SH, p. xxxv).

visit you while passing through” (15:24). Some scholars have been so impressed by the
fact that the words “in Rome” (1:7, 15) are absent from a few manuscripts that they have
concluded that the Roman church was not the epistle’s original destination. They hold
that it was meant as a circular letter, perhaps sent to Rome as one of its addressees.
However, the evidence is not strong and there is no reasonable doubt about the text.5

But the question is not as simple as this, for there are many who deny that we should

take the letter as it stands. Quite a few hold that chapter 16 was not originally part of this
letter but was meant for the church at Ephesus (see below, pp. 41ff.). Usually this is
understood to mean that all or part of a letter to Ephesus has somehow been attached to a
letter to Rome. A different line is taken by T. W. Manson. From the fact that P46 (our
oldest copy of Romans) has the doxology at the end of chapter 15 he argues that Paul
wrote a 15-chapter edition. Manson thinks that the apostle sent a copy to Ephesus with
the addition of chapter 16 and sent another copy, without the addition, to Rome.6 On this
view we have the letter to Ephesus. I shall discuss this view more fully later. Here it is
enough to say that the personal references in chapters 1 and 15 make it difficult to accept
any circular-letter hypothesis. It would not have been insuperably difficult to remove
them or, if this copy was meant for Ephesus, to replace them with matter more
appropriate to that city. And we should not overlook the fact that even on Manson’s view
the bulk of the letter was intended for the Roman church just as much as for that in
Ephesus.

We have no precise information about how and when and by whom the church was

established at Rome. Acts 2:10 informs us that visitors from Rome were among those in
Jerusalem who heard the Christians preach on the day of Pentecost. There is nothing
improbable in the suggestion that some of them responded to Peter’s sermon and became
Christians, though we must immediately add that we have no knowledge of this. There is
a tradition that Peter and Paul founded the church. But this epistle shows that the church
was flourishing in Rome long before Paul visited that city. If Peter was the founder in the
same sense as Paul, this can mean only that he was interested in the church, that he may
have visited it at some time, and that it accepted his teaching. It cannot mean that he was
responsible for its first converts. This is in any case unlikely, for Peter’s primary
responsibility was to the Jews, just as Paul’s was to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:7–8). It is most
improbable that Peter settled in Rome as bishop of the church as some traditions hold, for

5 The words in question are lacking in 1:7 in the MSS designated G 1739mg 1908mg itg

Orlat. In 1:15 they are not found in G itg Orlat. The case against the words can, however, be
made a little stronger. The reading in G itg in v. 7 may be translated “to all who are in the
love of God”. Now the reading of some MSS, “to all who are in Rome in the love of
God”, seems to be an adaptation of this reading to the more usual text (so, e.g., Bruce, pp.
25–26). If so, the scribes must have had both readings before them. We should also notice
that the commentaries of Ambrosiaster and apparently also of Pelagius lacked the
reference to Rome (see Gamble, p. 32). This is an interesting list, but even the combined
testimony of these witnesses is scarcely enough to prove the point. They show that at
some time the reference to Rome was missing. But the evidence of the overwhelming
bulk of the MSS must be accepted as giving us the true reading.
6 See his article “The Letter to the Romans—and Others”, BJRL, 31 (1948), pp. 224–40,
reprinted in Manson’s book Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Manchester, 1962), pp.
225–41. Quotations are from this reprint. Cf. also Manson, p. 941.

he seems to have exercised a wandering ministry (1 Cor. 9:5). There is no record of his
ever settling down anywhere. As for Paul, it is impossible to hold that he had much to do
with the church in Rome in its early years. When he wrote this epistle he had never been
to Rome (1:10–13), and he makes it clear that there was already a significant group of
believers there (1:6, 7, 8; 15:14).

There is then no reliable tradition about the founding of this church, and we are left to

speculation. The probability is that traders and other travellers first brought Christianity
to Rome. As they witnessed to their faith they brought others to believe, and in this way a
church was born. It seems likely that the first converts were won from among the Jews,
and they may even have been organized as a synagogue (or synagogues).7 This is
speculation, but it is supported by a note in the Roman historian Suetonius. This man tells
us that the Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews8 from Rome because they “constantly
made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (impulsore Chresto).”9 Most scholars
take “Chrestus” as equivalent to “Christus” (the two words had similar pronunciations),
that is, Christ. If this understanding of it is correct, it would seem that the fairly large
group of Jews in Rome10 had mixed feelings about Christianity. Some followed Christ.

7 Any ten adult male Jews could form a synagogue (Mishnah, Meg. 4:3; Sanh. 1:6; Ab.
3:6). There were many synagogues in Rome (W. Wiefel gives the names of 13 of them
[Donfried, p. 106]). In Rome the term “synagogue” seems to have signified the
community, the place of worship being called a proseucha (see R. Penna, NTS, 28
[1982], p. 327). It would be strange if Jewish Christians did not form synagogues of their
own. The term is, of course, used of a Christian assembly (Jas. 2:2).
8 For the relations between the Romans and the Jews see the note by Vincent M.
Scramuzza, “The Policy of the Early Roman Emperors towards Judaism” (F. J. Foakes-
Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, V [Grand Rapids, 1966], pp.
277–97).
9 Life of Claudius xxv.4 (Loeb translation). Dio Cassius denies that Claudius expelled the
Jews, saying that there were too many of them (lx.6.6). But he mentions the danger of
rioting and speaks of the repressive measures adopted by Claudius. Clearly there was
trouble, and this is the main point. Our interest is in “Chrestus” rather than in the precise
action Claudius took. W. Wiefel understands Dio Cassius to mean that the Jews lost their
right to assemble. He thinks that this refers not to the initial trouble but to the situation
when the Jews were permitted to return. As a first step they were allowed to come back to
Rome, but “synagogue assemblies were prohibited for some time since they were seen as
seedbeds of dispute” (Donfried, p. 111). Judge and Thomas argue that “Chrestus” cannot
refer to Jesus Christ (RThR, XXV, pp. 84ff.). Rather, it signifies “some religious star
whose appearance at Rome caused an upheaval among the Jews, but whose fame was
sufficiently ephemeral for his precise identity to have been lost” (ibid., p. 87). This is
certainly possible. But riots instigated by Jews on account of Christian claims (like that at
Ephesus, Acts 19:23ff.) seem more probable.
10 J. Juster estimated that there were 50-60,000 Jews in Rome in the time of Tiberius (Les
Juifs dans l’Empire Romain, I [Paris, 1914], p. 209). Penna thinks this number too high,
as also the 30-40,000 of S. Collon, but regards Encyclopedia Judaica’s estimate of
10,000 as too low. Reasoning from the 8,000 Jews mentioned by Josephus (Ant. xvii.299–
303) and the 4,000 men of military age deported in A.D. 19 (Ant. xviii.81–84), he
estimates the number as 20,000 in Nero’s day (NTS, 28, p. 328 and p. 341 nn.51–53).

But others objected so violently that there were riots. Orosius’s dating of this in A.D. 49 is
generally accepted, so the passage points to an early establishment of the church in the
capital city. An early establishment is indicated also by the fact that Paul says that he had
for a long time wanted to visit them (1:13).

But if the first converts were Jews, this was a condition that did not last. By the time

Romans was written a large Gentile element was clearly in the number (1:5–6, 13; 11:13–
32; cf. 9:3ff.; 10:1–2; 15:15–16). The church can scarcely have been completely Gentile,
as the many references to views held by Jews (Christian and otherwise) throughout the
epistle show. Paul speaks of Abraham as “our” forefather (4:1) and writes to people who
know law (7:1) and have “died” to the law (7:4; these passages may include others than
Jews but they certainly include Jews). The charge of nullifying the law (3:31) looks like a
Jewish charge, as do objections to Paul’s view of freedom from the law (6:1–7:6).
Justification by faith, not law, is said to be an argument against a Jewish position. It
would not have been impossible for Paul to have written these words to Gentile
Christians (cf. 1 Cor. 10:1), but at least they are congruous with Jewish recipients.11 But
when Paul writes “Accept one another” and goes on to speak of Christ as having
“become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to
the patriarchs so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy” (15:7–9), it is plain that
he is writing to members of both groups. We should also bear in mind what W. G.
Kümmel calls “the equal responsibility of Jews and Greeks before God”,12 which finds
expression in a number of places (e.g., 1:16; 2:9ff., 25ff.; 3:29; 10:12). Such expressions
are pointless unless representatives of both groups are to read the letter. It is not clear
which group predominated,13 though the general tone of the letter and the fact that Paul
clearly believed that the Roman church had come within his sphere of responsibility as
apostle to the Gentiles may be held to point to some preponderance of Gentiles.
DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING
The epistle seems to have been written in Corinth. Paul commends Phoebe, a lady from
Cenchraea, the port of that city (16:1). His host is Gaius (16:23), and Gaius is the name of
a man Paul baptized at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:14). Erastus, Timothy, and Sopater were with
Paul when Romans was written (16:21, 23) and also when he was in Greece (Acts 19:22;
20:2–4). Both times Paul intended to go to Jerusalem and then to Rome (Acts 19:21;
Rom. 15:24–26, 28). The object of his immediate journey was to take money to the poor

11 It is sometimes urged that the Roman church was predominantly Jewish-Christian, as
by Theodor Zahn (Introduction to the New Testament, I [Edinburgh, 1909], pp. 421ff.).
So, more recently, William Manson (The Epistle to the Hebrews [London, 1951], pp.
172–84). But not many have been persuaded. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (11:13).
Why would he have written such a considerable letter to a predominantly Jewish church?
12 Introduction to the New Testament (London, 1966), p. 219.
13 Cf. A. F. J. Klijn, “It is impossible to determine which group formed the majority” (An
Introduction to the New Testament [Leiden, 1967], p. 76); Martin Dibelius, “it appears to
me to be useless to look for an answer in Romans to the much-discussed question
whether the Roman Christians were Jewish or Gentile” (A Fresh Approach to the New
Testament and Early Christian Literature [London, 1936], p. 162; he goes on to suggest
that “the character of the church in the Capital was continually changing”).

saints at Jerusalem (Acts 24:17; Rom. 15:26–28). All this makes it conclusive that Paul
was writing from Corinth just before he travelled to Jerusalem.14

But dating this with any precision is something of a problem. The fixed point for

Pauline chronology is the proconsulship of Gallio in Corinth, for there is an inscription
that tells us that this man was in office in A.D. 52.15 Proconsuls held office for a year,
though on occasion their terms might be extended to two years. Depending on whether
the inscription refers to a time near the beginning or end of Gallio’s term of office, Paul
would have been in Corinth at some time during the period A.D. 50–54. We do not know
at exactly what point Paul was brought before him (Acts 18:12). But it is not
unreasonable to suppose that it was early in his term of office (the Jews might hope to get
their wish granted by a new official) and not so very long before the end of Paul’s own
ministry in the city. If Paul was before Gallio in the summer of A.D. 5116 and left in the
autumn for Antioch (Acts 18:18–22), his return to Galatia (Acts 18:23) would be in the
following spring, that of A.D. 52. His visits to the churches and journey to Ephesus would
bring him to that city at the autumn period. He stayed there for three months (Acts 19:8)
and then apparently for two years more (Acts 19:10; cf. 20:31). This brings us to A.D. 55.
It was apparently the Pentecost of that year that he wished to spend in Jerusalem (Acts
20:16). This means that the three months he spent in Greece just prior to the journey
(Acts 20:3), during which he wrote Romans (he was about to go to Jerusalem, Rom.
15:25), would be the early months of A.D. 55.17 This would be supported if Acts 24:27,
“when two years had passed”, means when Felix had been in office for two years (not
when Paul had been a prisoner for two years), and if Festus succeeded Felix in A.D. 55.18

There are, of course, many uncertainties, and no dating can ever be more than
approximate. Some date Romans as early as A.D. 53.19 But A.D. 55 seems to satisfy the
data as well as any year.
OCCASION

14 Though perhaps we should notice the view of Robert M. Grant, who, on the basis of
the names mentioned in ch. 16, judges it “likely that Romans was written not from
Greece but from Macedonia, perhaps specifically from Philippi—or perhaps across the
Aegean Sea, from Troas” (A Historical Introduction to the New Testament [London,
1963], p. 188). But the evidence is inadequate.
15 See Beginnings, V, pp. 460–61; C. K. Barrett, The New Testament Background:
Selected Documents (London, 1956), pp. 48–49. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s
Corinth (Wilmington, DE, 1983), pp. 141–52, 173–76.
16 Cf. Kümmel, “Paul’s encounter with Gallio perhaps took place in May or June of 51”
(Introduction, p. 180).
17 Cf. Günther Bornkamm, “in the winter of A.D. 55/56” (ABR, XI [1963], p. 2). Bruce
thinks that Acts 20:2 covers more than a year, “say from the summer of A.D. 55 to the
late part of A.D. 56” (Commentary on the Book of the Acts [London, 1954], p. 405). This
would place Romans in early 57, a date which J. A. T. Robinson accepts “confidently”
(Redating the New Testament [London, 1976], p. 55). Cranfield regards the winter-spring
of A.D. 55–56 or a year later as the most likely time (pp. 14, 16).
18 See Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford, 1971), pp. 661–63; Beginnings,
V, pp. 464–67, 471 n.1.
19 Knox, IB, IX, p. 358. J. R. Richards argues for A.D. 54 (NTS, XIII [1966–67], p. 27).

From its situation in the capital city the Roman church would have had good means of
communication with the churches in other cities. Christians would be coming and going.
This church might well have a widespread influence, and from the respectful way Paul
addresses it the inference is that it had not only had such an influence but had used it
well. It had set a good example to believers everywhere.

Two questions arise then. Why did Paul write to such a church? And if he did write,

why write such a letter as this? It is curious that, despite the importance everyone
concedes to this epistle, there is no agreement about the answers we should give.20

One searches the epistle carefully for information that might help with the answers.

What emerges is that Paul had never been to Rome, though for a long time he had wanted
to visit the Christians there (1:8–13; 15:23). He says that he had been hindered from
coming to Rome (1:13; 15:22), which seems to mean that he had tried to come but had
been stopped. When he wrote, however, he had the prospect of a trip to Spain (15:22–29),
which would give him the opportunity to visit the Roman Christians along the way. Some
of the things he says are not easy to harmonize with one another. Thus, on the one hand
he wanted to impart some spiritual gift to the Roman Christians, to have “some fruit”
among them, and to preach the gospel among them (1:11, 13, 15). On the other hand he
says that it was not his custom to preach the gospel where Christ was already named lest
he build on someone else’s foundation (15:20). Why did the man who did not build on
other people’s foundations want to preach in the flourishing church in Rome? It is not at
all obvious.

Romans does not deal with local issues in the manner of, say, 1 Corinthians. It is a

majestic epistle, dealing with grand themes. It has proved relevant to the needs of
Christians in a great variety of situations. But sometimes Paul addresses himself to
specific difficulties in Rome. Most students feel, for example, that the discussion of the
weak and the strong (14:1–15:13) shows that Paul had information about one of the
problems at Rome.21

From all this a broad classification emerges. Some scholars are impressed by the

paucity of references to Rome and see the letter as originating in questions outside that
city. Others hold that it was written to meet some specific need in the Roman church.22

20 Despite the fact that J. A. T. Robinson says cheerfully that the occasion, as well as the
author and date of the epistle, “are fortunately all beyond serious dispute” (Robinson,
p. 1).
21 In addition to this point Kümmel notes the references to “dissensions and difficulties,
in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught” (16:17–18); “Jewish errors and
criticism of the gospel” (2:17; 3:1–31; 4:1; 7:13; 9:31–32; 11:11); “libertine-antinomian
deductions from the message of the freedom of the Christians from the Law” (3:8, 31;
6:1, 15; 7:7ff.); and “Gentile-Christian arrogance” (11:13ff.). He does not see this as the
account of a situation frequently encountered and thus a statement drawn up in the first
place for general use, then adapted for Rome (Introduction, p. 221).
22 Brevard S. Childs examines “The Problem of the Addressee” in this letter (The New
Testament as Canon: An Introduction [London, 1984], pp. 260–63). He can say,
“regardless of the concrete character of Paul’s original addressee, in their present literary
form, the chapters serve to denote a genuine ambiguity. The occasional addressee recedes
within the larger context and a universal referent emerges which far transcends local
Roman party rivalries in order to speak a word for all” (p. 262).

There is great variety in both camps and no approach to agreement. We notice a number
of suggestions.

1. A Compendium of Christian Teaching. This is the traditional view.23 Something like

it has been expressed in recent times by Anders Nygren.24 This approach is based on the
steady treatment of great themes throughout the epistle. But it does not allow for the
specific references to Rome. Nor does it appear why Paul should write such a
compendium to Rome (Colossians, another letter to a church Paul had never visited, is
quite different). Nor does it account for some important omissions. Much needs to be
added in some areas for a compendium, such as christology (cf. Ephesians, Philippians,
Colossians), the resurrection (1 Corinthians), the church (Ephesians), and eschatology (1
and 2 Thessalonians). Nothing is said about holy communion. If Romans is a
compendium of theology, there are some curious gaps.

2. Paul’s Mature Thinking on Essential Christianity. Günther Bornkamm calls it

Paul’s “last will and testament”.25 Bornkamm finds many topics in Romans already dealt
with in earlier epistles, but there in polemical contexts. In Romans they are given “a
strongly universal meaning”.26 Bornkamm thinks that Paul has gone back to his
conversion experience and that Romans reflects his history and struggles. He sums it up
in this way: “This great document, which summarizes and develops the most important
themes and thoughts of the Pauline message and theology and which elevates his
theology above the moment of definite situations and conflicts into the sphere of the
eternally and universally valid, this letter to the Romans is the last will and testament of
the Apostle Paul.”27 One cannot but agree with much of this. But it scarcely gives a
reason why Paul should have written the letter. Granted that Romans contains the
apostle’s mature reflection on what Christianity is all about, we must still ask, Why did
Paul set this mature reflection down in writing? And if he did, Why send it to Rome?

3. A Discussion of the Church. Franz J. Leenhardt finds the occasion in Paul’s

preparation for his missionary work in Spain. He had concluded his work in the East,
where he had fully proclaimed the gospel from Jerusalem to Illyrica (15:19). Thus far the
church had what we might call geographical unity. There was no problem in all the
converts Paul had made looking to Jerusalem as the mother church. But “for regions as
distant as Spain, what specific role could this church still claim?”28 Where he might have
written a “Doctrine of the Church” Paul preferred to tackle the problem another way.

23 Cf. W. G. T. Shedd, “The object of the writer was to give to the Roman congregation,
and ultimately to Christendom, a complete statement of religious truth” (Shedd, p. viii).
24 He sees the epistle as addressed to “the great problem of all Christendom. What is the
new that entered with Christ? What is it that the congregation has by faith in Him? And
what is the relation between the new way of salvation, the way of faith, and the way in
which the people of God had hitherto walked, the way of works?” (Nygren, p. 8).
25 “The Letter to the Romans as Paul’s Last Will and Testament”, ABR, XI (1963), pp. 2–
14.
26 Ibid., p. 12.
27 Ibid., p. 14. Barclay reminds us that Sanday called Romans “testamentary” and he
comments, “It is as if Paul was writing his theological last will and testament” (Barclay,
p. xxi). Gore quotes approvingly Hort’s view that the writing has the character of “last
words” (Gore, p. 5).
28 Leenhardt, p. 15.

“The object of his letter is to show that all believers benefit from the promises made to
Abraham and that, by faith and baptism, they are thus incorporated into the people of
God, thanks to the secret operation of the Holy Ghost.”29 But it is not easy to see this in
the letter. Baptism comes before us only in 6:3–4, while the term “church” is confined to
chapter 16. It is not Protestant prejudice but careful attention to the language of the letter
that compels us to see the aim elsewhere. And in any case, Why Rome? Leenhardt does
not produce a sufficient reason for addressing a treatment of the nature of the church to
the Roman Christians.

4. A Circular Letter. Some who emphasize the wide applicability of the letter see it as

originally a circular. There is convincing evidence that at one time there was a 14-chapter
edition and some indication also of a 15-chapter edition (see below, pp. 36ff.). It is also
true that in some MSS the words “in Rome” are lacking in 1:7, 15 (see above, p. 3). The
suggestion is made that Paul wrote an original letter of 14 (or 15) chapters to be sent to a
number of churches. Rome was, of course, one of them, and it is in the form addressed to
the church in that city that the letter has come down to us. T. W. Manson sees an original
15-chapter edition of which one copy went to Rome and another, with chapter 16 added,
to Ephesus.30 The letter was written at the end of a very controversial period, as we see
from the earlier letters. Manson reminds us that throughout Romans Paul frequently
answers objections, and he holds that “we have here a record made by Paul and his
clerical helpers of a real discussion.”31 It represents Paul’s summing up of positions he
and his friends had reached. “Looked at in this way Romans ceases to be just a letter of
self-introduction from Paul to the Roman church, and becomes a manifesto setting forth
his deepest convictions on central issues, a manifesto calling for the widest publicity,
which the Apostle did his best—not without success—to give it.”32

There is something undeniably attractive about such views. But the question persists,

Why Rome? That Paul was setting down his deep convictions after a period of conflict is
no reason for sending the result to a church to which he was a stranger. Further, there
must be a reason for a circular, just as for a letter to a definite destination. What is the
reason for this one? No really convincing suggestion has been made. Nor is there any real
evidence that it was ever sent anywhere but to Rome. Most scholars find a decisive
argument against all circular-letter theories in the very personal tone of some parts of the
letter, for example, 1:8–15.33 It is very difficult indeed to think that 1:10–11 was

29 Ibid., p. 16. Later he asks, “Ought we to be surprised that the theme of the church, in
spite of the absence of the word, should be as it were the horizon towards which all the
main lines of the thought expounded in the letter tend?” (ibid., p. 20). In all honesty I can
answer only, “Yes, we ought.”
MSS Manuscripts
30 See above, p. 3 n.6†.
31 Studies, p. 240.
32 Ibid., p. 241.
33 Interestingly, John Knox finds this section a principal argument for a circular letter
(NTS, II [1955–56], pp. 191–93). He points to the fact that Paul does not indicate his
destination anywhere in ch. 1; he says only that he “longs to see” the Romans (and
similar expressions). He may accordingly be “leaving as it stood a letter which was
originally composed for a type of Gentile church with which Paul is seeking to establish
contact” (ibid., p. 192). But Knox pays no attention to the warmth of the personal tone of