The apostle Paul was in his prime when he wrote his letter to the Romans. He was at the top of his game and Romans should be called his “magnum opus.” It’s the longest and most theologically significant letter that Paul wrote. With that said, Romans is perhaps the least controversial, yet most important book in the New Testament. Paul’s desire—yet inability to visit is that Rome—created one of the most magnificent pieces of literature of all time. If I was to describe the book of Romans with one word it would be “saving.”
In his commentary on Romans, Ben Witherington reveals, “Embarking on a study of Romans is rather like beginning a long journey – it requires a certain amount of preparation, patience, and faith, as the goal of understanding this formidable discourse is not reached for a considerable period of time.”[1] My hope and prayer is that this document can help you as you begin your long journey of study from Romans.
KEY VERSE IN ROMANS. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH” (Romans 1:16–17, NASB).[2]
BIG IDEA. The apostle Paul teaches both Jews and gentiles about their inherited sin nature, God’s gracious gift of salvation obtained by faith in Jesus Christ, and that God’s grace that has been extended to all people.
THE PURPOSE OF ROMANS.[3] The first and most clear reason[4] Paul wrote Romans was in preparation for his travels to Spain (Rom 1:11–13; 15:22–25). We should not be surprised at Paul’s desire to go to Spain because it had not yet been evangelized[5] and evangelization was always Paul’s goal.
Second, the letter was meant also to show that Paul wanted Rome to be a base of operation in his desire to reach west of Rome which did not have the gospel. An extensive letter like this would have shown what teaching he provides and it would invite them to participate financially in his mission.
A third reason Paul possibly wrote Romans was to lay out a clear teaching of the gospel in case he never made it to Rome. In this way, his doctrine could go to Rome and extend beyond it if he never was able to travel to Rome or beyond Rome.
A fourth and often overlooked reason for writing this letter was the constant need to guide and encourage new believers of the Christian faith. Paul’s first letter, Galatians, provides evidence for the doctrinal drift and confusion that could occur just a few years into the life of a new church. While the church in Rome was in a healthy position (Rom 15:14-16), the need to keep churches doctrinally sound among potential threats (as described in Romans 15:1-8 and Romans 16:17-20) was always needed.
A fifth reason Paul writes Romans was to correct any misunderstandings of Paul’s message or motivations in ministry. Paul regularly received slander and verbal attacks to his message and motivations in ministry (Gal 1:1, 10–24; 2:1–2, 7; 1 Cor 3; 2 Cor 10—12). It seems likely that Paul wanted this letter to clarify both his message and motivations in ministry.
A sixth reason the letter was written was to resolve potential divisions that had occurred or were occurring within the church.
“People usually consider Paul’s letter to the Romans a deeply theological book, and it is. But it’s so much more than that. The book of Romans addresses a problem that faces every church: the problem of cultural, and even ethnic, division.”[6] One prominent New Testament scholar states, “This is an ambassadorial letter of sorts, intended not only to help mend fences in Rome but to promote the larger agenda of the gospel which is represented by the collection—namely Jew and Gentile united in Christ. As such it is largely an example of deliberative rhetoric, the rhetoric of advice and consent.”[7]
Joseph Fitzmyer summarizes the purpose of Romans this way, “Paul writes Romans for ad hoc purposes: a letter to introduce himself to the Roman community, to seek support and aid from it for his projected trip to Spain, to ask for prayers and perhaps intercession of the Roman Christians with their colleagues in Jerusalem, so that, when he goes there with the collection, he will be rightly welcomed.”[8]
Ben Witherington summarizes Romans this way, “Paul is not writing to correct problems or misunderstandings his own ministry with the audience has created (unlike the Corinthian letters), nor is this a progress-oriented letter to those wlong since converted by Paul (unlike Philippians). Paul must pick and chose his words here in Romans very carefully, knowing that first impressions are important. This document is more like an ambassadorial sort of document than a letter-essay to friends or understudies.”[9]
I agree with John Harvey when he writes, “Rather than trying to identify a single purpose for the letter, it is probably better to think of a cluster of purposes that addresses missionary, theological, and pastoral concerns.”[10]
AUTHORSHIP OF ROMANS. The book of Romans is part of what’s called the hauptbriefe, which is a list of letters in the New Testament that almost all scholars accepted as written by Paul. The book of Romans, 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, and Philemon are all seen as authentic letters written by Paul (even liberal scholars admit this).
I agree with Craig Keener who writes, “Churches naturally preserved letters of Paul; It would have been unnatural for anyone to have forged letters in his name during his lifetime or until long after his genuine letters had become widely known and circulated as authoritative.”[11] A. T. Robertson sings the same song, “The genuineness of the Epistle is so generally admitted by scholars that it is unnecessary to prove it.”[12]
Ben Witherington also agrees, “About the authorship of this document there is little or no debate. Paul wrote it.”[13]
Internal Evidence. Paul calls himself a bond servant of Christ (Rom 1:1), an apostle (Rom 1:1), he is an apostle to the gentiles (Rom 11:13; 15:15–20). The background of the author of Romans matches Paul (Rom 11:1 matches 2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5). He says that he wants to come see the people he is writing to (Rom 1:10b–12), but has been prevented from doing that (Rom 1:13–15). He was prevented from coming to them (Rom 15:22), but he hopes to visit them soon when he goes to Spain (Rom 15:23–24). He’s going to Jerusalem to deliver a gift (Rom 15:25–27), but when done he will go to Rome (Rom 15:28–29).
Paul likely was born at the same time as Jesus in the city of Tarsus (Acts 9:11), an important city in the Roman province of Cilicia within Asia Minor. This “Paul” is an Israelite, descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin (Rom 3:9; 4:1; 9:24), has a strong desire to win the lost (Rom 9:1–5; 10:1–4), and has preached the gospel where it has not been preached (Rom 15:20) from Jerusalem to Illyricum (Rom 15:18–19).
We could identify Paul as the author of the book of Romans by his name directly (Rom 1:1), family background (Rom 11:1), travels (Rom 15:25–27), and relationships (Rom 16:1–24).The language, style, and content of Romans also reflects other letters of Paul in the New Testament.
External Evidence. No one from church history ever raised a voice to challenge the authorship of Romans. There was no serious challenge to the claim that Paul wrote Romans.[14]
Various ancient writers include Romans in their lists of authentic documents: Marcion, the Muratorian fragment, as well as a steady stream of patristic writers starting with Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus all say Paul wrote Romans.
Similarly, here’s a list of apostolic Fathers that echo phrases from Romans: Clement in 1 Clement 32.1 (Rom 9:5); 35.5 (Rom 1:29–32); Ignatius in The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 19.3 (Rom 6:4); The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 6.2 (Rom 6:17); The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians 9.2; The Epistle of Ignatius to the Symrnaeans 1.1 (Rom 1:3–4).
Amanuensis. According to Romans 16:22, Tertius was Paul’s amanuensis for the book of Romans. One Bible dictionary I often use defines an amanuensis as, “A secretary who assisted an employer by taking direct verbal dictation, copying, or writing on their behalf.”[15]
Amanuenses often performed a broad range of work. An amanuensis might “dictate” what an authored wanted to write or might “write” on behalf of the author. “The use of amanuenses in some biblical texts raises questions about the extent to which amanuenses aided in writing and editing these texts, which ultimately touches on the nature of biblical inspiration. In such discussions, it is important to remember that final responsibility for the amanuensis’ work fell to the employer or sender.”[16]
“Amanuenses may have been involved in other New Testament writings as well: • Tradition holds that Mark copied the Gospel of Mark from Peter’s recollections of Jesus’ life and ministry. • Luke, who is attributed with writing the book of Acts and the Gospel of Luke, may have functioned as Paul’s amanuensis. • Peter may have used Silvanus as an amanuensis in writing 1 Peter (1 Pet 5:12), although it could be argued that Silvanus acted as letter carrier rather than secretary (Richards, “Silvanus.”). Silvanus may be a primary point of contact between Peter and Paul (compare Acts 15:22; 2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1).”[17]
DATE AND OCCASION. Paul’s letter to the Romans was meant to provide an introduction to him as an apostle and garner support for him on his future journey to Spain. (If the believers in Rome knew Paul and his teachings, he hoped they would support him.)
Paul likely wrote the book of Romans from Corinth in AD 57 during the three months he spent in that city as recorded in Acts 20:1–3 (with three months of leisure time we could expect a massive letter such as Romans to be composed). This was part of Paul’s third missionary journey. Romans 15:26 mentions he received contributions from Macedonia and Acaia for the poor in Jerusalem and Acts 20:3–6 mentions that he was preparing to return to Jerusalem with this love offering. Romans 15:28–29 reveals Paul’s plans to stop in Rome on his way to Spain after he delivers a contribution to the poor in Jerusalem (see Rom 15:25–28; Acts 20—21). Paul wanted to go to Rome (Rom 1:13; 15:22–23). Acts 20:3 and 2 Cor 13:1, 10 tell us he spent three months in Corinth in winter or spring of AD 57. Most scholars conclude that Paul wrote Romans in AD 57, from Corinth, during the last part of his third missionary journey.
Additional support for this view that Paul wrote from the city of Corinth is based on Paul commending Phoebe (who carried this letter according to Rom 16:2) and resided in Cenchrea (a neighboring town of Corinth, see Rom 16:1–2). When “Gaius” sends his greetings in the letter (Rom 16:23) it may be the same Gaius who was Paul’s host and that Paul baptized in Corinth (1 Cor 1:14). The “Erastus” in Romans 16:23 might be the same man mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:20 that Paul has left in Corinth and might match an inscription mentioned in Corinth.[18] In Rom 16:21 Paul mentions “Timothy” and “Sosipater” who also accompanied Paul on his travels to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4).
Ben Witherington summarizes the discussion of the date of Romans this way, “No time better suits the composition of this letter than the three-month winter stay in Corinth Paul had prior to his trip to Jerusalem in spring 57.”[19]
ARCHAEOLOGY, CORINTH, AND THE APOSTLE PAUL. When Paul traveled to cities during his three missionary journeys he often made his first stop to the Jewish synagogues to preach the gospel. Recent archaeological excavations in Corinth affirm what we read in Acts and Romans about Paul’s time in Corinth.
Synagogue of the Hebrews Inscription.[20] Archaeologists in Corinth have discovered a Greek inscription, which some believe is a sign, that reads “synagogue of the Hebrews.” Archaeologists have also discovered a stone that’s decorated with three menorah motifs. The menorah, as you probably know, was an item used in Jewish temple and was often used as artwork in ancient synagogues. Both of these items were discovered during recent excavations of Corinth along the Lechaion Road, which was a main road that went north-south through the main part of the city. In effect, it appears this Jewish synagogue would have been equivalent to a downtown church in American culture.
The Corinth synagogue inscription likely dates to the fourth century AD. However, most synagogues in the Greco-Roman culture were built over earlier synagogues that were being repaired or completely rebuilt. Thus, the location where the inscription and motif were found leads archaeologist Titus Kennedy to conclude, “The synagogue at Corinth in use during the 1st century and the time of Paul was probably at the same location.”[21]
Additionally, the Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, who lived in the first century AD reveals that there was a substantial community of Jews in Corinth (see Philo, Embassy to Gaius). These three pieces of evidence that suggest a prevalent Jewish presence in Corinth make Corinth a likely place for the apostle Paul to want to visit and minister. And that’s exactly what both Acts and the Pauline letters reveal.
Erastus Pavement Inscription.[22] While the three pieces of evidence I presented above are general connections between Paul and the city of Corinth, there is one very specific connection that must be discussed.
When excavations of Corinth were occurring in 1929 archaeologists found a rectangular pavement stone with an inscription on it that’s similar to Paul’s words in Romans. In Romans 16:23b Paul writes, “Erastus, the city treasurer greets you.”
The pavement stone archaeologists discovered near the theater in Corinth was written in Latin (the language of the Roman Empire) that reads, “Erastus in return for his aedileship paved it at his own expense.” This inscription on this stone acknowledges the act of philanthropy of a person. In this case, it specifically identifies a man named Erastus who was as the title of “aedile.”
This pavement stone corresponds to Romans 16:23. Both contain the same name, Erastus.[23] both attribute to him the same title, “city treasurer” in Romans 16:23 and “aedile” in the inscription in paving stone. An aedile was the city official chosen each year to manage both public works and commercial affairs. Paul’s Greek term in Romans 16:23, ho oikonomos tes poleos (ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως) is equivalent to the Latin term which was used on the pavement stone. (The Latin term for aedile means “an official in ancient Rome in charge of public works and games, police, and the grain supply.”[24])
Yet, what is even more significant is that archaeologists have dated the inscription to approximately AD 50. This information leads archaeologist Titus Kennedy to conclude that the Erastus pavement inscription “confirms the existence, occupation, time, and the location of Erastus of Corinth, a Christian and friend of Paul who is mentioned in the book of acts, Romans, and second Timothy.”[25]
Conclusion on Archaeology, Corinth, and the Apostle Paul. These various pieces of information[26] support Luke’s writings in Acts that Paul traveled to, ministered in, and stayed for a period of time in Corinth. That time in Corinth was when Paul composed this letter to the Romans.
ARCHAEOLOGY, ROME, AND THE RECIPIENTS OF THE LETTER.
The Pantheon. In the first-century many residents of Rome were familiar with what we call “The Pantheon.” That name refers to “every god.” The Pantheon was a major temple in Rome that was dedicated to all the gods. The name might be derived from the many statues of gods that surround The Pantheon (see Cassius Dio, “Roman History” and Pliny, Natural History ). The building is still standing. It’s known as one of the most iconic structures in Rome.
An Early Meeting Place of the Church in Rome. There is a fourth-century Church of St. Clement, which is east of the Colosseum. It’s built over a first-century villa that may have been one of the early meeting places of the church in Rome in the first-century.
House of Pudens. In 2 Timothy 4:21 (The letter Paul wrote while in the Mamertine prison in Rome) Paul mentions a church at the house of “Pudens”. Most scholars believe this is a reference to “Pudens” who was the son of senator Quintus Cornelius Pudens. The church would have been meeting in their villa (formally called a domus).
As a wealthy patron of the church, Pudens likely allowed his larger estate to be a gathering place for one of the churches meeting in Rome. This is important, because in the fourth-century a church was built called Santa Pudenziana. This church name is likely a reference to Saint Pudentiana (the daughter of Pudens) or to the “house of Pudens” (formal name, Domus Pudentiana).
Many archaeologists believe this church, Santa Pudenziana, was built upon the original house of Pudens which also served as an early church meeting location.[27] Excavations under the church have revealed A mosaic floor from the time of Augustus.
The Forum Romanum.[28] The Roman forum was the center of everyday life in Rome. Located between the Palatine and Capitoline Hills, it had various government buildings, different shops, and assortment of temples, and many statues.
In this area the following we also know about the following: this area also had the Senate House (formally known as the Curia Julia), the bema judgment location (formally known as the Rostra), the arch of Augustus, the arch of Tiberius, as well as the famous Mamertine Prison (known as the Tullianum), Which leader would be where Paul spent his last days, wrote second Timothy while there, and was there until his death. [photo from p. 457 of T. Kennedy
The Roman Forum is important because it contained both the “Golden Milestone” (Milliarium Aureum) and the “Navel of the City of Rome” (Umbilicus Urbis Romae). Emperor Augustus erected the Golden Milestone. It listed the major cities of the Roman Empire and their distance from The Forum. This distances was calculated in Roman miles (see Pliny’s Natural History and Cassius Dio, Roman History). “The Navel of the City is just a short distance away from The Forum, and it is the place from which those distances are measured. The Navel was considered the center of the City of Rome and in effect, it was the center of the Roman Empire.
The Forum, among of all of this already shared, was the location of many important Roman temples. In the Forum we know there was “The Temple of Saturn, the Temple of Caesar, The Temple of Augustus, the Temple of Vesta and the House of the Vestal Virgins, and the Temple of Castor and Polux.”[29] The most important temple in Rome was the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. It was located on the Capitoline Hill, but you could ascend to it from the Forum.
Concrete Used in Rome.[30] Many of the structures in Rome are still standing today and are still in excellent condition. This is because of the amazing architecture and engineering employed by the Romans.
While we might expect these structures, if made of modern-day concrete, to have fallen apart hundreds of years ago, Roman engineers had developed a concrete that hardened underwater and became stronger over time. Marcus Vitruvius invented what is known as “pyroclastic aggregate concrete.”
This concrete “included a special type of volcanic ash, lime, sea water, and volcanic rocks spread into wooden molds and immersed in seawater.”[31] (Pliny describes this process in Natural History.) It’s due to this brilliant invention that we are able to appreciate these structures that still stand today in spite of 2,000 years of earthquakes, rain, wind, and other elements that would have destroyed them hundreds of years ago if they had been built with modern concrete or twenty-first-century methods.
THE LANGUAGE USED IN ROMANS. Alexander the Great famously conquered the Mediterranean region and succeeded in the Hellenization of the region. This meant Greek had become the “lingua franca” of what we know as the Mediterranean region.
The Greek text of Romans (and our New Testament Bibles) is written in what’s known as Koine Greek (“common” language). While Latin might have been the “official” language of the Roman Empire, Koine Greek was the “trade” language spoken by most people throughout the Roman Empire.
Most scholars see Paul’s Greek and Romans as of good quality. His Koine is not as good as Luke’s or the author of Hebrews, but it is good. Most scholars believe Romans reflects the writing of someone with a good Hellenistic education, dependence on popular philosophers/rhetoricians of his day, and on his Jewish training.[32]
THEMES. The themes of Romans consist of contrasts. These contrasts are prominent and reiterated in almost every chapter either by using the word, a synonym, or a reference to the concept. The themes are contrasts between:
- Jew and Gentile. This theme is emphasized in that the gospel—good news—can save both Jew and Gentile.
- Sin and Grace. “No account can be given of God’s grace until full appreciation has been made of man’s sin, and this is well illustrated in this Epistle.”[33]
- Law and Faith
- Death and Life
AUDIENCE. Paul’s letter is addressed to the Christians living in Rome (Rom 1:7). The audience of Paul’s letter to the Romans included both Jews (Rom 1:13; 4:1; 9:1—11:36) and gentiles (Rom 1:5–6, 12–14; 11:13–32; 15:7–12, 15–16).[34] Yet, I believe it was written to gentile Christians to rehearse and teach them about their roots of their Christian faith. Gentile Christians were probably the majority; Jewish Christians were probably the minority.[35]
We cannot ignore the list of names Paul mentions in Romans 16:1–23. If Paul had never been there and the church did not know him, why and how could he include this list of names? Ben Witherington explains, “Paul has a specific rhetorical strategy for including these names in a letter to a congregation he does not have an apostolic relationship with – namely he wishes to establish credibility and rapport and make the audience more receptive to his coming and sharing with them. The names and the various greetings improve his honor rating with at least a part of the audience. The rhetorical effect at the end of the letter is to cement the fact that he already has some relationship with some Christians in Rome, so that his words need to be taken seriously and respected. He is drawing on his existing social networks to establish a basis for Rome being his own future launching bad for missions in the west.”[36]
Suetonius, in his Life of Claudias, says that the Roman emperor Claudias expelled Jews from Rome in AD 49 because of rioting due to debates about who Christ was (25.2, 4). The Roman government was normally tolerant of different religions, but emperor Claudius (AD 41 to 54) prohibited proselytizing. Most scholars believe Claudius expelled Jews from Rome (Acts 18:2) in AD 49 because of unrest in the Jewish community about Christianity.[37]
This would have happened in AD 49. This was verified by Luke when he writes that Priscilla and Acquila, residents of Rome, were in Corinth because of that edict (Acts 18:2). Whatever the context, the letter is written to those in Christ (Rom 1:6) in Rome (Rom 1:7) who have a strong and mature faith (Rom 1:11–12; 15:14; 16:19).
The letter was meant to encourage mature believers, likely Gentiles that have spent years living as Christians in Rome, who were also welcoming back Jews who had been expelled from the city but now are returning after the edict of Claudias had lifted. (Most scholars believe the edict would not have been in place for very long, especially since Claudias died in AD 54.)[38] The expulsion of Jews from Rome was not a permanent decree. [39]Thus, Jews would be returning to Rome to find a strong Gentile Christian church, to which Paul is teaching the Gentile Christians how to welcome back these Jewish Christians.[40]
It’s important to remember that Paul’s audience was likely a group he didn’t know well. Because of this, Paul’s persuasion was different than how he approached other believers who had been under his guidance and teachings for a considerable time.[41]
I agree with Ben Witherington who states, “Paul as the apostle to the Gentile Christians in Rome, although he is happy for Jewish Christians to overhear this conversation. It is Gentile Christians in Rome that he feels mainly need exhorting, and it is Gentile Christians in Rome he feels he has some claim on, since he is the apostle to the Gentiles.”[42]
Again, I agree with John Harvey when he writes, “It is probably best to see Romans as written to a mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles, with Gentiles in the majority.”[43]
THEOLOGICAL TREATISE. Various scholars regard Romans as a theological “treatise.” Let’s define that word, “a systematic exposition or argument in writing including a methodical discussion of the facts and principles involved and conclusions reached.”[44]
I agree with Donald Guthrie who writes that Romans “provides a well-reasoned presentation of some of his most dominant concepts, and it may well be that it was Paul’s intention to inform the Roman church of these so that when he visited them the Christians would be intelligently acquainted with his teaching.”[45]
I also believe Guthrie is correct to state, “a clear distinction must be made between the basic use that Christians have made of this Epistle and the purpose for which Paul originally intended it. It cannot be maintained that he envisaged laying the foundations of Pauline theology in this way. Moreover, there are some aspects of this theology which find no part in the argument of this Epistle, such as eschatology and the doctrine of the church. It is not possible, therefore, to regard this Epistle as a full statement of Paul’s doctrine.”[46]
The Life Application Commentary further explains, “Because Paul was introducing himself to the Romans, he carefully outlined his beliefs. And because Paul was writing to help strengthen the faith of these young Christians, he was careful to build his case slowly, starting with the basics. The result was a concise, logical, and well-ordered presentation of Christian theology.”[47]
While some people claim Romans is a systematic theology or theological treaty, the letter does not address several important theological topics. Ecclesiology is not explained in the letter. While the word, “ekklesia” occurs in Romans 16:1, 4, 5, 16, 23, it describes a local house church and does not provide instructions about the church. Romans 12:3–8 mentions “the body of Christ” but doesn’t describe the community as a church. Eschatology is only referenced within the context of God’s judgment (Rom 2:5–11) and the need for vigilance before the end time. There is no teaching on the “parousia” and the Eucharist is not even hinted at in this letter.
THE CITY OF ROME. When Paul wrote to the Christians living in Rome, it was the capital city of the vast and massive Roman Empire. Rome was, at that time, “the diplomatic and trade center of the world.”[48] Many people believe the population of Rome was 1,000,000 residents at the time Paul wrote his letter.[49] (To put this number in perspective we should note that no other city in the world reached 1,000,000 inhabitants until the industrial revolution in the 18th century when London had 1,000,000 residents.) It’s also estimated that about 40 percent of those 1,000,000 residents were slaves or had been slaves. It was the largest and most influential city of the first-century. It was an economic hub and vast commercial empire that had enjoyed worldly prominence for more than a century. The phrase, “All Roads Lead to Rome” was true because of the network of highways built to connect it to many other cities.
In the mid-fifties AD, Nero was the emperor of Rome. Historians tell us that the first five years of Nero’s rule went very well. Later, in the 60s, Nero becomes a persecuting monster against the Christians. Nero was tutored by the philosopher Seneca and was guided by Burrus. But after each of these men’s death Nero appears to have gone mad. In AD 59 Nero killed his mother and his wrath later would be famously directed against Christians. Yet all of this occurs after Paul writes Romans in AD 57.
We know from acts that Paul had a habit of traveling to large economic metropolitan influential cities to conduct his missionary work. “Rome was the hub of the ever-expanding empire. Anyone like Paul with an urban ministry strategy and desire to reach the West could not possibly ignore this city of vital importance. It was the empire’s largest city.”[50] Traveling to and through Rome would match that same pattern of ministry that we read about in the book of acts from Paul.
Rome was a wonderful place to live for the rich, but a hard place if you were poor like most people. The divide between rich and poor meant the poor were never far from rioting. Street crime was common, most people lived in “high rise” six-story apartments, and sanitation/water was only available on the first floor. This scenario meant that people have to fend for themselves. Often this was done by the people gathering in neighborhoods according to ethnicity. (Some people have compared this element in Rome to New York City in the 19th century and 20th century.) Charles Swindoll writes, “Life was hard for everyone, but being a Christian in that environment made it even worse. For both Jewish and gentile Christians, the price of discipleship meant the loss of family and clan, including the safety of these provided. They must have felt like squirrels living among angry giants, anyone whom might decide to crush them on a whim.”[51] In this context, emperor Augustus (27 BC – AD 14) added an urban police force (called cohorts urbane) to keep order in the city.
The city of Rome was also a melting pot of cultures and languages. There were many Jews[52] living there, most of which were poor, although there were some groups of Jews that were better educated and wealthier.[53] Most of the details we have about Jews in the city of Rome reveal they were not wealthy, had little influence, and were not united as a group.[54] The Jews lived as different groups of segregated parts of the city and had their own leaders in those smaller communities. Ancient literature we’ve discovered indicates the Romans looked down on Jews because of circumcision (Rom 2:25–29; 4:9–12), Sabbath-keeping (Rom 14:5–6), and food customs (Rom 14:2–23). The city was polytheistic with worship of many foreign deities alongside emperor worship.
“During the period of the Roman Republic (509–527 b.c), the Romans adopted and ‘Romanized’ Greek gods. Thus Zeus, the king of the gods, became Jupiter, Hera became Juno, Poseidon became Neptune, Hermes became Mercury, and Aphrodite became Venus. Emperor worship also was encouraged. This worship was enforced in varying degrees, depending on the emperor’s disposition. Devout Jews had very different worship patterns and would never worship the emperor, so the Jewish community was often persecuted and was expelled from Rome several times.”[55]
Rome was a very religious city. It’s pagan religion focused on Jupiter, other gods, and many superstitions. Various gods, idols, and superstitions from other territories were often brought to Rome when those colonies were conquered. We read about many of these pagan religious practices on Paul’s missionary journeys (Acts 13:6–12; 14:11–18; 16:16–18; 17:16–23; 19:23–41). “Rome was filled with gods, and the prevailing thought was that all the gods were real. Thus, Jews and Christians who insisted on one God were viewed as atheists because they denied the existence of all the other deities.”[56]
“What was it like to be a Christian in Rome? The answer—very similar to what it is like today. Of course we don’t have to deal with a Nero, a maniacal dictator breathing threats and carrying them out. But still, real Christians are a distinct minority in society. And we stand out if we stand for Christ. It is possible, of course, to be a secret believer, hiding our faith to avoid trouble. But that reaction is tantamount to denying our Savior. He died for us—we can live for him.”[57]
THE BEGINNING OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. There are three traditions about who founded the church in Rome. I’ll start with the least likely option and end with the most likely option.
Peter. According to the Catalogus Liberianus 25.4(AD 354) the church was founded by Peter and Peter was its first bishop. Additionally, Irenaeus writes in about AD 180 that Peter and Paul both founded the church in Rome (Haer 3.1.2; 3.3.1).
However, it seems unlikely because Peter was still in Jerusalem for the Jerusalem Council in AD 50, and we know that Claudias kicked Jews out of the city of Rome because of rioting caused by Christ which occurred in AD 49. (How could Christians be in Rome as a result of Peter’s ministry if he had not yet been to Rome?)
This also seems unlikely because Paul probably would not have invested time and energy into a city which had already been evangelized (see Rom 15:20 where Paul writes that he won’t build on another man’s foundation). “The question of Peter’s connection with Rome cannot be answered with any conciseness, although any claims that Peter was founder of the church there may at once be dismissed.”[58] Additionally, if Peter had founded the church in Rome, it’s hard to believe Paul would not mention this details somewhere in his letter.
Jewish Converts from Feast of Pentecost. A possible view is that Jews from the city of Rome (Acts 2:5–10), who were converted on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:10), could have brought their faith in Jesus as Messiah back to the city of Rome. In this way, the Gospel would have started in Jewish synagogues and spread from there.
James G. D. Dunn holds this view explaining, “It is quite likely then that among the first Greek-speaking Jews to embrace faith in Messiah Jesus were Jews from Rome or having strong connections with Rome. Through such contacts and normal travel of merchants and others to the imperial capital, the new faith would almost certainly be talked of in the synagogues of Rome within a few years of the beginnings in Jerusalem, and groups would have emerged within these synagogues who professed allegiance to this form of eschatological Judaism.”[59]
However, it seems unlikely a group of new believers like that would establish such an influential church. With that said, this is perhaps the most common view today.
Associates of Paul. Another possible origin of the church in Rome was that associates of the apostle Paul had taken the gospel to the city and began the church there. I think this view is most likely for several reasons.
First, this is a pattern seen in other areas of the New Testament (Acts 19:10; Col 1:6–7).
Second, Paul seems to have had a long list of friends and associates in the city (he lists twenty-six by name in Rom 16:3–16 in a way that suggests they had shared a gospel-centered ministry on other occasions).
Third, the letter does not attempt to defend Paul’s apostolic authority. The readers seem to assume and know he’s an apostle appointed by Christ.
Fourth, Paul’s first-missionary journey was in AD 47–48 and Romans was written in AD 57, thus leaving a ten-year span in which some of his earliest converts of his missionary trip could have taken the gospel “further” to Rome on his behalf.
Fifth, the Roman commercial empire spanned many countries and thousands of miles. It should not surprise us that the gospel reached Rome without Paul going there. Maybe someone traveling to a city in which Paul was conducting his first missionary journey (AD 47–48) or second missionary journey (AD 49–52) heard the gospel while traveling there and then returned back to Rome with it. This could have occurred not as just something on “one occasion” or by “one person” but by several different groups at different times, presenting a “composite” founding of the church by different groups at different times.[60]
Some scholars believe Christianity in Rome consisted of a group of house churches. While Paul sometimes gave greeting to a church (1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1), but in his letter to the Romans he greets the Roman Christians as “to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints” (Rom 1:7a).[61]
THE CHURCH THAT EXISTED IN ROME. Based on the list of Christians in Romans 16, it’s clear there was a significant presence of Christians in Rome. Furthermore, Paul says that he had wanted for many years to travel to Rome (Rom 1:10; 15:23), thus suggesting that there was a significant number of Christians in the city.
There must have been some Christians who had a significant social status and economic affluence that allowed them a home with a large enough space to gather a group of believers.
Most people in Rome lived in what was called an insula which was an apartment house.[62] In Rome “patrons” were wealthy persons who were benefactors and protectors of other people. These patrons likely were those who hosted gatherings of Christians in Rome.
Thus, groups of different house churches in one city likely caused dissension and conflict. It is interesting that in the chapter that mentions the many individuals also contains a strong exhortation against division and dissension (Rom 16:17–19).
Various house churches scattered throughout Rome may have been because no apostolic roots or authority present in the church. It is significant to note that nowhere in Paul’s letter to the Romans does he address “the church in Rome.” In other words, Paul never addresses these Christians in Rome as one church. Paul’s usual practice in his letters was to address “the church in (city or location name)” as he does in 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Ga; 1:2; Phil 4:15; Col 4:16; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1. This lack of address to a single church in Romans supports the belief of many scholars and archaeologists that Rome had many house churches that were independent and not connected with each other.[63]
ROMANS AND THE NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL. The book of Romans has been at the center of the teaching known as the “New Perspective on Paul.” By “new” this is a teaching that developed in the late twentieth-century and was popularized by E.P. Sanders,[64] James G. D. Dunn,[65] and N.T. Wright.[66]
A Summary of the New Perspective on Paul. The New Perspective on Paul has sought a correct understanding of Judaism in Paul’s day. In their opinion, Martin Luther and other Protestant reformers incorrectly taught that the “law” Paul denounced in Romans was a legalistic system of earning salvation through a merit system of good works. The New Perspective on Paul believes the Reformers were wrong to believe Paul taught in Romans that Judaism offered no forgiveness or grace from God.
Instead, the New Perspective on Paul believes that when Paul references “law” in Romans, he’s thinking of the maintenance of the Jews’ status as God’s chosen people (not as a means of salvation). I must admit, this shift is subtle, but significant.
An Explanation of the New Perspective on Paul. According to new perspective adherents, “Protestant exegesis has for too long allowed a typically Lutheran emphasis on justification by faith to impose a hermeneutical grid on the text of Romans.”[67] To their credit, New Perspective on Paul scholars state, “the emphasis is important, that God is the one who justifies the ungodly (4:5), and understandably this insight has become an integrating focus in Lutheran theology with tremendous power. The problem, however, lay in what that is in opposition to. The antithesis to ‘justification by faith’—what Paul speaks of as “justification by works’—was understood in terms of a system whereby salvation is earned through the merit of good works.”[68]
New Perspective on Paul Scholars believe Luther and other Protestant reformers were reading their culture back into the context of Paul’s letter to the Romans. Specifically, Luther and the Protestants were opposed to the Catholic system of works of penance and indulgences which could be bought to acquire and accumulate wealth. New Perspective on Paul scholars agree with “justification by faith” and the need to remove both works of penance and indulgences from the church, but they disagree that Paul had a similar system in mind when he wrote about Judaism.
Contrary to what Luther taught, the New Perspective on Paul scholars say that it’s a mistake to say that “the Judaism of Paul’s day was coldly legalistic, teaching a system of salvation by the merit of good works, with little or no room for the free forgiveness and grace of God.”[69]
The New Perspective on Paul seeks to show, based on a survey of various intertestamental works and first-century writings, that Judaism’s whole religious understanding was based on grace. In other words, Judaism’s beliefs and practices stemmed from God freely choosing Israel and making a covenant with Israel in order to be Israel’s God and thus Israel to be God’s people. In this way, the covenant relationship was regulated by the law. The law was not, according to the New Perspective on Paul, a way of entering the covenant or a way of gaining merit within the covenant. The New Perspective on Paul sees the law as the way of living within the covenant.[70]
Essential Elements of the New Perspective on Paul Argument. Based on my best assessment, here are the core principles taught in the New Perspective on Paul.
Judaism Was Not a Religion of Merit.[71] According to the New Perspective on Paul, Jews that observed Torah in the first-century started with grace and the loving kindness of God. Their religion did not start with works. God had chosen the Jews apart from anything they had done. So, their appropriate response to God’s loving kindness was to faithfully obey the law.
Covenantal Nomism Was at the Heart of Judaism. The idea of “covenantal nomism” is central to the New Perspective on Paul. God’s grace to Israel was clear when God declared he was Israel’s God who brought them out of Egypt (Exod 20: Deut 5). In this way, Israel’s obedience to the law was the response to divine grace. Israel’s obedience to the law was not an attempt to gain God’s favor. New Perspective on Paul scholars regularly describe the law as the “covenantal nomism” before the exile (Deut 5—28), after the exile (Ezra 9–10), and during the intertestamental period (1 Macc 1:26–27, 50, 57, 58; 2 Macc 1:2–4; 2:21–22; 4:2; 5:15; 7:2, 9, 11, 37; 8:2113:14). New Perspective on Paul scholars regular refer to the following writings that teach the idea of “covenantal nomism”:[72] Ben Sira (Sir 17:11–17; 24:23; 28:7; 39:8; 42:2; 44:19–20; 45:5, 7, 15, 17, 24–25), Jubilees (1:4–5, 9–10, 12, 14, 29; 2:21; 6:4–16; 14:17–20; 15:4–16, 19–21, 25–29, 34; 16:14; 19:29; 20:3), Damascus Document (CD 1:4–5, 15–18, 20; 3:2–4, 10–16; 4:7–10; 6:2–5), and Pseudo-Philo (LAB 4.5, 11; 7.4; 8.3; 9.3–4, 7–8, 13, 15; 10.2; 11.1–5.
Those writings provide the background and theology that directed the practices and lifestyles of both the Qumran community and Pharisees.
The Qumran Community. Several aspects[73] were involved in membership of the covenant of grace in the Qumran community. Members were expected to observe God’s precepts while clinging to God’s commandments (1QS 1.7–8; 5:1–3). Members of the Qumran community were expected to be totally committed to the law, they were examined each year, and if found not to be completely committed, they were punished (1QS 5.24; 8.16—9.2).
The Pharisees. The Pharisees[74] were famous for their strict adherence to the law. Any Pharisee, such as Paul (Phil 3:5; Acts 23:6; 26:5), went through an extensive teaching curriculum that spanned an extended length of study under a pharisaic teacher. This usually occurred in Jerusalem because Pharisees were rarely located outside of Judea (Acts 22:3). The first-century Jewish historian, Josephus, tells us the Pharisees were known for both their “exactness” and “strictness” in their interpretation and observation of the law (see Josephus, War 1.110; 2.162; Ant. 17.41; Life 191). Scripture also affirms the Pharisees were strict in their observation of the law (Mark 2:23—3:5; 7:1–13; Acts 22:3; 26:5). Paul is described in Scripture as a Pharisee with “zeal” (Phil 3:6; cf. Acts 22:3) and who was “zealous” for ancestral traditions (Gal 1:14) which led him to persecute Christians before his conversion (Phil 3:6). While it’s easy for us to be critical of the Pharisees for their apparent “legalistic” theology, we must remember the goal of their exactness, strictness, and zeal was for purity. All of this effort was because they loved God and wanted to maintain purity in front of him while living in a Pagan polytheistic synchronistic culture.
Justification by Faith Was Not a New Revelation.[75] A close reading of Galatians and Romans reveals that a basic premise of Paul’s argument is that justification by faith was not something new. According to Paul, justification by faith was true for Abraham (Gal 3:6–9; Rom 4). According to the New Perspective on Paul, relating to God by faith was crucial to Jews. What changed was not justification by faith, but instead what changed was the coming of Christ.
The Law Was an Expression of Israel’s Distinctiveness. In the New Perspective on Paul the law was the expression of Israel’s distinctiveness. God had specially chosen one people for himself, and the law was the way to show that. Scholars who adhere to the New Perspective on Paul will refer to the law as a “boundary” or “identity marker.” These markers and boundaries distinguished Israel from all the other nations surrounding them. This point is clear from Lev 20:24–26; Ezra 10:11; Neh 13:3; Pss. Sol. 17.28; 3 Macc 3.4; Jub. 22.16; and Philo, Mos. 1.278. With that perspective, most Jews were focused on not mixing or mingling with sinners (pagans, gentiles, etc.).
Paul’s Emphasis Was on Groups of People, not Individuals.[76] Adherents to the New Perspective on Paul say that Paul’s emphasis is on relationships between groups of people, rather than individuals. These groups are Jews and gentiles within the body of Christ. This is in contrast to the common Reformation view that Paul focused on an individual’s relationship to God. Support for the New Perspective on Paul view is that in Colossians 1:27 the word “you” in that verse is the plural “you” in Greek. New perspective on Paul scholars argue that Paul was trying to get Jews and gentiles to relate to each other and to God properly.
Law Made Israel Distinct and Gave Israel Pride. Among the 613 laws of the Pentateuch, three laws became prominent in Israel’s distinction among the nations. These laws became those “boundary markers” that distinguish distinguished Jews from all other people groups: circumcision, food laws, and the Sabbath.
No one could blame Israel’s sense of “pride” in the law that naturally came with the election and distinction in which we’ve already seen. Josephus describes this pride, Ap. 2.277–86. Philo describes this pride, Mos. 2.17–25. The author of for Ezra saw the giving of the law as a mark of divine favor, 4 Ezra 3:19; 9:31.
Faith and Works Are Blended in Paul’s Mind, Not Opposites.[77] The New Perspective on Paul states that Paul did not view faith and works as polar opposites, instead they are combined. In the New Perspective on Paul belief and action are blended. Scholars in the New Perspective on Paul claim that the New Testament never teaches that in judgment God will ask people what they believed, but it does say repeatedly that God will ask them to share how they have lived their lives to show what they believe.[78]
The Law Was Grace.[79] Those who adhere to the new perspective on Paul believe it is wrong to set the law as opposite of grace. They believe that sets the New Testament in opposition to the Old Testament. Instead, new perspective on Paul scholars say that there was grace in giving the law.
Problems with the New Perspective on Paul. I do not intend to give a refutation of the New Perspective on Paul here, but a few brief mentions I believe are appropriate.
Problem Passages. The most difficult and famous problem passages for the New Perspective on Paul are Romans 4 and Ephesians 2:8–9.
The Value of the New Perspective on Paul. Even if someone (such as myself) maintains a position closely to the Reformers view of the law and interpretation of Romans, there are several benefits of a New Perspective on Paul.
One, any attempt to understand a text within its cultural or historical background has value to us as students of Scripture. If the New Perspective on Paul allows us to better understand Paul’s thinking and message to the Romans, then we should give it the attention it deserves.
Two, even if I maintain the “old perspective” interpretation in line with the Protestant reformers, the New Perspective on Paul keeps my interpretations from becoming erroneous. Meaning, I might drift into unbiblical interpretations without the core elements of the New Perspective on Paul keeping me on the right track. In effect, for an “old perspective” student of Scripture, the New Perspective on Paul is like a set of bumpers at the bowling alley: they are always there, are and used to keep the ball in the lane moving in the right direction. The New Perspective on Paul will keep me on the right track by reminding me that works are still important (not just faith), that community is essential (not individual righteousness), and that Judaism is an essential part of Christianity (the church has not replaced Israel).[80]
Conclusion on the New Perspective on Paul. As we conclude our brief look at the New Perspective on Paul I believe Craig Keener rightly observes, “the emerging ‘new perspective’ has yielded a conglomeration of different solutions rather than a new unified understanding of Paul.”[81]
For the sake of clarity and integrity I want to quote a prominent New Perspective on Paul scholar, James D. G. Dunn, who writes, “what Paul was concerned about was the fact that covenant promise and law had become too inextricably identified with ethnic Israel as such, with the Jewish people marked out in their national distinctiveness by the practices of circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath in particular (Wright appropriately coins the phrase ‘national righteousness’). They would recognize that what Paul was endeavoring to do was to free both promise and law for a wider range of recipients, freed from the ethnic constraints which he saw to be narrowing the grace of God and diverting the saving purpose of God out of its main channel–Christ.”[82]
With that said, Paul does discuss the law in Rom 3:27–31; 7:14–25; 9:30—10:4. In these passages Dunn explains, “Paul’s negative thrust against the law is against the law taken over completely by Israel, the law misunderstood by a misplaced emphasis on boundary-marking ritual, the law became a tool of sin in its too close identification with matters of the flesh, the law sidetracked into a focus for nationalistic zeal. Freed from that too narrowly Jewish perspective, the law still has an important part to play in ‘obedience of faith.’”[83]
ROMANS UNIQUENESS.[84] Paul’s letter to the Romans is in a class of its own. As we compare Romans with Paul’s other twelve letters as well as other Greco-Roman epistles, Romans is unique in many ways.
Among Paul’s Letters. Romans is unique among Paul’s writings because he did not have a deep personal connection with these people. Romans is similar to Colossians in which Paul had never been to the city in which he was writing a letter to its church.
Theological Presentation. Romans is unique among Paul’s writings in that he shares a theological presentation more than a personal correspondence. The book of Romans reads more like a formal lecture or an attorney’s defense than it does a personal letter. Most scholars see Romans 1:18—11:36 as a “treatise” or “essay” embedded within a letter.
Longest of Paul’s Letters. Romans is unique among Paul’s letters in that it is the longest of his letters. The book of Romans contains 7114 words in Greek. It’s first in our listing of Paul’s letters because of its length, but also because of its importance. At this point I believe it’s important for us to recognize how Paul’s letters have been arranged into our Bibles. As you might know, Paul wrote letters to churches (Romans-2 Thessalonians) and he wrote letters to individuals (1 Timothy-Philemon). Within these two groupings, the order is arranged according to length.
THE GENRE OF ROMANS. Twenty-one of the twenty-seven New Testament books are letters. Of those twenty-one letters, thirteen of those letters were written by Paul. Paul’s letters make up about one quarter of the New Testament. Only Luke wrote more.
Letters were occasionally used in Israel and the ancient Near East (see 2 Sam 11:14-15 and Ezra 4—5), but it wasn’t until the Greco-Roman world that letters became a popular and established method of communication.[85]
In summary, Greco-Roman letters normally included an address and greeting, a body, and conclusion. Christian letters followed the same pattern but added a doxology or benediction after the conclusion.
It’s important to note that some scholars make a distinction between “letters” and “epistles.” First-century letters were normally private writings that were not meant to be published. First-century epistles were public pieces of literature that were carefully composed and expected to be widely read. If we place each of those categories as opposite ends of an extreme, most of Paul’s writings appear in the middle of those two extremes. “Although the Pauline writings form a corpus today, which have often been given the title ‘epistles,’ it is far from certain that they were originally intended as such by their author, and this title for Romans in particular has often been queried.”[86]
As I shared earlier, letters were not a typical method of religious communication in Israel and Judaism. The Greco-Roman letter communication was adopted into the first-century Christian Church for several reasons.[87] One, the Christian church was growing quickly and spreading to new distant places, so Christian leaders needed a way to communicate with new leaders and churches from a distance. Two, the Christian leaders were able to use this style of communication to develop and maintain personal relationships and trust with those same people who were often located hundreds of miles away.
With that said, I believe J. R. Daniel Kirk is correct when he writes, “Paul wrote Romans to address a specific situation. Let me say this differently. Romans is not Paul’s systematic theology. It’s not a timeless bit of reflection on all the awesome stuff God that has done. Romans has often been read like this, especially because Paul had never been to Rome, and there is no indication he had received any specific communication about the situation on the ground.”[88]
PAUL’S EVENTUAL VISIT TO ROME.[89] Paul makes it clear in this letter that he wants to visit Rome (Rom 1:8-15; 15:14-33). But did he ever get to travel there?
The book of Acts reveals that Paul arrived in Rome in AD 60. Paul likely wrote Romans in AD 57, then faced an arrest, trial, two years of languishing in prison (see Acts 24:27), and a shipwreck endured a shipwreck between Paul’s letter to the Romans and his visit to them.
Paul probably arrived in Rome in AD 60 (see Acts 28:14-16) to stand trial before one of Nero’s representatives (likely the Praetorian Prefect). At this time the emperor Nero was transitioning from a stable leader to a crazy madman. When Paul arrived in Rome in AD 60 Nero had murdered his mother, his trusted adviser Burrus had died, and the famous teacher Seneca had retired.
Most scholars believe that Paul was freed from this “first” trial in Rome. Clement writes that Paul “reached the limits of the West” (1 Clement 5:7). Some believe this means he was able to travel to Spain as Paul had intended (Rom 15:24).
Paul likely was arrested again and imprisoned in Rome. He was then executed there. Several extra-biblical testimonies bear witness to this. Clement said that Paul (and Peter) both died in Rome under suffering instigated by Nero (1 Clement 5:2-5). The Mamertine Prison—Rome’s state prison in the first-century—contains a carving of Paul and Peter baptizing their jailers.
We do not have specific details of Paul’s second trial or his martyrdom. Church tradition tells us he was beheaded on the Ostian Way near the same place and at approximately the same time as Peter (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.25.7-8).
An Outline of ROMANS
I. INTRODUCTION (1:1–17). Romans 1:1-17 is Paul’s longest introduction among any of his letters. In a sense, we could summarize Romans 1—11 as “what to believe.”
A. Greeting (vv. 1-7)
1. The Promise of God Seen in Jesus (vv. 1-4)
2. The Peace of God Seen in Christians (vv. 5-7)
B. Gratitude and Thanksgiving (vv. 8-15)
1. Paul’s Concern for the Romans (vv. 8-12)
2. Paul’s Cause for Writing to the Romans (vv. 13-15)
C. Gospel and Theme (vv. 16-17)
II. SIN (1:18—3:20) – Why am I this way?
A. The Sin and Guilt of the Gentiles (1:18-32)
1. How They Reject God and Reasons for Condemnation (vv. 18-23)
God’s Revelation Through Nature (vv. 18-20)
Gentiles Rejection of God (vv. 21-23)
2. What Their Consequences Will Be and Results from Condemnation (vv. 24-32)
They get what they want and they worship the creation (vv. 24-25).
They have sex with who they want (vv. 26-27)
They are worthy of death (vv. 28-32).
B. The Sin and Guilt of the Jews (2:1—3:8)
1. God’s Impartial Judgment (2:1-16)[90]
God’s judgment is for the unrepentant (vv. 1-5). In these verses God tells the Jews that they are guilty just as the gentiles are guilty, that God is the one who defines evil, and that God’s judgment will be impartial.
God’s judgment is according to works (vv. 6-11). In these verses God tells the Jews that they will receive judgment just as the gentiles receive judgment, that God is not partial, and that God will impart judgment on all who deserve it.
God’s judgment is by a fair standard (vv. 12-16). In these verses God tells the Jews that the Jews will be judged righteous if they do righteousness, that he will reward those who deserve a good reward, and that he will impart rewards to all who deserve it.
2. God’s Religious Standards (2:17-29)
Jews have broken God’s revealed Law (vv. 17-24).[91] This is a condemnation because of the Jews’ hypocrisy.
Jews have trusted circumcision, not God (vv. 25-29).[92] This is a condemnation because of the Jew’s trust in rites.
3. God’s Determined Faithfulness (3:1-8)
God is still good even when Israel does not believe (vv. 1-4).
God’s word is still binding even when his people reject it (vv. 5-8).
C. The Sin and Guilt of All People (3:9-20)
III. SALVATION (3:21—5:21) – How am I saved?
IV. SANCTIFICATION (6:1—8:39) – How do I grow?
V. SOVEREIGNTY (9:1—11:36) – Who’s in charge?
VI. SERVICE (12:1—15:13) – What do I do? Just as we have summarized Romans 1—11 as “what to believe” we could summarize Romans 12—16 as “how to behave.” In Romans 12:1—16:27 we have a combination of both personal responsibility and personal notes from Paul.
VII. CONCLUSION (15:14—16:27)
OTHER GREAT OUTLINES
Here’s a good outline from Warren Wiersbe:[93]
I. Introduction (Romans 1:1–17)
II. Sin—Righteousness Demanded (Roman 1:18—3:20)
III. Salvation—Righteousness Declared (Romans 3:31—5:21)
IV. Sanctification—Righteousness Defended (Romans 6—8)
V. Sovereignty—Righteousness Declined (Romans 9—11)
VI. Service—Righteousness Demonstrated (Romans 12—15:7)
VII. Conclusion (Romans 15:8—16:27)
Here’s another good outline from Charles Swindoll:[94]
SALUTATION (1:1–17)
THE WRATH OF GOD (1:18—3:20)
THE GRACE OF GOD (3:21—5:21)
THE FAITHFULNESS OF GOD (6:1—8:39)
THE MAJESTY OF GOD (9:1—11:36)
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD (12:1—15:13)
THE COMMUNITY OF GOD (15:14—16:27)
APPLICATIONS. When discussing the relevance of Romans, pastor James Boice once wrote, “Is Romans relevant today? It is—as long as people of every race, culture and nationality are estranged from God because of sin.”[95] Here are three applications I believe we can take from Paul’s letter to the Romans.
- Believe the Right Things. While much of the letter is practical, most of it is doctrinal. Romans is definitely a letter that tells us how to believe the right things about God, Jesus Christ, the cross, suffering, and Israel.
- Behave the Right Way. Perhaps Romans is overlooked when it comes to practical instruction. Romans 12—16 is mostly applicational exhortations. Five chapters is a big to-do list.
- Belong with God’s People. The book of Romans does not teach the doctrine of ecclesiology, but it does address many ways that God’s people are to be with one another as a community of believers.
MY FAVORITE QUOTES ABOUT ROMANS
“Most, if not all, of the great revivals and reformations in the history of the church have been directly related to the book of Romans.”[96]
“Romans speaks to us today just as powerfully as it spoke to men of the first century. It speaks morally, about adultery, fornication, homosexuality, hating, murder, lying, and civil disobedience. It speaks intellectually, telling us that the natural man is confused because he has a reprobate mind. It speaks socially, telling us how we are to relate to one another. It speaks psychologically, telling us where true freedom comes to deliver men from the burden of guilt. It speaks nationally, telling us our responsibility to human government. It speaks internationally, telling us the ultimate destiny of the earth and especially the future of Israel. It speaks spiritually, answering man’s despair by offering hope for the future. It speaks theologically, teaching us the relationship between the flesh and the spirit between law and grace, between works and faith. But most of all, it profoundly brings God himself to us.”[97]
“Romans may not be the best biblical book to put in the hands of most unsafe people to lead them to salvation. John is better for that purpose. However, Romans is the best book to put in the hands of a saved person to lead him or her to understand and appreciate their salvation.”[98]
“Romans is the constitution of the church”[99]
“It has been said that Romans will delight the greatest logician and captivate the mind of the consummate genius, yet it will bring tears to the humblest soul and refreshment to the simplest mind. It will knock you down and then lift you up. It will strip you naked and then clothe you with eternal elegance.”[100]
“Paul and Romans: an unbeatable combination that delivers the knockout punch to any works-oriented righteousness before God; a soothing remedy for the soul that longs for peace with God; and a hopeful proclamation that God has begun to put the world to rights with himself.”[101]
“The book of Romans, more than almost any other biblical book, has dramatically shaped church history.”[102]
“Romans offers so much wisdom to us—if we let it unfurl itself rather than conforming it to our own agendas. Our biggest problem in reading the letter is that we come to it already knowing what it says.”[103]
“Romans has probably been the object of more intense study by more highly intelligent and motivated individuals than any document in human history.”[104]
“Christianity has been the most powerful, transforming force in human history—and the book of Romans is the most basic, most comprehensive statement of true Christianity.”[105]
“Paul wrote to introduce himself to the Romans and to strengthen the faith of these young Christians. The result is a concise, logical, and well-ordered presentation of Christian theology.”[106]
THE GOSPEL LIFE: A SERMON SERIES THROUGH ROMANS
- When a God Plan Comes Together (Rom 1:1-4)
- God Calls Rome (Rom 1:5-7)
- When Faith Becomes Famous (Rom 1:8-12)
- The Whole Gospel for the Whole World (Rom 1:13-15)
- The One Thing that Changes Everything (Rom 1:16-17)
VARIOUS SERMONS ON ROMANS
- Adam, Me, and the Fruit of the Tree (Rom 5:12-14) [Part of my series on the doctrine of creation]
- The Gift for Sin (Rom 5:15-17) [Part of my series on the doctrine of creation]
- When Grace Wins (Rom 5:18-21) [Part of my series on the doctrine of creation]
- God’s God This (Rom 8:26-30)
—
Christopher L. Scott is a pastor and author of the book, Walking Straight When Life Goes Sideways: Essential Christian Truths for Enduring Life’s Trials (Wipf and Stock). He provides hundreds of free articles, videos, and Bible study resources at his website ChristopherLynnScott.com.
[1] Ben Witherington III with Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2004), 1.
[2] Scripture taken from the New American Standard Bible, Copyright The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995. Used by permission.
[3] The following four reasons are adapted from Constable, pp. 3-5.
[4] The reasons I list here are specific reasons that are scattered throughout the letter. However, we could summarize the reasons Paul writes this letter from his introduction (Rom 1:8–15) as well as his conclusion (Rom 15:14–33).
[5] Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 33, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 70.
[6] Glenn Kreider, Michael Svigel, and Mark Yarbrough, ed., Exploring Christian Scripture (Brentwood, TN: B & H Academic, 2024), 277.
[7] Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 16.
[8] Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 33, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 79.
[9] Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 2–3.
[10] John D. Harvey, Romans, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2017), 4.
[11] Craig S. Keener, Bible Background Commentary, 2nd ed. [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014], 422
[12] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933).
[13] Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 4.
[14] As a result of this external evidence, some New Testament introduction books don’t even address “authorship” as a category in their chapters on Romans.
[15] S. M. Kraeger, “Amanuensis,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016). np.
[16] Kraeger, “Amanuensis,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, np.
[17] Kraeger, “Amanuensis,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, np.
[18] See David W. J. Gill, “Erastus the Aedile,” TynD 40 (1989): 293–302. Cited in D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2005), 394.
[19] Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 7.
[20] Notes in this section are adapted from Titus Kennedy, Unearthing the Bible: 101 Archaeological Discoveries that Bring the Bible to Life (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2020), 214–15.
[21] Titus Kennedy, Unearthing the Bible: 101 Archaeological Discoveries that Bring the Bible to Life (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2020), 215.
[22] Notes in this section are adapted from Titus Kennedy, Unearthing the Bible: 101 Archaeological Discoveries that Bring the Bible to Life (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2020), 218–19.
[23] Erastus is also mentioned in Acts 19:22 and 2 Timothy 4:20.
[24] Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, s.v. “aedile.”
[25] Titus Kennedy, Unearthing the Bible: 101 Archaeological Discoveries that Bring the Bible to Life (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2020), 219.
[26] If you’d like to learn more about the historical background of Corinth and its connections to Paul’s various letters, see Titus Kennedy, The Essential Archaeological Guide to the Bible Lands (Eugene, OR: harvest house, 2023), 431–443.
[27] Titus Kennedy, The Essential Archaeological Guide to the Bible Lands (Eugene, OR: harvest house, 2023), 468.
[28] This section has been adapted from Titus Kennedy, The Essential Archaeological Guide to the Bible Lands (Eugene, OR: harvest house, 2023), 457–58.
[29] Titus Kennedy, The Essential Archaeological Guide to the Bible Lands (Eugene, OR: harvest house, 2023), 457–58.
[30] Notes in this section are adapted from Titus Kennedy, The Essential Archaeological Guide to the Bible Lands (Eugene, OR: harvest house, 2023), 458–59.
[31] Titus Kennedy, The Essential Archaeological Guide to the Bible Lands (Eugene, OR: harvest house, 2023), 459.
[32] Joseph A. Fitzmyer S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 33, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 90.
[33] D. Guthrie, “Romans, Epistle to The,” in New Bible Dictionary, ed. D. R. W. Wood et al. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 1027.
[34] “Paul is apparently dealing with a overwhelmingly Gentile group of Christians in Rome who are more well established than the Jewish Christians there (another reason to mention some Jewish Christians by name in ch. 16 and give them a higher honor rating), since at least the leaders among the Jewish Christians are probably only recently back in Rome and getting reestablished. While one of Paul’s purposes in writing this letter is to begin to garner support for his future mission work in the west, another is that he clearly wants the Roman Christians to recognize, endorse, and embody the vision of Jew and Gentile united in Christ which is manifested by the collection and the response Paul is hoping it will receive in Jerusalem.” Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 6.
[35] Douglas Moo, Romans, 2nd ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2018), 12.
[36] Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 5.
[37] M. Reasoner, “Rome and Roman Christianity,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 854.
[38] Carson and Moo, New Testament Introduction, 395–96.
[39] M. Reasoner, “Rome and Roman Christianity,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 853.
[40] Douglas Moo, Romans, 4–5.
[41] Ben Witherington explains, “It will not do to judge Romans and its rhetoric in the same sort of way one would judge Galatians or 1 Corinthians. While this letter is partially and attempt to establish rapport with and authority over the Roman gentile Christians, it is not an example of exercise of the authority we would see where Paul already had a power relationship.” Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 2.
[42] Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 8.
[43] John D. Harvey, Romans, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2017), 4.
[44] Inc Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003).
[45] Guthrie, “Romans, Epistle to The,” in New Bible Dictionary, 1025.
[46] Guthrie, “Romans, Epistle to The,” in New Bible Dictionary, 1025.
[47] Bruce B. Barton, David Veerman, and Neil S. Wilson, Romans, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1992), xx.
[48] Barton, Veerman, and Wilson, Romans, xv.
[49] Reasoner, “Rome and Roman Christianity,” 851.
[50] Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 11.
[51] Charles Swindoll, Insights on Romans, Swindoll’s Living Insights New Testament Commentary, vol. 6 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2015), 8.
[52] One resource suggests that 20,000–50,000 Jews were living in the city, which was about 5 percent of the population (Craig S. Keener, Bible Background Commentary, 2nd ed. [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014], 422). Another resource suggests 50,000 (Fitzmyer, Romans, 27).
[53] Keener, Bible Background Commentary, 422.
[54] Titus Kennedy, The Essential Archaeological Guide to the Bible Lands (Eugene, OR: harvest house, 2023), 465.
[55] Barton, Veerman, and Wilson, Romans, xvi.
[56] Barton, Veerman, and Wilson, Romans, xvi.
[57] Barton, Veerman, and Wilson, Romans, xvii.
[58] Guthrie, “Romans, Epistle to The,” in New Bible Dictionary, 1024.
[59] James G. D. Dunn, Romans 1—8, Word Biblical Commentary 38A (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1988), xlvii.
[60] Kenneth Hanna, From Gospels to Glory, 162–63
[61] M. Reasoner, “Rome and Roman Christianity,” Dictionary of Paul and His Leaders, 853.
[62] Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 9.
[63] James G. D. Dunn, Romans 1—8, Word Biblical Commentary 38A (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1988), lii.
[64] See E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London: SCM, 1977); E. P. Sanders, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).
[65] See James G. D. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998); James G. D. Dunn and A. Suggate, The Justice of God (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1993); James G. D. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul: Revised (Cambridge/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007).
[66] See N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (London/Downers Grove: SPCK/IVP, 2009); N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said (Oxford; Lion, 1997).
[67] James G. D. Dunn, Romans 1—8, Word Biblical Commentary 38A (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1988), lxv.
[68] James G. D. Dunn, Romans 1—8, Word Biblical Commentary 38A (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1988), lxv.
[69] James G. D. Dunn, Romans 1—8, Word Biblical Commentary 38A (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1988), lxv.
[70] James G. D. Dunn, Romans 1—8, Word Biblical Commentary 38A (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1988), lxv.
[71] Notes in this section are adapted from Michael B. Thompson, The New Perspective on Paul, Grove Biblical Series B 26 (Cambridge, 2010), 5.
[72] The following citations are adapted from James G. D. Dunn, Romans 1—8, Word Biblical Commentary 38A (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1988), lxviii.
[73] Notes here are adapted from James G. D. Dunn, Romans 1—8, Word Biblical Commentary 38A (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1988), lxviii.
[74] Notes in this section on the Pharisees are adapted from James G. D. Dunn, Romans 1—8, Word Biblical Commentary 38A (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1988), lxviii.
[75] Notes in this section are adapted from Michael B. Thompson, The New Perspective on Paul, Grove Biblical Series B 26 (Cambridge, 2010), 6.
[76] Notes in this section are adapted from Michael B. Thompson, The New Perspective on Paul, Grove Biblical Series B 26 (Cambridge, 2010), 6.
[77] Notes in this section are adapted from Michael B. Thompson, The New Perspective on Paul, Grove Biblical Series B 26 (Cambridge, 2010), 7.
[78] For more information on this element of the New Perspective on Paul see Kent Yinger, Paul, Judaism, and Judgment According to Deeds, Society for New Testament Monograph Studies Monograph Series 105 (Cambridge, 2007).
[79] Notes in this section are adapted from Michael B. Thompson, The New Perspective on Paul, Grove Biblical Series B 26 (Cambridge, 2010), 7.
[80] See Michael B. Thompson, The New Perspective on Paul, Grove Biblical Series B 26 (Cambridge, 2010), 22–23 for an excellent list of benefits that “old perspective” interpreters receive from the “new perspective.
[81] Keener, Bible Background Commentary, 423.
[82] James G. D. Dunn, Romans 1—8, Word Biblical Commentary 38A (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1988), lxxi–lxxii.
[83] James G. D. Dunn, Romans 1—8, Word Biblical Commentary 38A (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1988), lxxii.
[84] Parts of this section have been adapted from Constable, pp. 6-7.
[85] Carson and Moo, New Testament Introduction, p. 332 (double check page number).
[86] Fitzmyer, Romans, 68.
[87] The following two reasons are adapted from Constable, p. 6.
[88] J. R. Daniel Kirk, Romans for Normal People (Perkiomenville, PA: The Bible for Normal People, 2022), 7.
[89] Various parts of this section are adapted from M. Reasoner, “Rome and Roman Christianity,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 854-55.
[90] Outline of Romans 2:1-16 is adapted from Schriener, p. 30.
[91] Hanna, From Gospels to Glory, 179.
[92] Hanna, From Gospels to Glory, 179.
[93] Warren Wiersbe, Be Right (Colorado Springs, CO: 2008), 15.
[94] Charles Swindoll, Insights on Romans, Swindoll’s Living Insights New Testament Commentary, vol. 6 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2015), 4–5.
[95] Boice, Romans, vol. 1, 17.
[96] MacArthur, Romans 1—8, ix.
[97] MacArthur, Romans 1—8, xii.
[98] Constable, 15.
[99] Tony Evans, Evans Bible Commentary, p. .
[100] John MacArthur, Romans 1—8, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1991), xi.
[101] C. Marvin Pate, Romans, Teach the Text Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2013), 1.
[102] Pate, Romans, 6.
[103] Kirk, Romans for Normal People, p. 15.
[104] Boice, Romans, vol 1: Justification by Faith, 9.
[105] Boice, Romans, vol. 1, 13, italics original.
[106] Barton, Veerman, and Wilson, Romans, xxvi.