23

God of peace shortly bruise Satan under your feet! The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you!

you

21 Timothy my fellow labourer, and Luke and Jason and Sosipater, 22 my kinsmen, salute you. (I Tertius who wrote this epistle, salute in the Lord). Gaius saluteth you, who is my host, and that of the whole church. Erastus saluteth you, the chamberlain of the 24 city, and Quartus, a brother. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, Amen!

25

Now unto him who is able to establish you, according to my gospel, even the gospel of Jesus Christ; according to the revelation 26 of the mystery which was kept silent in ancient times, but is now made manifest by the prophetic Scriptures, according to the command of the eternal God, [and] published to all nations for the sake 27 of obedience unto the faith;-to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever, Amen!

INTRODUCTION

TO THE

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

§1. Of the planting of the church at Rome.

HISTORY affords no certain evidence respecting the individual who first preached the gospel at Rome. The Romish church indeed maintain, that Peter was the founder of the first Christian community in that city. Irenaeus (adv. Haereses III. 1), and Eusebius (Chron. ad ann. 2 Claudii), are the witnesses to whom the appeal is particularly made, in order to confirm this opinion. But although these fathers had undoubtedly heard such a tradition, and (as it appears by the passages above cited) gave credit to it, yet there is substantial reason for doubting the correctness of it. The statement of Eusebius implies, that Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius' reign, i. e. A. D. 43.* Jerome states, that Peter came to Rome in the second year of Claudius' reign, in order to counteract the influence of Simon Magus there; and that he resided in that city, and held the office of a bishop in it, for twenty-five years, i. e. until the last year of Nero's reign, in which he suffered martyrdom; De Viris illustr. c. I. But neither Eusebius, nor any of the most ancient ecclesiastical writers make mention of such a period. Whence Jerome obtained information respecting it, he does not tell us; and some leading critics among the Roman Catholics, e. g. Valesius, Pagi, Baluzius, and others, give no credit to this part of his narration.

That Peter visited Rome at some period of his life, before the close of Nero's reign, cannot-well be doubted. Origen (in Euseb, Hist. Ecc. III. 1), and Dionysius of Corinth (flor. c. ann. 117) as related by Eusebius (II. 25), testify to this in such a manner, that it cannot well be rejected, without giving up the credibility of all ancient historical testimony of the like nature. Caius, a presbyter, at the commencement of the third century, mentions that he saw at Rome the graves of Paul and Peter; Euseb. Hist. Ecc. II. 25. The doubts of many Protestants relative to the fact that Peter visited Rome, and the assertions of Salmasius, Spanheim, and others, that this could not have been the case, appear to be without any solid foundation.

But that Peter did not go to Rome as bishop in the second year of Claudius' reign; nor indeed, before the epistle of Paul to the Romans was written; seems to be nearly or quite certain. (1) In Acts 12: 3, 4, we find an account of Peter's being imprisoned by Herod Agrippa, in the last year of this King's reign (comp. v. 23); and this year synchronizes with the fourth year of Claudius. Of course Peter was at Jerusalem,

*'Enì tηs avrηs Klavdiov ßaarheias, sc. anno secundo; Euseb. Ecc. Hist.

II. 14.

not at Rome, after the period when Jerome and Eusebius affirm that he went to Rome and resided there. (2) We find Peter at Jerusalem in the ninth (some say eleventh) year of Claudius; he being present at the council there, Acts 15: 6, seq. (3) Nothing is said in the book of Acts, or in the New Testament, respecting Peter's visiting Rome; and if he had done so, before the time at which the history in the book of Acts terminates, we can hardly suppose so important an occurrence would have escaped the notice of Luke. (4) Paul came as a prisoner to Rome, in the 7th year of Nero's reign, i. e. A. D. 60 (but some say in 62 or 63); on which occasion there is no mention, and there seems to have been among the Jews of that city no knowledge, of Peter, Acts 28: 17, seq. (5) Could Paul have addressed the Romans as he did in his epistle, if he had recognized them as disciples of Peter? Could he have written his whole epistle without once adverting to this fact? (6) If Peter was at Rome, when Paul wrote this epistle, how could the latter fail to send a salutation to him as well as to others?

So late, then, as A. D. 57 or 58, when the epistle to the Romans was probably written, it seems to be nearly certain, that Peter had not been at Rome. The flourishing and apparently numerous church there, must therefore have been gathered by some other person than Peter.

But who was this person? A question that cannot be answered with any certainty; although we may arrive at some probabilities respecting it. In the salutations which Paul sends to the church at Rome, he mentions (16:7) Andronicus and Junias, as having been his fellow-prisoners, and as ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, they having become Christians earlier than himself. What hinders the supposition, that one or both of these men, perhaps converts on the notable day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 10), and of high repute among the apostles themselves, may have first spread the knowledge of the gospel in the metropolis of the Roman empire, of which they were inhabitants, or in which they were at least residents? Rufus, also, a distinguished Christian, whose mother had shewn much kindness to Paul (Rom. 16: 13), may have been one of the founders, or at least fosterers, of the Roman church; possibly the same Rufus, whose father (a native of Cyrene) was compelled to bear the cross of Jesus, when on his way to Calvary, Mark 15: 21. Others, moreover, who are mentioned in Rom. XVI., may have been, and probably were, contributors to the work of establishing or building up the church at Rome. At all events there was opportunity for a very early establishment of it; inasmuch as we find persons from this city present at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2: 10. We know, also, that Christians were scattered abroad, when the persecution of Stephen occurred; at first in Judea and Samaria, Acts 8: 1; afterwards to more distant regions, Acts 11: 19; and what hinders us from supposing that some of them may have come to Rome itself, preaching the gospel?

That the church at Rome was early planted, seems probable from the fame which it had acquired throughout the Christian world (Rom. 1: 8. 16: 19), when Paul wrote his epistle. That the persons concerned in the establishment of it were Paul's particular friends and acquaintances, with whom he had met and conferred, while preaching in Asia or in Greece,

appears very plain from the manner of the salutations in chap. xvi. 3— 16. In respect to Aquila and Priscilla, we have a definite knowledge, from Acts 18: 1–3, 18, 26, and from what is said in Rom. 16: 3, 4. Others are called the kinsmen (σvyyevɛis) of Paul, viz. Andronicus and Junias, v. 7; Herodian, v. 11. Others again are called ἀγαπητοί, συνεργοί, ἐκλεκτοί, κοπιῶντες ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ, etc. Moreover, the manner in which Paul addresses the church at Rome, i. e. the plain, familiar, authoritative tone of the letter, shews that he considered himself as addressing those who were in effect his disciples, i. e. that they had probably been converted to Christianity under the preaching of his own particular friends and spiritual children. Hence, too, the frequent expressions of strong affection for the church at Rome, and of strong sympathy with them.

On the whole, although we have no definite history of the planting of the church at Rome, (excepting the one given by Jerome, which is not entitled to credit), yet we may consider it as quite probable, that some of the persons named in the salutation (16: 3—16), were entitled to the honour of having founded a church in the metropolis of the Roman empire.

§ 2. Of the constituent parts of the church at Rome.

Nothing can be clearer, than that a considerable portion of the church at Rome consisted of Jewish converts; see 2: 17—3: 19. 4: 1, 12. 7: 1—4, and chaps. IX.-XI. Nor is there any serious difficulty of a historical nature, in making out the probability of this. When Pompey overran Judea with a conquering army, about 63 years before the Christian era, he caused many captive Jews to be sent to Rome. There they were sold into slavery, as was usual in respect to captives taken in war. But their persevering and unconquerable determination to observe the Sabbath and to practise many of the Levitical rites and customs, gave their Roman masters so much trouble, that they chose to liberate them rather than to keep them. As there was a large body of persons so liberated, the government assigned them a place opposite Rome, across the Tiber, where they built a town which was principally inhabited by Jews. Here Philo found them, just before Paul's time; Legat. ad Caium. p. 1014 ed. Frankf. The reader who wishes for historical vouchers in respect to the number of Jews at Rome, during the apostolic age, may consult Joseph. Antiq. XVII. 14. XVIII. 5, ed. Cologn. Dio Cassius, XXXVI. p. 37. Suetonii vita Tiberii, cap. 36.

When the first impressions arising from the degradation of captivity and slavery began to wear away, the Roman citizens seem to have looked at the Jewish community with some degree of respect, or at least with not a little of curiosity. Whether it arose from the disgust which delicate females among the Romans felt for the obscene rites of heathenism which they were called to practise or to witness, or whether it sprung from a curiosity which is characteristic of the female sex, the fact was, that in Ovid's time (ob. A. D. 17), some of the most elegant and polished females thronged the Jewish assemblies. The poet, therefore, advises the young men of the city, if they wished to see a splendid collection of