ROMANS 1:1-4
The author of this book was Paul (Rom. 1:1). Paul wanted to visit the Christians who lived in Rome because, in the first century, Rome was the center of the earth’s power and government. Making a trip to Rome would have also given him a base of operations to take the gospel further west in the ancient world (15:24). Since Paul had previously been unable to come to Rome, he sent this letter (1:10-13).
This epistle (letter) was written from Corinth while Paul was on his third missionary journey (Acts 18:23f). His third journey took him to Ephesus for two years and three months (Acts 19:1, 8-9). He left Ephesus and entered into Macedonia (Acts 20:1). Then, he visited Greece (the same as Achaia, Acts 20:2). The city of Corinth was located in Achaia. Paul remained at Corinth for three months (Acts 20:3), and during this time he wrote this letter. We know this because of the information in Rom. 16:23. Gaius was Paul’s host when this letter was written, and since Gaius lived in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:14), this letter was written from Corinth. Since this letter was written for people in Rome someone had to take it to them. This messenger may have been Phoebe, a woman mentioned in Rom. 16:1. She lived in Cenchrea (a seaport of Corinth).
This letter, contrary to a common belief, was not written to the “Romans.” One could have been a Roman but not a Christian. It was also possible to have been a Christian but not a Roman. There were even those who lived in Rome but were not of a Roman background. This letter was written to Christians who were living in Rome (1:6-7), and both Jews and Gentiles made up this church (Rom. 11:13; 17-32; 15:4f). These Christians lived in a wicked and violent culture.
At least three reasons may be given for the material in this epistle. First, God has always used a system of faith and not law to justify man (Rom. 3:20, 28). Second, this book refutes the idea that sin glorifies God. There were Christians who believed that if they continued to sin and God continued to forgive them, this “extra forgiveness” would further demonstrate God’s greatness. Third, this book shows how God could send a savior to the Jewish people and yet allow the unbelieving Jews to be unblessed, condemned, and severed from the Messianic blessings (Rom. 11:22). Key words in this book include law, righteousness, faith, sin, works, sanctification, and Israel (Jew).
1:1: Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called (to be) an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
Paul was a spokesperson for God (Rom. 9:1; 1 Cor. 2:13). When he described himself to the Romans, he used the word “servant” (doulos). This word, which is often found in the New Testament, is equivalent to slave. It meant a person was owned by another. In the New Testament this term normally has a figurative sense that “covers three basic areas: (1) the Christian as a doulos of God; (2) the Christian as a doulos to other Christians; (3) Christ as the doulos of God” (CBL, GED, 2:175). The word slave would have been meaningful to these readers because the Roman Empire had an estimated 60 million slaves.
Paul knew he was owned by the Lord and said so in places like 7:22. He was a slave who was proud of his master (Gal. 1:1; Tit. 1:1), and he had bound himself to Christ both mentally and physically (Rom. 7:25; 2 Cor. 10:5). A passage in the Old Testament which may have influenced Paul’s thinking is Ex. 21:2-6.
Barclay (Romans, p. 2) noted, “In the Old Testament it is the regular word which describes the great men of God. Moses was the servant, the slave, the doulos of the Lord (Joshua 1:2). Joshua himself was the doulos of God (Joshua 24:9). The proudest title of the prophets, the title which distinguishes them from other men, is that they are the servants and the slaves of God (Amos 3:7; Jeremiah 7:25). When Paul calls himself the slave of Jesus Christ he is doing nothing less than setting himself in the succession of the prophets. Their greatness and their glory lay in the fact that they were slaves of God, and so did Paul’s. So, then, this phrase, the slave of Jesus Christ, describes at one and the same time the obligation of a great love and honor of a great office.”
McGuiggan (Romans, p. 58) said Paul “wasn’t a slave to booze, lust, money, sin, [work, recreation, education, drugs, sports, BP] or the Devil. He was a servant of the King of kings, Jesus Christ.” Willmington (p. 221) offered a similar thought. He noted how Paul was not “a servant of the U.N., or the W.C.C. or any other human organization, but of Christ!”
Paul told the Romans he had become an apostle through God’s “calling.” Paul’s calling came from God (Acts 9:15; Gal. 1:1). God had “separated” him “unto the gospel.” This separation was a separation to something. It was unlike the separation practiced by the Pharisees. They sought to separate themselves from things (the title Pharisee meant “separated one”). The Pharisees refused to let the skirt of their robe brush against an ordinary man. They shuddered at the thought of God offering salvation to the Gentiles. To the Pharisees, Gentiles were fuel for the fires of hell (adopted from Barclay, Romans, page 3). The Jews also said, “the best of the serpents crush, the best of the Gentiles kill.”
At a former time Paul had embraced these very views. He had been a Pharisee and would have practiced separation. After his conversion to Christ, his outlook changed. He became an apostle to the Gentiles and dedicated his life to preaching and teaching the gospel. “Life to Paul was commitment (a servant), commission (an apostle), and consecration (called, separated)” (CBL, Romans, p. 19).
Paul had a main goal and he fervently pursued it. He was unlike the people who drift through life, doing a little of this and a little of that, unsure of what they ultimately want to achieve. There are Christians and non-Christians who come to the end of their lives but have no real accomplishments. This type of end is neither good nor desirable. We should have accomplishments, and among them should be a life that is filled with an eager and proud presentation of the gospel (verses 15-16).
Concerning the gospel, Cranfield (Romans, p. 3) said, “there is also an interesting pagan background to the New Testament use of this word euangelion [a word usually translated gospel, BP]. For the inhabitants of the Roman Empire, it had special associations with the Emperor-cult, the announcements of such events as the birth of an heir to the Emperor, his coming-of-age, and his ascension, being referred to as euangelia. There is thus in the Christian use of the word an implicit contrast between the evangel which may truly be called ‘God’s evangel’ and these other evangels which represent the pretentious claims of self-important men.”
1:2: which he promised afore through his prophets in the holy scriptures,
The word “which” refers back to the gospel. God promised the gospel through the “prophets” and in the “holy scriptures.” Paul didn’t give any examples, but other New Testament passages like 1 Pet. 1:9-12 help explain the thought. At the end of 1 Peter 1:10, there is a reference to “grace that was to come.” The subject of grace is prominent in the preaching of the gospel. The information in 1 Pet. 1:11 proves the prophets had knowledge about Christ, the sufferings He would undergo, and the glories which would follow His death. All of these matters made the prophets very, very curious. One person with this information was Abraham (see Jn. 8:56 and Heb. 11:13).
The “holy scriptures” in Rom. 1:2 refer to the Old Testament. By appealing to the Old Testament, Paul showed the gospel was promised. There is a definite relationship between the gospel and the Old Testament. One of the places where this relationship is illustrated is Acts 8:30-35. Philip used Old Testament Scriptures to preach Jesus to the Ethiopian Eunuch. The book of Acts is filled with Old Testament references, and these continually show the relationship between the Old Testament and the gospel. Preachers used Old Testament references because they predicted the coming of the gospel. Even Jesus taught the gospel is tied to the Old Testament (Jn. 5:39; Lk. 24:25-27, 45-47). Old Testament texts which clearly predicted the gospel include Isa. 52:7; 53; 57:19; Zech. 13. Martin Luther said, “The words of the prophets are now set free….Now we can see and understand what was written, for we have an ‘entrance into the Old Testament.’”
Willmington (p. 222) observed how the Old Testament prophets speaking of the gospel completely refutes “the silly claims of the cults, all of which claim to have some new and exotic truth concerning the gospel. It is rightly observed that ‘if something is new, it’s probably not true, and if it’s true, then it is not new!’”
1:3-4: concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared (to be) the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; (even) Jesus Christ our Lord,
The gospel predicted by the prophets and the Old Testament writings centered on “His Son.” In other words, the gospel (the good news) is about Christ. This is what we find in places like Acts 8:30-36. The Old Testament was used to teach people about Jesus. “There is no such thing as a ‘social gospel,’ or a ‘moral gospel.’ The founder and finisher of the gospel is Christ” (Willmington, p. 222).
The Old Testament promised that Jesus would be from David’s seed. The very first verse of the New Testament was written to prove Jesus came from David’s family. Matthew’s gospel begins with a lengthy genealogy, and this record shows the Lord was a descendent of David.
In Romans 1:3 Paul said Jesus had a dual nature. He was both man and God. The humanity of Christ is seen in the reference to David’s “seed.” This statement affirms Jesus was a man. Since Jesus was also David’s Lord, He was also divine (God). The Lord’s divinity and humanity were combined together in one body. Ralph Earle (p. 131) said, “Ask a conservative, ‘Was Jesus human or divine?’ and he will answer emphatically, ‘Divine!’ Ask a liberal the same question and he may reply, ‘Human.’ Both are right and both are wrong. For the correct answer is ‘Both.’”
While no person doubts Christ’s humanity, there are those who doubt His divinity (He was and is God). Paul said the resurrection is proof of the Lord’s deity. Jesus was “declared” (horizo) to be the Son of God. This means Jesus “has been declared to be the powerful son of God” (Gingrich and Danker, p. 581). Thayer (p. 453) says this shows Jesus was “openly appointed” by the “crowning event.” These definitions are consistent with what Paul wrote—by the resurrection from the dead. The Lord’s return from the dead was designed to prove He has the nature of God (compare Jn. 1:1). The “Spirit of Holiness” (i.e. the Holy Spirit) promised Jesus would be resurrected from the dead. This happened. Basically Paul said the gospel is from God, about God, and leads men to God. This gospel was promised a long, long time ago.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS