Romans 16 - Introduction

PRACTICAL PART.

MAN'S GRATITUDE FOR FREE SALVATION.

The theme of this part of the Epistle is given in chap. Romans 12:1: The believer saved by Christ through faith is to present himself a thank-offering to God; all Christian duty is praise for deliverance. For convenience we may divide this portion as follows:

I. GENERAL EXHORTATIONS; based directly upon the theme; chaps, 12, 13 (Strictly speaking, chap. Romans 13:1-7 forms a special discussion, see the Romans Book Comments and in loco.)

II. SPECIAL DISCUSSION regarding the scruples of certain weak brethren, who abstain from eating meat, etc.: Romans 14:1 to Romans 15:13.

III. CONCLUDING PORTION; personal explanations, greetings to and from various persons, with a closing doxology: chaps, Romans 15:14 to Romans 16:27.

EXCURSUS ON Chapter S 15-16

As already stated in the Introduction (p. 15), the integrity of the Epistle to the Romans has been frequently discussed; some rejecting chaps. 15, 16 as un-Pauline, others denying their place in this Epistle. The main reason for such discussions is found in the peculiar phenomena discoverable in early manuscripts respecting the place of the concluding doxology.

I. The Textual Phenomena, (1) The doxology is found at the close of chap. 16, in א, B, C, D. (four of the five earliest Greek manuscripts), in the Peshito, Vulgate, and other versions, and in some Fathers. All recent critical editors accept this position. (2.) The verses stand immediately after chap. Romans 14:23, in L, most of the cursive Greek manuscripts, in several versions, and in six important Greek fathers. This position was accepted by some textual critics of the last century, and usually by those authors who deny the integrity of the Epistle. (3.) In A and a few cursives the doxology occurs in both places. That it was repeated in the original letter is very improbable; but the existence of this repetition in so old a manuscript as A (fifth century), shows an early doubt as to the true position. (4.) A later corrector of D, usually known as D 3, marked these verses for erasure; in F and G they do not occur, but a space has been left blank in chap. 14 (not exactly at the same point), as if with the design of inserting them. Marcion rejects them, and Jerome found a few manuscripts which omitted them. (5.) No authorities omit chaps. 15, 16.

II. The Genuineness of the Doxology. The variation in position calls for a satisfactory explanation, but it is least of all accounted for by denying the genuineness of these verses. The manuscript authority is overwhelming, and the internal evidence very strong. Although Paul's doxologies are usually simple, at the close of this Epistle such a sentence as this need occasion no surprise. Moreover the expressions are Pauline, and the style precisely that which is found in passages where he writes with his own hand. This he probably aid in the case of this doxology.

III. The genuineness of chaps, 15-16. In the case of so long a passage, containing so many personal details, the burden of proof rests with those who deny the genuineness. Hence few critics have been bold enough to take a decided position against the Pauline authorship of the Chapter s. (Baur is one of the few.) We may regard the genuineness as now universally accepted.

IV. The Destination of these Chapter s. Here also the burden of proof rests with those who deny the place of the Chapter s in the Epistle to the Romans.

1. The Roman Destination. The usual view is, that the Epistle was written originally and sent to Rome in the full form, and that the doxology was displaced in some later copies. This displacement may have been due to the habit of copying the Epistles for public reading, the final Chapter s being omitted, as less suitable for this purpose in all the churches. It is objected that all the ancient lectionaries contain these Chapter s. ‘But the epoch when the omission of these two Chapter s would have taken place is much earlier than the date of the collection of the pericopes which have been preserved for us' (Godet). Other reasons have been assigned for the position of the doxology at the close of chap. 14 by those who accept the Roman destination of the concluding Chapter s. The theory of Bishop Lightfoot, which is given in the Introduction, is the most plausible one, though it seems to place too early the briefer form of the Epistle.

2. The non-Roman Destination. Here a number of conflicting theories have been suggested. The view of Renan makes of these Chapter s a patch-work collection of the various personal and local items written by the Apostle, but for different churches to which the Epistle was sent as an encyclical letter. Semler, Paulus, and many others, had previously suggested this composite character. Admitting this theory, we give to each critic the liberty of dissecting the Chapter s and exercising his ingenuity in disposing of the disjecta membra. ‘Among all the reasons which are adduced in support of these different opinions, none hold good, not even those which seem least founded upon mere arbitrariness' (Meyer). Most of these theories, however, agree in designating Ephesus as the place for which these salutations (in whole or in part), were destined, assuming that Aquila and Priscilla could not have been at Rome when this Epistle was written, but probably were at Ephesus. It is a pure assumption. In their zeal for the gospel, these two could as readily go from Ephesus to Rome as they had gone from Corinth to Ephesus (Acts 18:18-19); especially as they had previously resided in Italy (Acts 18:2). The further assumption that Paul could not have had so many acquaintances in Rome, but would send greetings to many in Ephesus, scarcely deserves an answer. The movement among the early Christians was very great. The classes to which they belonged were great travellers. Every hint we have of the social life of the early Church sustains the probability that the Apostle did know many Christians at Rome before he visited that city. The fact that he wrote his longest Epistle to the congregation there is of itself a proof that personal ties were not wanting. Here we may revert again to the list of names in chap. Romans 16:1-16. Bishop Lightfoot's comparison with the inscriptions in the excavated columbaria shows ‘that the names and allusions at the close of the Roman Epistle are in keeping with the circumstances of the metropolis in St. Paul's day.' We therefore accept the integrity of the Epistle as one addressed to the Romans. This is the only solution of the whole question which has positive evidence to support it, and it agrees best with all the phenomena, external and internal, which enter into the discussion.