Romans 15

CHAPTER XV

The Strong Christian and the Weak

(Continued to 15:13)

All known texts contain chapters 15 and 16. That texts that lacked these chapters were ever in use is a conclusion based on nothing more than the chapter headings of the Vulgate, its chapter L (14:14–23) being followed by LI, de mysterio domini ante passionem in silentio habito, post passionem vero ipsius revelatio, which refers to 16:25–27. The textual mutilations of the heretic Marcion are still discussed and tabulated. But they are practically valueless. See our exposition of 16:25–27 regarding the question of the text.

Romans 15:1

1 While the thought of chapter 14 is continued in 15:1–13, this is done in only a general way. The question regarding adiaphora has been answered in chapter 14. What follows are broader admonitions along the same line which round out the subject in the wider sense. Now under obligation are we, the able, to bear the weakness of the unable and not (merely) to please our own selves. Let each of us please his neighbor for the Good with a view to upbuilding. For even Christ did not please himself, but even as it has been written, The reproaches of those reproaching thee fell upon me. For whatever things were written before, for our instruction were they written in order that through the perseverance and through the admonition of the Scriptures we may be having the hope.

Ὀφείλομεν, “under obligation are we,” is placed forward for the sake of emphasis. The New Testament speaks of obligation, of δεῖ or necessity, etc., but not of “duty” as we so commonly use the word. It occurs only twice in our English translation, in v. 27, and in Luke 17:10; in both instances the very verb we have here is used. Paul now speaks of “we, the able—those unable” and brings out the thought as to what “the strong and the weak” really are: the one class can do things which the other class cannot as yet do. We have seen this in the domain of the adiaphora. Some are able to use their liberty aright, others are not able to use it at all, and not a few, imagining themselves to be able, are still so weak as to misuse it to the hurt of others. But now Paul goes beyond the adiaphora and speaks of being able and unable (with and without power) in any direction.

So also “the weaknesses” of those who are not able refer to any weaknesses in any matter of faith and of life. It certainly calls for no argument or proof but is morally axiomatic to every Christian who is spiritually able, that between the able and the unable the former must carry the weaknesses of the latter. Certainly, the man carries the child, the strong, healthy man, the crippled, the sick man. If those who regard themselves among the strong and able fail to carry the weaknesses of the unable, they demonstrate that they are mistaken, that they still belong to the unable, that they, too, must still be carried.

Paul says, “we, the able.” It is not arrogance on his part or on the part of any other brother to regard himself among the able. That is the class to which all should belong. But when we regard ourselves thus we assume the obligation that naturally goes with spiritual ablity, this carrying of which Paul speaks. Come in among the able, but come in with the burden for which ability exists; do not come in with mere pretense of ability. Let the burden, rightly borne, speak for you and not merely your mouth. Many a brother who thinks himself an asset is, nevertheless, a liability, and is often the more trying because of what he thinks.

The verb βαστάζειν = to take up and carry a load for someone; the idea suggested is not that of good humor in tolerating the weaknesses of the unable, of permanently adjusting oneself to them as being something of a nuisance, but of a load that requires strength to bear it and to which one puts his shoulder in order to help another bear it until it is disposed of. These weaknesses afflict the unable, and we carry them in order to help the unable until they, too, grow able.

This is clearly pointed out in the addition: we are under obligation “not (merely) to please our own selves,” the positive for which is to please God (14:18) by helping the weak. To please only oneself is to disregard the needs of the weak and thus to fail in pleasing God, the weakness to which the strong and able are liable.

Romans 15:2

2 “Let each one of us”—it is a personal matter—“please his neighbor for the Good with a view to upbuilding.” Here Paul speaks of our neighbor and uses a broader term than the unable and includes also the able. But Paul by no means says, “Please thy neighbor”; he writes, “not men-pleasers” in Eph. 6:6; and here, “Please for the Good with a view to upbuilding.” Such pleasing is well-pleasing to God and δόκιμος, of real value, for men (14:18). Such pleasing marks genuine Christian ability; failure marks inability, weakness. “The Good” has the same sense which it had in 14:16, and “upbuilding” has the same force it had in 14:19; see both. The one is objective, the other is subjective. The Good is not “that which is good,” something good (beneficial), but the Supreme Good which God bestows, call it salvation in Christ or use some other comprehensive term. “Upbuilding” (edification) is spiritual advancement. This helps to define “neighbor” as being a Christian neighbor, for edification is possible only to the Christian, possible also to those who are already able.

Hence πρός, “looking toward,” used with reference to personal relation, R. 624, etc. The article is in place with “the Good,” as in 14:16.

Romans 15:3

3 “For” furnishes the reason for the admonition: Christ, our supreme example. Even (καί) he did not please himself but only God who sent him to save us. “Not himself, but as it has been written” (as the permanent record shows, perfect tense) he pleased God, the record declaring: “The reproaches of those reproaching thee fell upon me.” Delitzsch denies the Davidic authorship of Ps. 69 from which Paul here quotes v. 9b, and John 2:17 quotes v. 9a; but in Rom. 11:9 Paul attributes this psalm to David, and Paul is a much safer authority than Delitzsch. Next to Ps. 110 and Ps. 22 it is Ps. 69 that is quoted and referred to most often in the New Testament. The fact that Jesus pleased not himself but God is evidenced in the highest degree by those words of David which were spoken with regard to himself but with regard to himself as a type of Christ and thus fit Christ’s lips as if they were spoken by himself and declare that the reproaches of those who reproached God fell upon himself (Christ). So devoted was he in his efforts to please God that even these reproaches of God’s enemies did not deter him.

The quotation is verbatim and direct. Supply nothing after “as it has been written.” The interpretation which has Paul say that with “thee” Christ is addressing some man, and that the reproaches directed against this man fell upon Christ, is unacceptable. Also the idea that this quotation shows only that Christ bore the reproaches that were intended for “others.” “Thee” is God and not some man, not “others” in general. The divine example of Christ is vastly greater than these interpretations would make it. Here there is not merely the example of one carrying a load for another, i.e., Christ carrying ours, but the supreme example of the essential which lies back of that: Christ pleased God despite the awful burden of the reproaches of all God’s enemies, all of which fell on Christ. “Fell upon me” is constative even as the plural “reproaches” sums up the whole long line of them. So when we please not ourselves but please our neighbor we are to follow Christ, are to have as our supreme impulse and motive the one aim that we please God.

Romans 15:4

4 “For” explains the pertinency of this quotation which is Messianic by way of type. All these things were written long ago “for our instruction”; the possessive adjective “our” is objective, we received and did not give the instruction. The fact that these instructions are based on Scripture is emphasized by the repetition of the verb. In such repetitions the second verb does not need the preposition (πρό, “before”). The purpose is added: “in order that through the perseverance and through the admonition of the Scriptures we may be having the hope,” verb and object are reversed in order to make the object “hope” emphatic. Προεγράφη—ἐγράφη—τῶνγραφῶν, all emphasize the writing, the last being the product, and the verbs are passive since the agent, the great Writer, is God. He had this purpose, had it when he first caused the writing; he thought of us and of our needs long centuries ago and stored up for us in a permanent form all this Scripture instruction so that it would not be lost.

The preposition is repeated: “through the perseverance and through the admonition of the Scriptures.” This marks the fact that the means which the Scriptures use are two, one being subjective, the other objective: the perseverance which the Scriptures produce in us by the admonition which they apply to us. The genitive “of the Scriptures” is to be construed with both nouns even as both have the article; so in v. 5 we have: “the God of this perseverance and of this admonition.” God and the Scriptures constitute the source from which this perseverance and this admonition flow.

Ὑπομονή is more than patience or endurance as is explained more fully in 5:3; it is that brave, steady “remaining under” which we call “perseverance.” It is needed by those who are to carry the weaknesses of the weak; it is not enough to help them once or twice, we must remain under the load as long as the load is there. New cases of weakness appear. Of course, “perseverance” is needed for much more than the weaknesses of others as 5:3 also shows.

The objective means is the παράκλησις, on which see 12:8, C.-K. 573, eine ermahnende, ermunternde und troestende Zurede zur Staerkung und Befestigung des glaeubigen Heilsbesitzes, an admonishing, encouraging, comforting address to us to strengthen and confirm us in our believing possession of salvation. One may translate “admonition” or “comforting” (activities because -σις is the suffix, R. 151) but not “comfort” (result). The Scriptures offer us their abundant “admonishing or admonition,” mixed with encouraging and comforting, in order to keep us in perseverance, steady, steadfast, true. God knew how much all of us would need it in all activities of our Christian life and provided it long in advance. His full purpose is “that we may continue to have the hope,” that one hope which alone rests on a real basis as described in 5:4, 5. The article is in place.

The very word shows that Paul’s view is again comprehensive and complete. The Scriptures furnish us all we need for helping our weaker brethren because they furnish us all we need for our entire life as it focuses on our great hope of life eternal.

Romans 15:5

5 Involved in all that Paul has said from 14:1 onward is the thought of unity in the church. The strong and the weak, the able and the unable (v. 1) are one in the Una Sancta by virtue of the justifying faith which makes all of them one body in Christ. This oneness is a simple fact. It is not this about which Paul is concerned; it is not this for which Jesus prays in John 17. Paul’s concern is the oneness in apprehending the διδασκαλία or instruction of the Scriptures (v. 4 with its three references to the Scriptures). All believers are to be fully clear on what this instruction is.

Then the adiaphora will not cause trouble; nor will any mistaken teachings or convictions divide the hearts and the minds. This was Christ’s concern in his High-priestly Prayer: “Sanctify them in the truth; thy Word is truth.” This oneness in the Word is to impress the world (John 17:17, 21, 23). Here there is much room for prayer. So much error, that goes far beyond the adiaphora, divides the visible church.

Now the God of this perseverance and of this admonition, he who is the source of both and makes his Scriptures the source (v. 4), give to you to be minding the same thing among each other in accord with Christ Jesus in order that in one accord with one mouth you may go on glorifying the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We at once see the correlation between “the perseverance and the admonition of the Scriptures” (v. 4) and “the God of this perseverance and of this admonition,” and that v. 5 links into v. 4. The aorist optative, one of the few optatives still found in the New Testament Koine, expresses wish, the wish for one great, permanent gift from God. This wish, which is equal to a prayer, is not merely “to be minding the same thing,” all holding the same convictions and thoughts on every important matter, for some of these convictions might be wrong despite the unanimity with which they are held. The final phrase excludes all wrong unanimity; to be minding the same thing “in accord with Christ Jesus.” All will have the same convictions when these harmonize with Christ Jesus. To call him an example that all should follow is a confusing idea; no one person exemplifies unanimity.

Κατά is not to indicate example but to indicate norm. Every mind is to be normated by Christ Jesus, “Christ Jesus” is the soteriological title like “Lord Jesus” and is formed like King David, etc., office and person being combined in this order. This norm is, however, not the character of Jesus, which makes him an example in another way. Christ Jesus is our norm as Christ Jesus, as all that he was and is in his office and his person, as all that he and his work and his Word comprise. “Christ Jesus is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” 1 Cor. 1:30. He is everything, our vast possession and thus our norm. And Paul has already told us that the Scriptures are the one source from which our minds are to draw “the same thing” in accord with this norm.

Romans 15:6

6 Oneness of mind in oneness of mouth. Paul prays that the latter may be attained through the former. Luke has written ὁμοθυμαδόν, “with one accord,” unanimously (ὁμός, same, identical, plus θυμός, anima, that which animates) eleven times, Paul has it only here. “With one mouth” = in the one united confession. This does not mean that all join in the same psalm, hymn, creed, prayer, confession of sin, doxology in public worship, but that every member everywhere and always confesses the one same gospel truth, whatever part of it may be broached, and thereby glorifies God before men.

“To glorify him” is to speak and to act so that his glory, the sum of his attributes, or any one of them, taken by themselves and in what they did and do, give, and bestow, may appear to his praise and honor among men. As his glory is one and unchangeable and his every deed, gift, blessing are one, so our making these manifest must be one. The Word that tells of him is one, and our apprehending and our voicing of that Word must thus also be one, whatever part of it we mention. This oneness of conviction and confession, like our mystical oneness in the Una Sarcta, is far deeper than many suppose, for its ultimate basis, source, and substance are the oneness of God and of his glory.

Here we have an answer to the idea that each man may have his own “views” and the right to his own personal views, to the idea that we may agree to disagree, that creeds and confessions are hindrances, that creedlessness is the ideal. Where oneness of mind and of mouth is lost, somebody is wrong, somebody is not glorifying God but himself, is darkening the glory of God, forsaking the Word, injuring the church, putting in jeopardy his connection with the Una Sancta, perhaps tearing himself away from its spiritual bond. The clearer our view of the ultimate ground of our confessional oneness is, the more serious and dangerous the divisions and rents in confession will appear.

When Paul calls God “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” he uses a designation that was standard in the apostolic church (2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3) and one that names God in connection with Christ in the fullest soteriological way: the God with whom our whole salvation in Christ is bound up. This name for God is a concentrated Christian confession. It packs into this glorious Name all that the Scriptures reveal concerning our Savior-God. The discussions of the commentators on the point whether God is said to be only the Father of our Lord Jesus or also his God, quite often lose the main import which we have just sought to convey.

The A. V. translates our passage: God, even the Father,” etc., and 2 Cor. 1:3 “the God and Father,” etc.; the R. V. has translated them alike and correctly. The statement that we may read and translate either way is a Gamaliel’s counsel of indecision; Paul either says that God is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ or he does not say so. The Greek has one article: “the God and Father.” This is its regular way of combining two concepts into a unity; thus the genitive “of our Lord” belongs to this unity, to God as much as to Father. When two or more concepts are not to be a unit, the article is repeated although even there, if the sense permits, a following genitive may belong to all the nouns as is the case in v. 4.

To say that ὁΘεός is complete in itself and needs no genitive is specious, for it often has a genitive; to say that “Father” is incomplete and needs a genitive is untenable, for it often appears alone and often together with “God” without a genitive, viz., 1 Cor. 15:24. The argument that those passages that have only “the God and Father,” like 1 Cor. 15:24; Eph. 5:20, and others, prove that, when in other passages “of our Lord,” etc., is added, this genitive is to be construed only with “Father,” is an untenable claim and not in accord with the Greek which unites two or more governing nouns by the use of one article.

This contention is really unnecessary, for Jesus himself calls God his God in Matt. 27:46; John 20:17; and in Eph. 1:17 it is stated in so many words: “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,” see also Heb. 1:9. For Jesus in his human nature God is his God; for Jesus in his deity God is his Father. He is his God since the Incarnation, his Father from all eternity. Note, “our Lord” (see 1:3), which connects us with Jesus Christ and his God and Father.

Romans 15:7

7 Therefore, in order that the divine purpose (v. 6) may be attained as far as you are concerned, be receiving each other to yourselves even as also Christ received you to himself for God’s glory! For I mean that Christ has become a minister of circumcision for the sake of God’s truth so as to confirm the promises of the fathers, and so that the Gentiles for the sake of mercy glorify God; as it has been written, etc.

Paul broadened his admonition from v. 1 onward. From the narrow question regarding meat he reaches out to all who are able and unable and states that each should please God as Christ is our norm. From that he reaches out still farther to the unity in the Word and the unanimity with which all should glorify God. It is thus that he at last reaches the difference between Jews and Gentiles in the church, a difference that is also adiaphoristic, that no longer counts as Paul shows by his quotations. It is thus not necessary to think that the original question is still treated here, and that Jews and Gentiles are mentioned because Jewish Christians had scruples regarding meat, wine, etc., and were the weak ones, while Gentile Christians were the opposite. We have shown (chapter 14, introductory remarks) that the question regarding meat was not one between Jewish and Gentile Christians. And here we see that, when Paul speaks of these two, he has concluded his discussion of the question regarding meat, has already advanced to much wider considerations.

“Be receiving each other to yourselves” is not the same admonition as that given in 14:1; there one weak believer is to be received as a member of the congregation, at the agape, etc., while here all are to receive each other in full mutuality in the congregation, none are to hold aloof from others, say at the agape, in the services, in brotherly association. Note the force of the middle: “to yourselves,” R. 809. “Even as” does not point to Christ as the model, it rather points to his reception of all of us as the reason for our reception of each other. The comparison is not: you—Christ (we do not have ὑμεῖς); it is regarding the verbs and their objects: be receiving each other—he received you. The one receiving calls for the other. Since all are Christ’s by virtue of having been received by him, how can we refuse to receive each other?

Construe together: “as Christ received you to himself for God’s glory,” for the glory of his truth and of his mercy (v. 8, 9). The phrase belongs where it is placed and cannot be referred back: “be receiving for God’s glory.” Nor does the phrase belong to both verbs, for “even as also” separates the imperative from the aorist indicative. Since Christ’s having received us “for God’s glory” is the reason for our receiving each other, how can it be otherwise than that our following this reason will also be “for God’s glory”? The very thought contains this. In fact, that we may glorify God in full unity and unanimity has already been stated in v. 6, as far as we are concerned. Those who injure that unity and unanimity alone frustrate God’s great purpose.

Romans 15:8

8 Λέγωγάρ = “I mean, so as to explain,” and states that Paul is referring to the constituency of the Roman congregation, former Jews and former Gentiles. Christ received both unto himself, and his reception of both was equally “for God’s glory.” How this was done is now stated in a masterly manner and recalls 4:11, 12 where Abraham is similarly shown to be the father of both Jewish and Gentile believers. There was, of course, a difference between them, yet in the case of neither class did this difference detract from God’s glory in the least.

On “minister” see 12:7, “ministry”; also 13:4; the abstract “circumcision” is used for the concrete “those circumcised,” Jews, as in 4:12; here, too, it is without the article because only some are referred to, namely, believing Jews who accepted Christ’s ministry. “For God’s glory” in v. 7 is now made specific by the two ὑπέρ phrases, the one showing how this was done for the believing Jews, the other (v. 9) for the believing Gentiles. The idea is not that “God’s truth” and God’s “mercy” exhaust the glory that Christ brought to God, but these two attributes of God were manifested most gloriously in what Christ did.

“For the sake of (ὑπέρ, R. 632) God’s truth, so as to confirm the promises of the fathers” (objective genitive: “to the fathers”), states the effect for the Jews. Christ glorified God’s truth by fulfilling the promises God had made to the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, concerning the Messiah. “To confirm” means by fulfillment. The fulfillment here referred to is not merely the objective fact that Christ came and wrought redemption as had been promised but includes also the subjective truth that, despite the self-hardening and then the punitive hardening of so many Jews, many others were actually being saved (11:7, 26). We have seen how Paul sets forth the whole story of the Jews from the angle of promise (see 9:4–13). Paul reminds all Jewish believers of this distinctive feature of God’s glory in the ministration of Christ received by them: God’s truth was glorified. This could not be said with reference to Gentile believers. While the promises made to Abraham promised blessing also for the Gentiles, yet the promises were made only to the fathers and not to the Gentiles themselves.

Romans 15:9

9 Εἰςτό to expresses result (it is more than purpose, our versions) as it does in 3:26, twice in 4:11, in 4:18, and elsewhere. The first result pertained to the believing Jews, the second result to the believing Gentiles. The claim that τὰδὲἔθνηκτλ., is or could be a second accusative with the infinitive after λέγω is untenable, for that would parallel what Christ has become with what the Gentiles did. The Gentiles are a parallel to the Jews but never to Christ. But what Christ did as a minister to circumcision (περιτομῆς, objective genitive) had its result not only for believing Jews but over and above them (δέ) for the believing Gentiles; “and so that (or: so that, moreover) the Gentiles for the sake of mercy glorify God.”

These two phrases stand out: ὑπὲρἀληθείαςΘεοῦ—ὑπὲρἐλέους, and along with them, “circumcision—the Gentiles.” The article used with the latter does not denote das Voelkertum, the Gentile nations as nations, but those Gentiles who were received by Christ, those who do glorify God. The attribute of God that was manifested most gloriously in their case is God’s “mercy,” the fact that he pitied and commiserated them. The fact that the Jews enjoyed this same mercy since the very promises to the fathers were pure mercy, does not need to be stated. In fact, as in 9:4–13 Paul sets forth the promise as governing all Jewish history, so in 9:14, etc., he sets forth the mercy as doing the same and in 9:24–33 adds that the mercy reached out to the Gentiles when finally only a remnant of the Jews accepted the promise and the mercy.

By combining the two results as he here does Paul shows once more that the result for the Gentiles is derived from the result for the Jews. It is simply true: “Salvation is of the Jews,” John 4:22. The two aorists βεβαιῶσαι and δοξάσαι are constative: the confirming is a work that required a long time, it is like the glorifying in this respect, the aorist views each as a great unit as we have also seen the Jewish part of it in 11:26, “all Israel.”

Paul’s purpose is admonitory, to make the Roman Jewish and Gentile Christians be of one mind among themselves in accord with Christ Jesus and to glorify God with one mouth (v. 5, 6). Their oneness centers in Christ and in the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; four times we read “Christ,” five times “God” (v. 5–9). The glorifying with one mind and one mouth will strike two chords: truth—mercy, but how harmoniously they accord! The Jewish Christian as well as the Gentile Christian thinks not only of himself but also of the other, each sees God’s glory in what Christ has done for him and also for the other.

“As it has been written” does not introduce “proof for Paul’s thesis” as though it were necessary to prove to the Romans that they might have Jewish as well as Gentile members. This is something that is much finer than proof. These passages state that the Old Testament already had Jews and Gentiles joining in praise to the Lord. This joint praise is the subject of the quotations, it comes from one heart and one mouth in one unanimous, harmonious chorus.

These passages are not chosen in a haphazard fashion but are carefully selected and built up as a whole: 1) David brings Jehovah to the Gentiles; 2) They are told to praise God with his people (v. 10); 3) All nations and peoples, Jews and Gentiles, are of their own accord to join together in praise (11); 4) And the cause of all this praise is “the shoot of Jesse,” the Jews’ own yet also the Gentiles’ ruler and hope (v. 12). This is the Old Testament picture of the unity and oneness of the Christian Church, which merges the most diverse national elements into perfect homogeneity in Christ. With perfect readiness Paul selects from the Old Testament just the thoughts he wants.

For this will I confess thee among Gentiles

And will sing and play psalms to thy name.

And again he declares:

Be happy, Gentiles, together with his people!

And again:

Be praising the Lord, all the nations!

And let all the peoples heap praise on him!

And again Isaiah declares:

There shall be the root-sprout of Jesse

And the One rising up to rule Gentiles.

On him Gentiles shall hope.

The point of importance in the quotation of Ps. 18:49 is the fact that David, the great Jewish king, a type of Christ, will bring the confession and the songs of the Lord’s praise among Gentiles. To be sure, the Gentiles get the faith from the Jews, Jews bring it to them. The very source is one; hence all who draw from that source must be one. On ἐξομολογήσομαι see the remarks under 14:11, and note “confess” in the R. V. margin and in the A. V. margin of Ps. 18:49. The word ψάλλω refers to the playing of a stringed instrument as an accompaniment to singing (“to twang” a musical string). “To thy name” (ὄνομα) here, too, denotes the Lord’s revelation (see 2:24) by which alone we know the Lord.

David was the great conqueror of the heathen nations surrounding Israel; he built up the powerful kingdom over which Solomon reigned in peace. But all these victories, David says, mean that he can confess Yahweh among all these Gentiles, sing and play his psalms which glorify the Name in their midst. Why? To bring this Name with all its salvation to them so that they may join in confession and in song with him. This is a great Old Testament missionary text. So in Rome Jews and many nationalities now glorified God in Christ (v. 6).

Romans 15:10

10 Paul adds the invitation to the Gentiles or nations by quoting from Deut. 32:43: “Jubilate, nations, over his people!” Hebrew. Paul follows the LXX: “Be happy, Gentiles, with his people!” Keil rightly states that “his people” are not Israel in general but the faithful servants of Jehovah even as all Gentiles are not their enemies. The invitation to Gentiles to jubilate over Jehovah’s people does not mean that these Gentiles are already also his people, but jubilating over what Jehovah has done for his faithful Israelites will induce them to join these Israelites. “And again he declares,” as the quotation itself shows, refers to Jehovah (Deut. 32:37: “And he shall say”).

Romans 15:11

11 “And again” makes the lines quoted from Ps. 117:1 (the shortest of the psalms) equal to another call from Jehovah. The other verse of this psalm names the grace and the truth of Jehovah, the same two great attributes that Paul mentions in v. 8, 9. The advance of thought in this quotation is the fact that all the nations and all the peoples are called on to praise Jehovah, and to do this not only with his faithful Israelites or over what Jehovah has done for these Israelites, but in general. The second verse of this psalm continues: “For his merciful kindness is great toward us”; but Paul’s next quotation shows that what Jehovah did for Israel reaches out to all nations. See how “all” is emphasized, which reminds us of “all” in Matt. 28:19. Note the durative present imperative, “be praising,” and then the punctiliar aorist imperative with ἐπί, “heap up praise on him” in one grand act.

Romans 15:12

12 Paul specifically names Isaiah and his prophetic utterance found in 11:10, LXX. This quotation forms the climax. It names Christ according to his Jewish descent; he is thus everything for believing Jews: “the root-sprout of Jesse”; it describes Christ as the One rising to rule far more than these Jews, namely also “Gentiles” (no article); and now adds outright what is only implied in the previous quotations, that Gentiles (many of them) will rest their hope on him. So it was in Rome at the time when Paul wrote this epistle. Jews and Gentiles were under the banner of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Ruler of their hearts, and Paul calls on them unitedly to glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (v. 6). Isaiah’s prophecy was being gloriously fulfilled.

Paul omits “in that day” because that day was now at hand. The word ἡῥίζα refers to a live root that sends up a sprout, hence “the root-sprout,” the article designates the one person referred to. Jesse was David’s father; in Rev. 5:5, and 22:16 we have “root-sprout of David.” The royal house that sprang from Jesse was cut down; from the root Jesse (appositional genitive) only a tender young sprout would grow up, so tiny and apparently so weak compared with the old royal tree.

The Hebrew reads: “He shall stand for an ensign (nem, a high flagpole or lofty standard) of the nations,” around which they may rally. The LXX sacrifice this grand figure, and Paul, too, keeps their interpretative rendering: “the One rising up to rule Gentiles.” This is the astounding thing: a descendant of Jesse, the Israelite, is the rallying standard of Gentiles the world over. An ensign or standard, which is here personified as a person, denotes the One who carries the standard to lead his host. He is thus their ruler, ὁΚύριοςἡμῶν, “our Lord” (v. 6). The last line states what kind of a Ruler he is: “On him Gentiles shall hope” (ἐλπιοῦσιν, Attic future for the usual ἐλπίσουσιν), shall rest their hope of salvation and glory to come.

Since he is a descendant of Jesse, from whom the royal house of Israel came, will the Jewish believers not acclaim “our Lord Jesus Christ” their Lord? And since he is the Ensign of the nations, will Gentile believers—in Rome there are so many from various nations—not acclaim him likewise? Here is the hand of God: a mere root-sprout, small, lowly, from a defunct royal Jewish house, is the Lord and hope of the world of all nations. How the Jewish believers should praise God when they looked at their Gentile fellow believers; and how these Gentile believers should praise God when they looked at their Jewish fellow believers whose Messiah-King was also their hope! Isaiah’s word “shall hope” is the very word Paul wants. He dwells on it in his concluding sentence. Hope is the crown of all our blessings in Christ.

Romans 15:13

13 Paul closes with a wish which amounts to a prayer: Now may the God of this hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing so that you abound in this hope, in the power of the Holy Spirit!

Πληρώσαι is the first aorist optative which is here used as a wish: “may fill you”; verbs of filling govern the genitive. “The God of hope” = the source of hope as “the God of perseverance” in v. 5. With abstract nouns πᾶς may or may not be followed by the article, the distinction between “all” and “every” (joy, peace, etc.) being obscured.

Beautifully Paul twines together: hope—joy—peace—believing. But hope is made prominent by repetition, each time it has the article of previous reference: “this hope” of which Isaiah spoke. We have had all of these terms: hope in 5:2–5; joy coupled with peace in 14:17, and peace already in the greeting in 1:7; believing runs through the entire epistle. The perfection lies in the way in which the four cardinal terms are arranged. All flow from God who is called “the God of this hope” because everything climaxes in this hope which awaits God’s own fulfillment. God is the source; “the power of the Holy Spirit” is the means, the Spirit is the Mediator through whose efficacious power of grace all is wrought in us.

Note the three ἐν phrases, which each time mean, “in connection with.” All is in connection with the Spirit’s power, through whom God bestows everything. We add that the channel which the Spirit uses is the Word. Next, “in connection with the believing,” the basic effect produced in us; on the other hand, “in connection with the hope,” the crowning effect. From faith we rise to the hope. Between these two, faith and hope, are placed joy and peace with all their rich abundance: “all joy and peace” (these are reversed in 14:17, for they are simultaneous effects in us) connected with our believing and thus with its crown, i.e., hope. He who believes and is justified by faith certainly has joy and peace and in and with all three he has this hope that makes not ashamed. What a blessed state!

And now Paul’s great wish and prayer for the Romans that God may fill them completely with all possible joy and all peace in this faith so that they may ever be abounding (present tense, durative, in a purpose clause) in joy and peace in connection with their hope. That will come about by increasing the subjective source of joy and of hope, namely faith; and that will come about by an increase of the Spirit’s power which is operative objectively in them by means of the Word.

Finally, all four have their subjective and their objective side: believing = trusting, but our trusting in Christ; peace is our feeling, so also is joy, but we have both as resting on the peace God has made with us in Christ and in the fount of joy this opens for us; hope = our hoping, but ever only on the divine ground, God’s promise and the sure fulfillment God will bring. Men trust a plenty, but they place their confidence on what they imagine. They lull themselves in peace, but God has made no peace with them. They indulge in joy, but terror ought to grip them. And they hope, hope only too readily, but their hopes are made of paper, rest on the air of false expectations. Back of our faith, peace, joy, and hope are God and the power of his Spirit.

Conclusion

1. Personal Matters, 15:14–33

Paul explains at length how he comes to write this letter at the present time. He tells of his past work and of his future plans which involve a visit to Rome.

Now I am convinced, my brethren, also on my own part concerning you that also you on your part are full of goodness, having been filled with all knowledge, able to put in mind also each other. And somewhat boldly I have written to you in part as bringing (things) back to your remembrance, (and this I did) because of the grace given to me from God so that I am a public servant of Christ Jesus, engaged in serving in a priestly manner the gospel of God in order to bring about the offering of the Gentiles as acceptable, as having been sanctified in connection with the Holy Spirit.

With “my brethren” Paul draws a little closer to the Romans than he would have done with the simple “brethren.” Δέ is purely transitional. “I have been persuaded” = “I am convinced.” His information about the Romans has, of course, come to him from others who on their part were convinced about the competency of the Romans, and Paul says that “also I myself” am so convinced “concerning you,” namely “that also you yourselves are full of goodness.” The word “goodness,” ἀγαθωσύνη, meaning that one is prompted by what is good and aims at what is good, spiritually beneficial, is found only in Biblical and in ecclesiastical Greek, C.-K. 6.

“Having been filled with (and thus still full of) all knowledge” adds the second point. The Romans have both the right quality of heart and the full measure of knowledge to be “able to put each other in mind” of what was necessary for their faith and their life. This is not an empty compliment and, of course, not flattery. Paul wards off the idea that his letter would convey the suggestion that the Romans lacked either the goodness of heart to remind each other when and where it should prove necessary or sufficient knowledge, and that he considered them unable (the word used in 15:1) in either respect and in need of an apostle’s help. Quite otherwise. “All knowledge” does not, of course, mean all possible knowledge, nor does it suggest that the Romans had nothing more to learn; but they had all necessary knowledge so that they could proceed safely and securely.

Paul says that his own aim was not to bring the Romans new things by means of his letter; he, too, aims to call things to their minds. If there is anything new in the letter, it is probably the mystery discussed in 11:25, etc., yet among the Romans there were some of Paul’s converts who had heard him speak on this subject, and they could impart this to the others. However, the fact that Paul makes this acknowledgment to the Christians at Rome means much. They had never had an apostle in their midst; they had originally come from various lands; yet they had preserved without loss the teachings they had received, had kept them without strife, errors, and division. Paul knew of no evils existing in their midst—a fine congregation, indeed.

Romans 15:15

15 The Greek uses the comparative, “more boldly,” whereas we say “somewhat” or “rather boldly”; it also employs the aorist, which R. 845 calls epistolary, to indicate what has just happened, whereas we prefer the perfect, R. 842: “I have written.” Ἀπὸμέρους, like ἐκμέρους in 1 Cor. 13:12 = “in part.” The usual supposition is that Paul is here excusing himself for having written rather boldly in some parts of his letter, and we are told that it is only the manner of writing and not the sentiment that he excuses. But why should one write timidly to people who are full of goodness and of knowledge? They are the very ones to whom one may speak frankly and daringly. Their goodness will not draw wrong conclusions, and their knowledge will help them to understand. The idea that Paul is apologetic and excuses himself does not fit the rest of the sentence: “as bringing things back to your remembrance,” literally, “as making you remember again.” It certainly requires no excuse or apology to do that. Good and intelligent people understand fully when one speaks openly and frankly about things they have heard before although these may not previously have been put so strikingly and so effectively.

To have what they know and remember brought to their attention again “in a rather daring way” pleases them, makes them appreciate the better what they have long known. Of course, only good and intelligent people can be thus pleased; people who are lacking in real goodness and in real knowledge might take umbrage.

Paul says: “I am convinced you are the kind of people who are ready and able to appreciate the way in which I have presented to you the old truths you have long known.” This statement also shows that he is referring to his whole letter and not merely to its last part (chapter 12 to 15:13, or only chapter 14 to 15:13), as those have supposed who thought that Paul is excusing himself.

The διά phrase is to be construed with the entire statement and not with the participle only. Paul says that he takes and cannot take any personal credit for special ability for the way in which he has put these things the Romans have long known. It is not my superior intellect or my dialectical skill, it is wholly “the grace given to me from God.” Χάρις = grace that I have never deserved, that God in his goodness made a gift to me when he equipped me to be an apostle. Paul says that what the Romans read in this letter is not Paul’s but the voice of God’s own grace which uses Paul only as its humble, unworthy instrument. Would that every preacher understood this! Από = “from” and varies only slightly from ὑπό, “by,” when it is used with a passive.

Romans 15:16

16 Εἰςτό with the present infinitive denotes result: “so that I am,” and not purpose: “that I should be” (our versions). In Paul’s case the purpose of God was fulfilled, had become actual result. He was “a public servant of Christ Jesus,” i.e., “a called apostle” (1:1); God did not still intend that he should be one.

We have explained λειτουργός, “public servant,” in 13:6. Some think that, because priests are called leitourgoi, the priestly idea is always suggested by the Scriptural use of the word. On the other hand, the pagan use of this word is stressed according to which it refers to a man who stands the heavy expense of some festive procession or celebration. Paul would then mean at great expense to himself he spent himself in apostolic work. This idea is farfetched when we think of Paul who here and every time he speaks of his office emphasizes the fact that he is nothing, and that it is entirely due to God’s grace and gift that he accomplishes anything (1 Cor. 15:9, 10).

Paul says that God’s grace made him “a public servant,” and the idea to be conveyed is that whatever God had bestowed on Paul was for others. A public servant serves the public. This letter to the Romans is a part of the service Paul has been appointed to render to others in his public office. As such a public servant he writes to the Romans. In what follows he goes on to say that the service in the interest of which he writes this letter pertains to his whole future work among Gentiles. He writes to the Romans because he wants to stop with them on his way to new fields of labor.

He says in so many words (v. 20) that his aim is to preach where no work has as yet been done. So the public service here referred to is not intended for the Romans as such but for them as they are linked in with Paul’s plans for a much larger public.

That λειτουργός itself has no priestly meaning is made plain by the fact that Paul adds ἱερουργοῦντα, which has this meaning: “engaged in serving in a priestly manner” the gospel of God. If the former referred to priestly service, why this second word? Derived from ἱερός, the verb means, “to work in a sacred thing,” the sacred thing here being “the gospel of God.” Indeed, the most sacred thing anyone can handle is this gospel (see 1:1, 16). To handle it so as also to be a public servant, and not only for one congregation but “for the Gentiles,” for this vast host of men, was a task that certainly required the gift of God’s grace to the highest degree. That is what Paul emphasizes in regard to the letter he has written, its contents and its character. It is with this background that the Romans should read this letter.

The participle alone does not yet say that Paul brings an offering but only that he works with holy things as priests do in the ἱερόν or Temple. “The gospel of God” also is not an offering brought to God by preaching it, whether to Gentiles or to Jews. The idea of a priestly offering is added in the purpose clause: “in order to bring about the offering of the Gentiles as acceptable.” The genitive in “the offering of the Gentiles” is not objective: offering the Gentiles; but appositional: the Gentiles constitute the offering. Moreover, γένηται, placed so emphatically forward, is not a mere copula: “might be” (our versions), but an independent verb: zustande kommen, and εὑπρόσδεκτος is predicative to “the offering”: “as well acceptable.” The purpose of Paul’s public and sacred gospel work is the accomplishment of this offering as one that God can fully accept, a true, pure, holy offering. To bring this to pass is Paul’s work and office.

That idea is highly pertinent here. Merely to gather the Gentiles outwardly into the church would make them an offering which God could never accept from the hands of anyone. So also to omit anything in the spiritual cleansing of the Gentiles which might leave Gentile Christians less holy than Jewish Christians. That would make them an offering from Paul’s hands that God would abominate. That would be contrary to the very purpose of Paul’s office. The Romans and, in fact, all true Christians would have to repudiate such an apostle and such depravation of apostolic work.

Here is the place to pause and to examine the offering we pastors are bringing to God. What are these members like that we are offering to God? Woe to him who thinks and says, “God, these are a good enough offering for thee!” Lowering the confessional standards, gathering great numbers at the price of truth, leaving unholy bonds unsevered, yielding contrary to God’s plain injunctions, will bring about a frightful reckoning for many a public servant who failed to keep the holiness of his gospel work before his eyes, whose offering to God is a herd of sheep that are tainted and unclean in God’s eyes.

What makes a “well acceptable” offering is implied already in “serving the gospel in priestly manner.” It is clearly stated in the addition: the offering “as having been sanctified in connection with the Holy Spirit,” set apart and separated from the world and all un-holiness and dedicated to God, ἡγιασμένη is predicative, like εὑπρόσδεκτος, and appositional to this adjective. The perfect means: once having been thus sanctified and remaining so. However, ἐν does not mean “by” (our versions), which would be ὑπό; it has the same force it had in v. 13: “in connection, in union with the Holy Spirit.” The means for this union is “the gospel of God” by which alone true contact with the Spirit is established and maintained. This sanctification is not perfectionism; it is the daily cleansing by constant pardon which is accompanied by the daily purification of heart and of life. The agent in the passive “having been sanctified” is God who gives us his Spirit by the gospel so that we may ever be in union, in living connection with him.

Here we have Paul’s view of his own high and holy office. It should be the view of every pastor.

Romans 15:17

17 From the office as such and its divine purpose regarding the Gentiles Paul advances to its past accomplishment. The Romans, of course, knew about it; it is not as being a matter of information to them that he speaks of it but as explaining why in prosecuting his work among Gentiles this had not hitherto brought him through Rome as his plans for advancing to new territory were to bring him. I do have, then, my glorying in Christ Jesus as regards the things pertaining to God.

The grace given to him by God has not been in vain—how could it have been? He is the public servant that he says he is in consequence of this grace and is working in priestly fashion in accomplishing the purpose set by God in regard to his office. And so he, indeed, has “the glorying” that is the natural result. The thought is: “I may, then, glory as I indeed do.”

Καύχησις is the act of glorying; καύχημα the reason for the act or the thing about which one glories (4:2); the article should be retained. But, of course, this glorying is altogether “in Christ Jesus” (see 6:11) and not in the least apart from him, not in the sphere of Paul’s own person, ability, etc. Paul’s glorying likewise “regards only the things pertaining to God,” the accomplishment of these things, i.e., the offering of the Gentiles. We know how much of this Paul had already done.

Romans 15:18

18 For I will not make bold to tell anything of the things which Christ did not accomplish through me for (the) obedience of Gentiles, by word and work, in connection with power of signs and wonders, in connection with the Holy Spirit’s power, so that from Jerusalem and in a circle up to Illyricum I have fulfilled the gospel of Christ.

“For” states wherein Paul is, indeed, able to glory. “I will not make bold to tell anything of what Christ did not accomplish through me,” is a litotes, a negative wording to secure much stronger affirmation of thought. The double negation makes the litotes unusual and especially effective. The sense is: “I will be bold to tell only something of what Christ did accomplish through me.” Boldness on Paul’s part is necessary even to tell something of this, boldness because he is personally involved as the instrument. It is Christ and Christ alone who accomplished these things. “Through me” makes Paul just what he is in this accomplishment on the part of Christ, a mere means (διά) or humble instrument. “For (producing) obedience (on the part) of Gentiles” (subjective genitive) means the obedience of faith; on this “obedience of faith” see 1:5. “By word and work” (datives of means) places these two together since both are required in spreading the gospel. Some include suffering in “work,” but Paul omits this, he tells only “something.”

Romans 15:19

19 One great feature he notes because it so mightily evidences the fact that Christ and Christ alone wrought whatever results were accomplished, and one phrase is enough to mark this feature: “in connection with (ἐν) power of signs and wonders.” It was Christ’s power. “Signs and wonders” are so often combined in this order; and “wonders” is never used alone as a designation for miracles. Pagan religions also had τέρατα or “wonders,” namely portents that astonished and made men gape and wonder. Their spuriousness lay in this that they were not “signs,” signified no great or blessed realities. “Sign” is the higher, ethical term, for it signifies; it indicates so that those who are not obdurate will see and be aided toward faith. All miracles are signs, but all signs are not miracles. “Signs” is a wider term although here, where it is combined with “wonders,” miracles alone are referred to. Luke reports some of these signs for which Christ used Paul in Acts.

But the chief means used by Christ, the one which is ever operative in producing the obedience which is faith, is named in the final phrase: “in connection with the Holy Spirit’s power.” The correct reading is perhaps: “in connection with (the) power of God’s Spirit,” which would name all three persons: Christ—Spirit—God. One important text has the reading “Spirit’s,” and it might be possible that “holy” or “God’s” were added by scribes. see v. 13 for this phrase with and v. 16 without the word “power.” We regard the three phrases: εἰς—ἐν—ἐν as coordinate, all are equally dependent on the verb. This means that Paul is not saying that the signs and wonders took place in the power of the Spirit. Christ wrought the signs and wonders; Christ used the Spirit’s power. Moreover, this is the power of grace, the power of the gospel, the one power that is able to produce the obedience of faith in human hearts.

We find no gap in thought and no irregularity in the wording when Paul continues with ὥστε and states the result as far as Christ’s employment of Paul is concerned. For what is said is this: “Christ accomplished … so that I have fulfilled, etc.,” (with the result that I fulfilled). This becomes even clearer when we consider the literally exact sense of κατειργάσατο: Christ “wrought thoroughly (perfective κατά)—so that I have fulfilled.”

The expression: “I have fulfilled the gospel of Christ” is both striking and significant. It is like “the Word was growing,” in Acts 6:7; 12:24; 19:20. In Col. 1:25 we have, “to fulfill the Word of God.” This does not imply that the gospel and the Word are vessels which are empty until the preaching fills them; “fully preached” in our versions gives the general sense. We need not change the gospel and the Word into the act, work, or service of preaching, in order to get the sense of fulfill. The gospel is the glad news, the Word is something to be transmitted, and thus to fulfill them is to convey this news, transmit the Word to those who are to hear it.

This Paul has done, and it remains as having been so done (perfect tense), “from Jerusalem and in a circle (κύκλῳ, an adverb, R. 644) up to Illyricum.” With a brief stroke Paul marks geographically the sweep of his labors. He does not say “from Damascus” and does not name the most western European city that he reached. He does not make the line as long as possible as if he were seeking full credit. The “round about” of our versions does not mean “round about Jerusalem,” for Paul neither says that nor did he cover Judea. He says that in a grand sweep through Asia Minor and southern Europe he delivered the gospel message and reached as far as Illyricum which is usually marked on our maps as Dalmatia, north of Macedonia, on the Adriatic. And Paul tells the Romans this as an explanation of his plans, which, while going westward, would lead him through Italy (with a visit to Rome) and on to Spain.

One should not think that Paul hit only the high spots, a number of large cities. A study of the Acts reveals that with the aid of his regular assistants and by the channels thus opened he succeeded in spreading the gospel far and wide so that it radiated through each province from the central cities. It is truly marvelous to note how much was thus accomplished in the time allotted. He was ordered not to go in certain directions; in certain places he was ordered to prolong his stay. After he had left, the work went on everywhere and spread out still farther and took deeper root. He kindled thousands of fires, so many that the wind spread the conflagration until fire merged into fire.

Romans 15:20

20 Not as a side issue but as a part of the chief explanation of Paul’s plans for future territory to work, he adds: in this way, moreover, seeking honor in preaching the gospel where Christ had not (yet) been named in order that I might not be building on another’s foundation, but as it has been written:

They shall see, to whom it was not reported concerning thee;

And they who have not heard shall understand.

The participle modifies μέ occurring in v. 19. By following the line of countries indicated Paul avoided building on another man’s foundation, he himself laid the foundation; for in all these countries Christ “was not named,” i.e., his name was not uttered in faith by anybody when Paul started preaching that name. The Greek is satisfied with a statement of the mere fact: “was not named” (aorist), whereas we require a relative tense: “had not been named” when I preached.

It is often considered a mere personal ambition of Paul’s not to build on foundations laid by others; but this is incorrect. When the first great missionary call went out it was concerned with work among the Gentiles, where no foundation had ever been laid. All was virgin territory. And this was the very calling of the apostles: to lay the foundation and not to build upon it. Note 1 Cor. 3:10: “I laid the foundation.” This was not only Paul’s duty; the other apostles likewise knew that their calling was laying the foundation in one place or locality; as soon as the gospel was well established, they moved to a new locality. For this reason the gospel extended so far in so short a period. John settled in Ephesus after the Jewish War and yet traveled from there as 2 John 10 and 3 John 10 indicate.

What Paul says is that he lived up to the purpose of the apostleship, which was to lay foundations where no church existed; and what Paul implies is that he will continue thus, that, therefore, his coming to Rome is for the purpose of a visit only, a visit in the interest of his doing apostolic work in new lands. When he says that he sought his honor in this, we must know that an apostle’s honor lies in doing the duties of the office of an apostle, the very name meaning an ambassador. Many hands could build once the real foundation was laid; Christ appointed only thirteen apostles. After their work was accomplished, the church would stand until the end of the world (Matt. 28:19, 20).

Romans 15:21

21 This preaching of the gospel in all lands, this founding the church everywhere, accords with many Old Testament utterances, for instance, Isa. 52:15. The Messiah shall be frightfully marred in his passion, but he shall also be exalted. He shall make many nations leap up with astonishment, even kings shall become silent before him, for they shall at last see what had never been reported and published among them, and what they had never before heard they shall now understand. See Delitzsch who explains correctly the line translated: “So shall he sprinkle many nations.” Paul quotes only the two lines which so clearly say what happens when he preaches in new countries: they then see what had never been reported to them concerning thee (the Messiah); and they who have until then never heard shall then (not only hear but) understand in true faith. Note the chiasm: verb—relative clause; relative clause—verb. The two lines are synonymous.

Romans 15:22

22 Therefore also I continued to be cut off in many ways from coming to you. He could not come to Italy and to Rome as though he were coming to territory that had not yet been supplied with the gospel and thus was still territory in which an apostle might properly lay the foundation; that foundation had been laid without direct apostolic help by those who had been taught by the apostles in Jerusalem, etc., and had later moved to Italy. Remember that Paul found a church also in Puteoli and remained there seven days (Acts 28:13, 14). Paul could visit Rome only in connection with his work in new territory. But every time he thought he could arrange such a visit he was cut off from going to Rome by many things. Τὰπολλά (variant πολλάκις, “often”), adverbial accusative, really means, “as to many things” (R., W. P.), although it is generally taken to mean, “many times.” The iterative imperfect refers to recurrent times.

So we take this adverbial accusative to refer to the many affairs of his work that occupied his attention wherever he happened to be laying new foundations. Verbs of hindering take the ablative, here “from coming to you,” R. 1061.

Romans 15:23

23 So it has been in the past: Paul was always hindered (1:10–13). But now, no longer having room in these regions, and for many years having a longing to come to you, when I go to Spain I, indeed, hope in going on through to behold you and by you to be sent forward there when first in some measure I get my fill of you.

We see no reason for an anacoluthon which some find (see R. V.). It is thought to be due solely to γάρ, which is regarded as introducing an explanation. This, of course, leaves the main sentence incomplete. But γάρ does not always mean “for” (stating a reason or an explanation), it is often a mere particle that marks logical connection and nothing more, the German also, doch, ja, ja doch; see the γάρ used in v. 27. It is so used here: hoffe ich also, doch, ja to see you. The German commentators have less reason for making this sentence anacoluthic than the English, for we have no such particles as the Germans have for reproducing this type of γάρ.

We submit again (see 5:12) that the subject of anacolutha needs more adequate treatment. The very “mental activity” and “rapidity of thought” that are offered to explain them (on the assumption that they are “irregular”) are not a satisfactory explanation; the more rapid a thinker is, the surer he is as to how he will end a sentence that he begins. Only slow thinkers are apt to construct an awkward ending. Moreover, anacolutha that occur in writing differ from those occurring in speaking because the writer rereads his words and freely changes and corrects his diction. This implies that every anacoluthon that is found in deliberate writing is left there for a legitimate reason. Therefore the anacoluthon that is found in writing is not an irregularity but a fine, regular, often a most highly effective grammatical or dictional means to an end.

It implies, furthermore, that it is incumbent on grammarian and commentator to discover the reason for the anacolutha, especially for those found in the New Testament. Apply this rule here, and no reason appears for the use of an anacoluthon. Paul’s sentence is perfectly smooth and is finished in perfect form.

Paul has come in a circle from Jerusalem to Illyricum (v. 19); he has no more room in these territories since he works, as he has explained, only by laying the foundation so that others may build thereon. Now at last the very tide of his work can take him through Italy, and his longing, dating back “from many years” (with ἀπό or ἐκ the Greek always looks forward from a distant point), has hope of being realized, which will occur when he visits Rome.

Romans 15:24

24 So he writes: “When I proceed to Spain (ὡςἄν = as I expect to do) I hope γάρ (German also, in consequence), passing on through, θεάσασθαι, to behold, to see you with my own eyes.” The fact that he expects to contribute something to the Romans during his visit he has stated in 1:11, 15. The fact that he expects also to receive something was added in 1:12. He reverts to the latter when he now adds that he hopes “by you to be sent forward there when first in some measure I get my fill of you.” The first thing that he expects (ἐάν to indicate expectancy) is to satisfy his longing for personal and intimate contact with the congregation at Rome. We retain the literal: “to be filled with you,” which presents Paul as one who is hungry and avidly partakes of food until he is filled. Yet Paul adds that he does not expect to get enough of this delightful, satisfying contact; only ἀπὸμέρους (v. 15) “in part,” “in some measure,” will he get what he so much desires. He would like to make his stay much longer, but his apostolic work of laying new foundations will drive him on to new regions.

He thus hopes “to be brought forward there” (thither, to Spain) by the Romans. This means that they will take the fullest interest in the journey to Spain, help equip him for it, send men along to escort him, pray for his success. The Acts (17:15) show how Paul was conducted from Berea to Athens by certain Bereans; at other times volunteer companies went with him for only a part of the distance although these were not small parts. This was a lovely custom of those early days.

Romans 15:25

25 Paul now explains why he does not at once proceed with these plans and come directly from Corinth to Rome. But now I am going to Jerusalem (for the purpose of) ministering to the saints. Paul hoped that this would be the last of “the many things” (v. 22) that would “cut him off” from getting to Rome; but two additional years elapsed, and then Paul arrived in Rome—as a prisoner! “For” explains: For Macedonia and Achaia resolved to exercise a fellowship with the poor of the saints in Jerusalem. So they resolved, and debtors are they of them. For if the Gentiles fellowshiped in their spiritual things, they are indebted to render public service to them in natural things. Having then finished this and having sealed to them this fruit, I will proceed from (them) through you (your city) to Spain. And I know that when I come to you I shall come in the fulness of Christ’s blessing.

Romans 15:26

26 From 1 Cor. 16:1 we learn that not only Paul’s European churches but also those in Asia were contributing to the great collection concerning which he writes in 1 Cor. 16:1, etc.: II Cor. chapters 8 and 9. He mentions only the Roman provinces Macedonia and Achaia because he is writing from Corinth and intends to go to Jerusalem by ship from these two provinces. This he also did (Acts 20:6). The bearers of the collection (Acts 20:4) were accompanied by Paul although the mention of the collection itself occurs only incidentally in Acts 24:17.

Εὐδοκέω with the infinitive means “resolve,” B.-P. 497; C.-K. 352. Instead of bringing forward only the idea of voluntariness as is generally done, the main idea conveyed is that brought out by Paul himself when he in v. 27 uses λειτουργῆσαι, “to render public service.” The contribution was voted publicly and thus became a public service. The company mentioned in Acts 20:4 are actually the λειτουργοί, public servants, who were certified as such (1 Cor. 16:3) by letters, representatives of the churches, official bearers of the collection. Κοινωνία, neither here nor in 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:13; Heb. 13:16 denotes “contribution” but always “fellowship,” C.-K. 614 Teilnahme, one that is exercised; and τινά is not “a certain” but only our indefinite “a” (R. 743). The old mother church in Jerusalem was passing through very hard times so that many of its members were “poor” and needed help; see Gal. 2:10. “Saints” is to be understood as it was in 1:7.

While the motive for this collection was pure Christian charity, Paul added a higher motive, one which is manifested in the grand public way in which he managed this collection and in what he writes about it. The mother church and all these her daughters in far off Gentile lands, who were for the greater part made up of Gentiles, were to be drawn intimately together in close fellowship. By this act of charity unity was to be strengthened. “They resolved” is significant for this reason. The noblest feature of the gifts was the exercise of spiritual “fellowship.”

Romans 15:27

27 Hence the repetition: “So they resolved,” or: “Yes, they resolved.” Here there is another γάρ that is exactly like the one occurring in v. 24. It is again the German also or ja (not naemlich), and our versions do what they can with their “Verily” (A. V.) or “yea” (R. V.). Paul adds pointedly to this resolution: “and debtors they are of them” (objective genitive), i.e., under obligation to the saints in Jerusalem.

With a condition of reality he explains (γάρ) why they are so: “If the Gentiles fellowshiped in their spiritual things, they are indebted to render public service to them in natural things.” Note how the Words recur: κοινωνία—ἐκοινώνησαν and ὀφειλέται—ὀφείλουσι, and also note the contrast, “things of a spiritual nature—things of a fleshly or bodily nature.” This is typically Pauline. The one fellowship deserves the other; the one debt and obligation entails the other; the things that feed the body are only a small return for the things that nourish the spirit. Paul’s churches were so predominantly Gentile that he could call them “the Gentiles.”

Σαρκικός = having the quality of flesh: κατὰσάρκαὤν, which can be said regarding money which buys food for the body; σάρκινος = σὰρξὤν, composed of flesh as material, and would not be suitable here. What Paul says is true. Though he is an apostle to the Gentiles he is ever ready, as we have seen so often in this epistle, to remind all his Gentile believers that they are indebted to the Jews for the gospel; he who had converted them and founded their churches and most of his assistants were originally Jews.

Romans 15:28

28 Not until this important work is done does Paul feel free at last to hasten on to Rome and then to Spain. He speaks not only of finishing “this” so that one might say that he might have delegated it to others and hurried on to Rome at once; he adds: “and having sealed to them this fruit.” Paul evidently means that his presence in Jerusalem is necessary for this, that he cannot well delegate this to others. That fixes the meaning of the figurative term. A seal is affixed to indicate ownership, for certification, or for safety and inviolability. Here the second purpose applies. The great collection could be handed over by anybody.

Nor was there a question as to safe, intact handing over. Nor was ownership involved; for this was a gift. The point was certification, and not a general one, but one by a person whose attestation implied all that an actual seal on a document means. All these congregations that had contributed were Paul’s own. He was the one to be present when the delivery was made in Jerusalem so as to produce the effect he was so concerned about, not merely to feed hungry Christians, but to make this the gift of Gentile to Jewish Christians, to the Jewish Christians at the center from which Christianity had come to the Gentiles.

So we disregard the figure of sealing up sacks of grain, a recent explanation that has found few that commend it. We discard the thought of safe transmission (L): “when I have secured this fruit to them as their property”—anybody could have told those Christians in Jerusalem: “This is yours!” Nor do we say that the thought of property, security, formality, solemnity, and finality all flow together in the sealing. Paul had to be there, and the suggestion is made that he was the seal in his apostolic capacity. The participle is middle for this very reason: “having sealed for myself to them this fruit.” No one could do this for him. Then at last he says, “I will proceed from (them, ἀπό in the verb) through you (through Rome; not: by means of you) into Spain.” The entire paragraph regarding Paul’s plans and his reasons for them is clear, is to the point, and without side issues.

Romans 15:29

29 He finally adds that he knows that when he does come he will come “in the fulness of Christ’s blessing.” There are no articles, the genitive “of Christ” makes both nouns definite: “in connection with Christ’s blessing.” Christ will bless his coming visit in richest measure for Paul as well as for the Romans. He did; in fact, he brought Paul to Rome in the most wonderful way, told him he would do so (Acts 23:11) in order to witness in Rome as he had witnessed in Jerusalem, which meant among Jews in Rome, and at once upon his arrival he opened the door to the Roman Jews for him (Acts 28:17–31). On Paul’s success among the Jews in Rome see the author’s discussion of this section in Acts.

Romans 15:30

30 After having stated these explanations Paul asks for the prayers of the Romans. Now I admonish you, brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ and through the love of the Spirit to strive with me in your prayers in my behalf to God that I may be rescued from those who are disobedient in Judea, and that my ministration for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints in order that, having come to you in joy through God’s will, I may find rest with you.

Prayer was Paul’s reliance. As he prayed for others, so he asks them to pray for him. Παρακαλῶ has the same force it had in 12:1; “brethren” is equally in place. The medium through which Paul sends this admonition to pray for him is doubled (two διά): their mutual Lord Jesus Christ, to whom they bow as does Paul, who directs them as he does Paul; and the love which the Spirit works (genitive of source) in all believers’ hearts, the love of comprehension and purpose (see 1:7). It is as though Christ himself calls on them to pray with and for Paul, and as though the love in their hearts will respond with strength and with fervor.

By naming Christ and this love Paul touches the highest motives. “To strive (literally to agonize) with me,” which is found only here in the New Testament, calls for prayers into which one puts his whole heart and soul as do the contestants in the arena. So the brethren in Jerusalem once prayed for Peter (Acts 12:5). “In the prayers” may be = in your prayers; but “prayers” often seem to refer to the congregational worship (Acts 2:42), and here Paul asks for the prayers, not of individuals, but of the entire congregation.

Romans 15:31

31 Ἵνα is subfinal and states for what the Romans are to pray in Paul’s behalf. First, for rescue from the disobedient or unbelieving Jews in Judea, not only in Jerusalem, for the country was full of them. Paul realized fully that he was walking into a den of lions. We are unable to say how soon the Lord revealed to him the danger that lay ahead. In Acts 20:22, 23 he tells how his spirit bound him to go, yet how the Holy Spirit testified into what afflictions he was going. When he wrote Romans, shortly before starting for Jerusalem, the Spirit had perhaps already spoken.

But Paul has an even graver concern, namely that the very errand of mercy on which he felt bound to go might, perhaps, not be well received by the saints in Jerusalem. They might scorn his “ministration” because of evil reports about the way in which he was receiving Gentiles into the church and was now bringing money as a gift from these Gentiles. We know from Acts 21:21 just what the situation was. James and the Jerusalem elders stood with Paul, received him gladly, glorified God for what he had accomplished, gratefully accepted the great collection (Acts 21:17, etc.), but they told him how he had been slandered and advised him how to quash all these slanders in the most effective way. When he wrote Romans, Paul knew what to expect on this score. His trust was placed in God. How fervent his own prayers were we may imagine.

Romans 15:32

32 This second ἵνα indicates purpose. He hopes to come to the Romans with joy “through God’s will,” θέλημα, not the faculty that wills but the decision willed by God. see Acts 21:14. “Through or by means of God’s will” expresses the truth that it is God who controls, guides, brings us to the goal. A world of meaning lies in the verb: that “I may find rest with you,” an ingressive aorist. It is not “rest together with you” (R., W. P.), for there is nothing that implies dangers and difficulties for the Romans that are similar to those existing for Paul, from which they, too, would find rest. No; Paul sees the Roman congregation without troubles and harassments, like a lovely, quiet harbor; he sees himself storm-tossed and battling during the period ahead of him and longs to reach Rome, the quiet haven, to drop anchor there for a while and—come to rest.

To reach this rest amid friends, in undisturbed fellowship, for this Paul’s soul longed. He had left Ephesus after an uproar (Acts 20:1); he had twice written to Corinth on a number of disturbing questions; he had written sharply to the Galatian churches; he tells us what he was facing. Rest, rest, was his soul’s longing.

Romans 15:33

33 The greeting of peace penned in 1:7 becomes the closing wish. The epistle itself breathes peace throughout. The God of peace is the God who in and through Christ has established peace with us and fills our hearts with the assurance and the joy of this peace. With you all! needs no copula; it is like an exclamation. This God “together with them” (μετά, in company with them) will, indeed, be with them. “The God of hope” in v. 13, “the God of perseverance and of admonition” in v. 15 are mates to “the God of peace.” On “amen” see 1:25.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.