ST. PAUL=S
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS:
NEWLY TRANSLATED
AND EXPLAINED FROM A MISSIONARY
POINT OF VIEW.
BY THE
RIGHT REV. J. W. COLENSO. D.D.,
BISHOP OF NATAL.
PRINTED AT EKUKANYENI, NATAL
1861.
TO THE HONOURABLE
SECRETARY FOR NATIVE AFFAIRS,
TO THE NATAL GOVERNMENT,
THEOPHILUS SHEPSTONE, ESQ.
MY DEAR FRIENDB
This book contains the substance of many conversations, which I had with you from time to time, upon the subject of teaching the truths of Christianity to the natives of this colony and those of other heathen countries. The teaching of the great Apostle to the Gentiles is here applied to some questions, which daily arise, in Missionary labours among the heathen, more directly than is usual with those commentators, who have not been engaged personally in such work, but have written from a very different point of view, in the midst of a state of advanced civilization and settled Christianity. Hence they have usually passed by altogether, or only touched very lightly upon, many points, which are of great importance to Missionaries, but which seemed to be of no immediate practical interest for themselves or their readers.
The views, which I have advanced, are the results [ii] of seven years of Missionary experience, as well as of many years of previous close study of this Epistle. I had hoped that this book might have been of use with reference to that great work in Zululand, to which, as it seemed lately, Providence of God was more directly calling youBa work which promised immense results of blessing to the natives of this part of Africa, and in which it would have been my joy and pride to have rendered you. any assistance in my power. I cannot but believe that the time is not far distant, when the singular abilities, which God has given you, for influencing the native mind,Bto which, under the Divine blessing, this colony has been mainly indebted for the order and peace, which, during so many years, have been maintained within its border,Bwill be called into yet more active exercise, in advancing the civilisation of these tribes.
Meanwhile, I beg you to accept this book, as a token of sincere esteem and friendship, and as a pledge that, if God will, I shall gladly be associated, with you, at some future day, in carrying on such a work.
I am, my dear Friend,
Yours very truly,
J. W. NATAL
BISHOPSTOWE, JUNE 1, 1861
INTRODUCTION.
Before we can enter fully into the Apostle=s meaning in this Epistle to the Romans, and see the very gist of his argument, and the line of thought he is following throughout, it is necessary that we should have a clear idea of the persons to whom, and thecircumstances under which, it was written. This, whichis desirable, of course, for the elucidation of all his epistles, is also essential here. It is impossible that any one should understand his language inthis epistle, even in the Greek, much less in the English translation, who has not realised to himself, in some measure, the state of things at Rome, at thetimewhen the Apostle wrote, whodoes not keep that state of things in hismind all along, as he reads his words.
To what class of persons, then, was this Epistle written? We call it the Epistle to Romans,= that is of course, to the Christian believers then living at Rome. But who were these? A nd how did there happen to be any Christians at Rome at this time? It is natural to imagine a Christian Church at Rome, definitely formed and fully developed, like those at Corinth, Antioch, or Ephesus, or, in later times, at Rome itself. And, probably, most readers who have not bestowed much thought upon the subject, would take for granted that these Romans,= who are here addressed, were like the Thessalonians, Corinthians and others, mostly converts [ii] made directly from the heathen world, in the midst of the teeming population of the Imperial City. When St. Paul writes (Rom. i. 7) to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints,= and speaks to them (i. 5, 6) of his having received apostleship for the obedience to the faith among all nations, among whom also ye,= and tells them further on (i. 13) that he had oftentimes purposed to come unto them, that he might have some fruit among them, also, as even among other Gentiles,= it is plain that he is not writing to Jews, but to Gentiles,Bto men who were not merely living at Rome, as numbers of Jews were at this time, but who were really men of the nations,= true Romans born and bred, and who had had, most probably, their early training in heathenism.
But, when we look at the Epistle itself, we are at once struck with the peculiarity of its style, and of its main subject-matter. The first eleven chapters would seem to be addressed to Jews, rather than to Christians. By far the greater part of the Epistle assumes in the reader a very familiar acquaintance with Jewish history, and Jewish practices, and Jewish modes of thought, such as no mere ordinary convert from heathenism, especially at a time when there were only manuscripts, and the Books of the Old Testament were not in every one=s hands, could possibly have possessed. St. Paul passes rapidly from one point to another, as if sure of carrying his reader along with him, without stopping for a moment to explain more clearly, to the Roman mind, any one of his allusions The Jew=s resting in the Law=; his making his boast in God,= his confidence in circumcision, the story of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in some of its minuter details,Bthe destruction of Pharaoh,Bextracts from the Psalms and the Prophets,Ball these are brought in, when the argument requires it, without any doubt seeming to cross his mind as to the possibility of his illustrations being unintelligible, and his reasoning failing to take effect, because of any want of acquaintance, on the part of those to whom he wrote, with the main facts of Jewish history. In fact, in some [iii] places, he writes directly as to JewsBhe sets up a Jew to argue withBas in (ii. 17), Behold! Thou art called Jew, &c.= and in (iv. 1), What shall we say then that Abraham, our father, hath found?=
And yet the expressions quoted from the first chapter, and other passages, such as (xi. 13) I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office,= and the general tone of the epistle in many parts, forbid our supposing that he was writing merely or mainly to Jews. How then are we to account for this fact, that in this particular epistle there is so much reference to Jewish matters, more than in all his other epistles put together, unless St. Paul wrote also the Epistle to the Hebrews? How is it to be explained that, addressing himself here distinctly to Gentiles,=Men of the Nations,= Christians of Roman birth, he yet all along assumes in his readers such a perfect knowledge of Jewish matters, such a strong sympathy with the Jewish mind and feelings?
In order to give the answer to this question, we must consider what light the Scripture records throw upon the origin of the Roman Church. And here we shall come at once upon this enquiry, namely, Was there, in fact, any Christian Church at Rome at all, at this time, distinct and definitely marked off from the Jewish community? There would seem to have been none whatever, for the following reasons.
(1). It is certain that no apostle had as yet been at Rome, or taken any prominent part in founding such a Church, or setting in order its affairs. Had it been otherwise, St. Paul must have made some reference to him in this epistle. And, besides, he tells these very Romans (xv. 20), that he strove so to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was already preached, lest he should be building on another man=s foundation.=
(2). Among the numerous salutations in the last chapter, in which twenty-eight persons are named, and others indicated, to whom, as believers at Rome, the epistle must be considered to be especially addressed, [iv] there is no reference to any kind of Church government as existing among them, to any ruling power in the Christian community, to any presiding or officiating person, whether bishop, presbyter, or deacon. It would have been so natural, in chapter xiii, where he enjoins obedience to the higher civil powers, though these were heathen, to have thrown in a word or two, as to their duty also to submit themselves to those, who had the rule over them= in spiritual matters, who were set over them in the Lord=Bif any such there were. It may be said, indeed, that there would appear to be some reference to duly ordained ministers, pastors, and teachers, in the following words (xii. 6-8), Having then gifts, differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith, or ministry, let us wait on our ministering, or he that teacheth, on teaching, or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity, he that ruleth, with diligence, he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.= And, certainly, some of these expressions might be understood to refer to Christian ministers, if there were any other sufficient reason for supposing that there were such at Rome at this time,Bif there were any trace of them in any other parts of the Epistle. But it seems almost impossible that St. Paul, who knew by name so many of the believers at Rome, should not have saluted by name among the rest of the presbyters of the Church, if, indeed, there were any to be saluted. Had he named only two or three persons in the last chapter, we might have inferred, perhaps, that these were saluted by him as prominent in official position; just as in Col. iv. 17, he writes, Say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry, which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.= But the very fact that he salutes so many, and makes no particular mention of any one of them having office or authority among them, implies that he knew of none such. Nor is it easy to see how any could have been appointed, if the city of Rome had never as yet been visited by an apostle. It seems, therefore, more reasonable [v] to explain the words quoted above, as referring to the mutual services which the members of one body= should render to one another, each according to the gift he has received, in their religious communion, or common every-day intercourse, and not to the duties of ordained ministers. Indeed, it is most unlikely that, if the expression, he that ruleth or presideth,= is meant to refer to the presiding presbyter, it should be brought in at the close of the sentence, as above.
(3). But the most decisive proof of the non-existence of a definite Christian community or Church at Rome at this time, is the account given in the last cjhapter of the Acts, of the circumstances which attended St. Paul=s first visit to Rome.
For this first visit of St. P:aul to Rome took place subsequently to his writing the Epistle; inasmuch as in it (i. 10, 11, 13, 15) he distinctly implies that he was longing= indeed to see them= at Rome, but was still a debtor= to them, and had been hindered hitherto,= having not yet found the answer to his request that by some means now at length he might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto them.= If, therefore, we find reason to believe that, on his thus coming among them in person, he found no distinct organised Church, we may conclude, a fortiori, that there was none at the time when he wrote the Epistle.
Now, we are told in St. Luke=s narrative, (Acts, xxviii. 14), that at Puteoli he found brethren.= What this expression means will depend on the view we take of the same language, when applied, in the following verse, to the believers at Rome. For from Rome,= we read, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us, whom when Paul saw, he thanked God, and took courage.= The article is important hereB>the brethren.= We should infer from this expression that, if not the whole, yet at all events the great body of the believers at Rome came out to meet the apostle. And if the number had been large, we should surely have had some plainer intimation of the fact, than is given by the simple words, the brethren.= And when he reaches [vi] Rome, we do not hear of any gathering at the Church, or of any visit made to the apostle by the pastors or teachers of the Church, by any presbyter or deacon. The whole tenor of the narrative in Acts xxviii. 17-31, clearly implies that there is nothing of the kind. St Paul calls together the chief of the Jews, not the elders of the Christian Church; he tells them that for the hope of Israel he is bound with this chain.= They answer that they had heard no evil about him from any quarter, which would not surely have been the case, if controversies such as those, which arose in every other Church, between St. Paul and the party of the circumcision,= had broken out here. And yet the same difficulties must have arisen in Rome, as elsewhere, between the Jewish community and the sect= of Christians, if there had been at this time, any distinct and anti-Jewish development of Christian principles in the Imperial City. But the chief of the Jews= at Rome tell St. Paul, that they desire to hear what he thinks; for, as concerning this sect, we know that it is everywhere spoken against.=This sect,=Bhere is the expression which gives us the clue to their present state of feeling, with regard to those who professed to believe in Jesus. They regarded them only as a sect= of the Jews. And they do not seem to have had much personal knowledge of this sect= at all. They speak as men who had heard more about it than they had seenBwho had no proof before their eyes of the corrupt and dangerous teaching, as they would consider it, which in other places was doing so much mischief, and caused the sect= to be so much spoken against.= In other words, they had evidently no knowledge of a Christian Church, existing in their very midst, at Rome. There were, doubtless, believers there of a certain kind, of the nature of whose belief something shall be said presently. But, whatever they believed, they had not yet broken loose from the Church of their fathers, they had not yet forsaken the Jewish faith. They had not yet separated themselves from the great body of the Jews in Rome, nor formed themselves into any distinct community. [vii]
Let us go on next, to consider what the beliefs of those Christians at Rome was likely to be. There is no doubt that this Epistle was written at Corinth, during St. Paul=s second visit to that city, included in the expression (Acts, xx 2,3) he came into Greece, and there abode three months.= On his first arrival in Corinth (Acts, xviii. 2,3) he found there a certain Jew, named Aquila, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla, (because Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome,) and come upon them. And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them and wrought; for they were tentmakers.= And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.= (Acts, xviii. 11) From the above we may infer that during those eighteen months St. Paul abode still with Aquila and Priscilla; and we find that when at last he sailed thence for Syria= (Acts, xviii. 18), Priscilla and Aquila went with him.
Now what is, meant by the expression, he found a certain Jew= named Aquila=? We know that at some time or other, Aquila and Priscilla became eminent as Christian believers; and it would be hard to suppose that St. Paul could have lived so long, in such intimate connexion with them, if they were rigidly fixed in the principles of Judaism. Are we to understand, then, their words, a certain Jew,= only to refer to Aquila=s Jewish birth? - as when St. Paul said to St. Peter (Gal ii. 14), If thou, being a Jew, &c.,= when yet they were both apostles of Christ. But in that case, would not St.. Luke have written a certain believing Jew.= The argument, of course, is not conclusive. But, certainly, the expression used would incline one to suppose that Aquila, when St. Paul first found= him at Corinth, was a Jew, indeed, still by outward act and profession, and as such, associating freely with his Jewish brethren, but one with a strong tendency to Christianity, which St. Paul himself, by his long close intercourse with him, was the means under God of fostering into a downright, earnest, genuine, profession of the Christian faith. Was [viii] not, in short, Aquila a specimen of the kind of Christianity, which, at that time existed in Italy, among the brethren at Puteoli and Rome?= Were not these, in point of fact, either actual born Jews, as Aquila, or Jewish proselytes from among the Romans, who had received in some way some knowledge of he Gospel, and had gone as far as to recognise in the crucified Jesus the Christ the Messiah, the anointed one of God, who had been so long promised to the Jewish people? Were not these brethren= men, who were sincere of heart, and pious and devout in life, whether Jews or Roman proselytes, believing in the true Living God, and believing also that be had now visited them according to his promise, and revealed to them their King, but who had not yet abandoned by any means the hope of the Jewish nation, which every Jew inherited as his birthright, and into which every proselyte was baptised,Bthat infatuated notion of their own importance, merely as children of Abraham and circumcised, which possessed them to the last, and made them think, that, amongst, all their iniquities, they were the favourites of God, and sure of entering into His Kingdom? Hence we have John the Baptist's warning, Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father.=BTo them circumcision was the seal of the covenant, the charm which protected them from God's wrath=: Jowett, who also quotes from Schoettgen's Hor. Hebr., vol. i. p. 499, a remarkable passage, where a Jewish rabbi, being pressed with the question, How could Israelitish heretics, apostates, and otherwise impious persons, after being circumcised, be sent to perdition?=Banswers, God will first uncircumcise them, and so they will go down to hell.=