Conclusion (15:14-33)

Romans Chapter 15

Verses 14-16
I myself am convinced, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another. I have written to you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the Gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

"I myself am convinced, my brothers..." - The text now turns to personal matters. The apostle explains, at some length, how he has come to write this letter at this time and describes his present activities and future plans for a visit to Rome. Opening with the warm fraternal greeting, "my brothers," He begins the segment by affirming his confidence in the spiritual maturity of the congregation. The pronouns are emphatic for particular emphasis - "I myself - you yourselves." The "goodness" which characterizes the Roman church suggests kindness and generosity toward others. The term (Greek - "agathosune") is relatively rare. It occurs only in Biblical Greek with primary reference to kindness, thoughtfulness, and charity toward the poor. The apostle applauds the congregation's familiarity with the full range of Christian doctrine - "complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another."

"I have written to you quite boldly on some points...." - Paul explains that their level of spiritual maturity and knowledge enabled him to write to them in an unusually forthright and direct manner - "quite boldly." He subtly suggests that his teaching to them is nothing new or novel, but that his goal was to simply "remind" them again of things which they already knew. The basis and authority for his reminder is his apostolic commission - "because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles." The assertion of Paul's apostolic authority is both gentle and unmistakable. Issues of Jewish/Gentile concern have been a primary emphasis in the epistle, issues which clearly fall within the purview of Paul's unique role as the apostle specifically designated by Christ to carry the Gospel into the Gentile world. It is interesting to note that Paul does not use the title "apostle"in this context. Instead he identifies himself as "a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles." The Greek word for "minister" is "leitourgos," a word used in the Septuagint with primary reference to the role of the Levitical priesthood in the conduct of the temple services. Carrying on this theme, Paul uses the picturesque language of the Old Testament sacrificial system to present the mission to the Gentiles in a manner that is most accessible and acceptable to the Jews - "with the priestly duty of proclaiming the Gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God." The sanctification of the Gentiles as "an offering acceptable to God" is ascribed to the Holy Spirit. The verb is passive. God the Holy Spirit is the active agent in this sanctification, not the Gentiles themselves.

Verses 17-19
Therefore I glory in Christ Jesus in my service to God. I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done - by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the Gospel of Christ.

"Therefore I glory in Christ Jesus in my service to God." - Paul hastens to clarify the reason for his claim to a central role in the mission to the Gentiles, lest his words be dismissed as mere bragging. The issue here, he argues, is not personal aggrandizement but the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Gospel. God has accomplished that which He intended in the ministry of St. Paul. As Paul rejoices in the success of that ministry, he seeks to draw attention, not to himself, but to the God who called him and enabled him to do that which he was called to do. Complete credit is given to God. The language is most emphatic - "I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done." The apostle acknowledges that he is nothing more than the humble instrument in the hand of the Lord. All that which he has said and done - including the "signs and miracles" which have been performed to authenticate the message - have been done "through the power of the Holy Spirit." "Signs and miracles" is the standard Biblical phrase for the miracles of God. "Signs" (Greek - "semeia") indicates the purpose of the supernatural feat while "miracles" (Greek - "terata") the supernatural event itself.

"So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum..." - Paul uses the geographic poles of Jerusalem in Judea and Illyricum, north of Macedonia on the Balkan peninsula to summarize the scope of his ministry to date. Paul's presence in Jerusalem at the outset of his ministry is well documented in Acts and Galatians (cf. Acts 9:26-30;26:20; Galatians 1:18-22). Illyricum was viewed as the far northern fringe of the empire. Paul may have passed through the region during his third missionary journey (Acts 20:1-2). Wherever he journeyed in response to God's call he "fully proclaimed the Gospel of Christ." The phrase emphasizes the faithfulness of Paul's preaching.

Verses 20-22
It has always been my ambition to preach the Gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation. Rather, as it is written, "Those who were not told about Him will see, and those who have not heard will understand." This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you.

"It has always been my ambition to preach the Gospel..." - Paul perceived himself to be a missionary on the frontier of Christianity. "Paul here indicates that he believed that God had given him the ministry of establishing strategic churches in virgin gospel territory." (Moo, p. 896) The history of the early church seems to indicate that this was a general perception of the apostolic role. The chosen thirteen were sent out to found new churches where none had existed before, and then move on to establish other churches throughout the world. The care and development of the congregations which had been founded was delegated to others chosen for that role by the apostles (i.e. Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete). Accordingly, Paul assertion is not merely a matter of personal inclination or preference. This was, in fact, the strategic purpose for which Christ had called His apostles.

"And this was the very call of the apostles: to lay the foundation and not to build upon it (Note 1 Corinthians 3:10). 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 on to a new locality. For this reason the Gospel extended so far in so short a period." (Lenski, p. 886)

The point is made here to explain why Paul has not found it necessary before this to visit Rome. The church in that great city was already well established. Paul does not refer to the involvement of another apostle in the founding of the Roman congregations and it is therefore "quite likely that the church had not been founded by, nor visited by, any apostle at this point." (Moo, p. 897) This point becomes particularly significant given the claims of the Roman papacy that the apostle Peter was the founder and first bishop of the church in Rome and the all subsequent bishops of Rome therefore enjoy primacy over the universal church as the successors of Peter. As the following "Excursus" demonstrates, this claim cannot be validated either Scripturally or historically. The absence of any reference to Peter in Paul's closing comments here in the Epistle to the Romans are of particular significance in this longstanding debate.

Vatican I declares with absolute assurance that the apostle Peter was the founding bishop of the church of Rome and that having been martyred there, the Roman Church has been consecrated by his blood. Therefore, "on account of the greater authority of the princedom" the church of Rome shall be the foremost of all churches to whose authority every Christian Church must conform. The Council decreed:

"That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of mankind, and lives, presides, and judges, to this day and always, in his successors, the bishops of the holy see of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood. Whence, whoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does, by the institution of Christ Himself obtain the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. The disposition made by Incarnate Truth therefore remains, and blessed Peter, abiding through the strength of the Rock in the power that he received, has not abandoned the direction of the Church. Wherefore, it has at all times been necessary that every particular Church - that is to say, the faithful throughout the world - should agree with the Roman Church, on account of the greater authority of the princedom which this has received; that all being associated in the unity of that See whence the rights of communion spread to all, might grow together as members of the one Head in the compact unity of the body. If, then, any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." (Schaff, p. 261f.)

The definitive assertions of Vatican I notwithstanding, the historical relationship between the Apostle Peter and the churches of Rome remains a matter of widespread speculation and debate.

The New Testament makes no mention of a visit by Peter to the city of Rome. Acts tells us nothing of such a visit and Paul's letter to the Roman church gives no hint that this church has had any connection with Peter. The chronology of events in the Book of Acts is difficult to reconcile with the assertion that Peter spent a protracted period of time in Rome. Peter's activities seem to have remained based in Jerusalem and Palestine until the heightened persecution which followed the martyrdom of James the brother of John which took place around 44 AD (Acts 12). Subsequently, Peter appears in Antioch in Syria (Galatians 2) and may have spent some time among the congregations of northern Asia Minor (1 Peter 1:1). By the time of the Jerusalem Council in 49 AD, Peter is back in Jerusalem again and actively participates in the discussion of Gentile responsibility to Old Testament ceremonial law. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans around 58 AD at the end of his third missionary journey. He was arrested in Jerusalem shortly thereafter and arrived in Rome as a prisoner in 61 AD. Acts 28 provides a detailed account of Paul's arrival in Rome and his imprisonment in the city. The absence of any reference or allusion to Peter in Romans or Acts 28 strongly suggest that Peter was not yet in the city at that time. The Neronian persecution broke out between 64 and 67 AD. Early church tradition from the Second Century on strongly indicates that both Peter and Paul died in Rome in the course of that persecution. The remains of an ancient shrine in memory of the martyrdom of Peter, dating to the middle of the Second Century, were discovered beneath the altar of St. Peter's Basilica in the 1940's. Although the Vatican's claim that bones uncovered nearby are actually those of the Apostle remains shrouded in controversy, the presence of the shrine itself clearly indicates widespread acceptance of the view that St. Peter died in Rome by the middle of the Second Century.

These facts would seem to rule out the likelihood that Peter spent a protracted period of time in Rome or that he played an influential role in the founding or formation of the church. The widespread assertion after the Third Century that Peter was the founder and first bishop of the Church of Rome had more to do with rivalries and power struggles among the leading churches of ancient Christendom than with historical reality. The closest we can come to a Biblical connection between the Apostle Peter and the city of Rome is an cryptic reference at the end of 1 Peter. Here, at the conclusion of his first general epistle, the Apostle writes: "She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son, Mark." (1 Peter 5:13) Most commentators believe that this is a veiled reference to the city of Rome. Here, as in the Book of Revelation (cf. Revelation 14:8; 17:5), the fallen and by now desolate city of Babylon, once the oppressor of God's people and master of the world, comes to represent the great wickedness of the pagan world. Babylon is used as a cryptic designation for Rome, the current center of worldly power and iniquity. Lenski suggests that as these careful words are consistent with the historical situation in Rome during the mid sixties. Nero is on the imperial throne and his capricious and irrational reign is degenerating into violent instability. If 1 Peter was written in Rome at this time it was written in the context of imminent persecution. There would have been ample reason for caution in identifying Peter's location. "This salutation has the sound of: morituri salutemus!" (Lenski, p. 232 "Morituri salutemus" is the traditional greeting of the gladiators before the emperor in the arena - "We, who are about to die, salute you!")

Note also in the 1 Peter 5:13 text the intimate reference to Mark as "my son." This is presumably John Mark, well known from the Acts and the writings of Paul.(cf. Acts 12:12-13:13; 15:37f;. Colossians 4:10; Philemon 24; 2 Timothy 4:11). The historical evidence from the early church clearly indicates a close relationship between John Mark and the Apostle Peter. The fathers refer to Mark as Peter's secretary (Papias, 140 AD), and describe the Gospel of Mark as "the memoirs of Peter." (Justin Martyr, 106 AD) This is significant for our purpose because of the close connection between Mark and the city of Rome. Those same early church fathers report that the Gospel was written in Rome, around the time of Peter's martyrdom. The fact that the text of Mark's Gospel includes more "Latinisms," that is terms and phrases based upon the Latin language, which was spoken in Rome, than any other New Testament book also tends to support this tradition. Thus 1 Peter 5:13's reference to John Mark as "my son" becomes a significant in the debate over potential Biblical evidence for the presence of St. Peter in Rome.

Contemporary Roman Catholic scholar J. Michael Miller offers the following objective assessment of the evidence on the issue of Peter's relationship with the city and church of Rome:

"There is no explicit Scriptural evidence that Peter ever went to Rome, nor any for the route he traveled, the time of his arrival, the length of his stay there, or his role in the community...Early non-biblical sources, however, provide solid evidence that Peter passed his closing years in Rome, before his martyrdom which probably occurred during the Neronian persecution of 64. It is impossible to affirm with any certainty how long he spent in Rome. A third century legend recounts a twenty-five year stay in the city. More likely, however, is the opinion that Peter spent no long period in Rome before 58, when Paul wrote to the Romans. He may have arrived only in the sixties, shortly before his martyrdom. Peter, then, was not the original missionary who brought Christianity to Rome." (Miller, p. 50)

Martin Luther had come to a similar conclusion nearly five centuries earlier. In his personal opinion, Peter may well have been in Rome, but certainly not for the extended stay asserted by the papacy's apologists. Luther also recognized that his opinion in this matter could not be proven from the Bible. Accordingly, the absence of an explicit Biblical link between Peter and the city of Rome became an important component in the reformer's rejection of the papacy's claim to absolute authority in the church. In his characteristically colorful manner Luther writes:

"Although I maintained that St. Peter was in Rome, and still do, I would not want to die for it as an article of faith. Moreover, I do not know how it could be either maintained or proven; indeed, no one, as far as I know, can prove it. It is not an article of faith, and no one is a heretic if he does not believe St. Peter was in Rome. On the other hand, it is outrageous to deny it unless it is thoroughly refuted. The safest thing is to let it remain uncertain and doubtful. For we ought to believe only what God has commanded us to believe in Scripture, and no one should either add to it or subtract from it...For if it cannot be proven with certainty by Scripture that St. Peter was in Rome (which is not possible), the papacy already lies in mud and amounts to nothing. For just as unnecessary as it is to believe that St. Peter was in Rome, since Scripture does not say so, so it is equally unnecessary to believe that the pope is the heir to the see of Peter, and therefore the pope. Now we see what the pope is sitting on. All they do with their propaganda is enable us to find their false and unworthy foundation even earlier, and so we may see them unhorse themselves with their wild raging. That is why I come to the conclusion here that it is unnecessary to consider the pope either the pope or the heir to St. Peter's throne until they verify with Scripture that St. Peter was in Rome. Hey now, you papists! Be clever and lively, and look for spear, dagger, and sword to drive away this fog of Scripture!" (Luther, 39, p.205)

The identification of Peter as the first in an unbroken succession of Roman bishops is also fraught with historical difficulties. While there are abundant indications, beginning at the end of the First Century, that Peter and Paul were both in Rome and were martyred there, it is not until the middle of the Third Century that we find an explicit assertion that Peter was the first bishop of the Church in Rome (St. Cyprian, 252 AD). This reflects the historical reality that the "mono-episcopacy," that is, the church order in which local churches are governed by a single bishop, appears to have evolved gradually over the first 200 years of Christian history. The existence of an single ruling bishop cannot be reliably documented in Rome or elsewhere prior to the middle of the Second Century. Within the next few decades, however, Eamon Duffy, in his recently published "A History of the Popes" describes the earliest years of the congregation in Rome in this way:

"Christian organization in Rome reflected that of the Jewish community out of which it had grown. The Roman synagogues, unlike their counterparts in Antioch, had no central organization. Each one conducted its own worship, appointed its own leaders, and cared for its own members. In the same way, the ordering of the early Christian community in Rome seems to have reflected the organization of the synagogues which had originally sheltered it, and to have consisted of a constellation of independent churches, meeting the houses of the wealthy members of the community. Each of these house churches had its own leaders, the elders or presbyters...To begin with, indeed, there was no "pope", no bishop as such, for the church in Rome was slow to develop the office of chief presbyter or bishop." (Duffy, p. 7)

Father Miller concurs with this assessment and concludes that it is "anachronistic" to consider Peter the first bishop of Rome:

"In recent years, many scholars have suggested that the original form of pastoral government in Rome following Peter's martyrdom was more collegial than monarchical. After examining the available documentation, Eno concludes that it "points us in the direction of assuming that in the first century and into the second, there was no bishop of Rome, in the usual sense given to that title." (Miller, p. 61)

Thus, 1 Clement, an epistle written around 100 AD by one of the leaders of the Roman Church, indicates that at that point the government of the Church in Rome consisted of a group of elders and bishops, rather than any one individual. A generation later, around 120 AD, "The Shepherd of Hermas" another early letter originating in Rome, refers collectively to "the elders that preside over the church" in that city without any mention of a single ruling bishop. The first historical evidence of a presiding bishop in Rome comes from a conversation reported by Polycarp with a man named Anicitus, the bishop of Rome, on the question of the date of Easter. In the official Roman lists of the popes, Anicitus (155-166 AD) is cited as the eleventh pontiff. To label the ten individuals who precede Anicitus as bishops of Rome is a matter of speculation, conjecture, and imagination.

The preeminence of the Roman Church within Christendom, particularly Western Christendom, by the Third Century is the result of a combination of historical and theological factors. Duffy notes: "A general belief in the precedence of Rome emerged in the Christian writings of the Second Century, and was accepted apparently without challenge. From its beginnings, this was rooted in the claim that both Peter and Paul had ended their lives in martyrdom at Rome under the emperor Nero." (Duffy, p. 5) The ability to claim a dual apostolic pedigree made Rome unique among all the churches of the West. Add to this the prestige and power of the city of Rome itself as the historic capital of the Empire, the traditional seat of supreme governmental power, and the hub of world commerce, and the unique stature of the Roman Church can be readily understood. This preeminence, however, in no way equated to the supremacy asserted by Vatican I. Nor was it perceived to be based upon any unique jurisdiction bestowed upon Peter over the other apostles, or through Peter to his would-be successors, the bishops of Rome. At best, the bishop of Rome was considered to be the first among equals and his advice or instruction while influential and respected, was often disregarded by other bishops who considered themselves to be his peers. Rivalries and power struggles among the bishops of the empire's largest cities continued through the centuries which followed, ultimately narrowing down to competition between the Pope of Rome and his counterpart in the empire's second capital city, the Patriarch of Constantinople. This rivalry would result in the Great Schism (1054 AD) and the tragic division of Christendom between Roman Catholicism in the West and Eastern Orthodoxy in the East.

+ + +

"Rather, as it is written: Those who were not told..." - The section concludes with a quotation from Isaiah 52:15 which foretells the broadcasting of the Messianic gospel throughout the world to those who "were not told" and "have not heard." The inclusion of the Gentile world in the plan of salvation is not an afterthought or a change in plans. God intended from the very beginning to bless all nations through the promised Descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:3). Paul clearly perceives his mission to the Gentiles as the fulfillment of the ancient promises of the Old Testament.

"This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you." - Once again, as in the beginning of the letter (Romans 1:11-13) Paul asserts his long-standing desire to visit the Roman congregations. One commentator describes these words as Paul's "semi-apology" for not having been to Rome previously (Moo, p. 898).

Verses 23-24
But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to see you, , I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while.

"But now that there is no more place for me to work..." - But now conditions have changed. A visit to Rome is finally imminent. Paul's ministry in the East has basically been concluded with the exception of some unfinished business in regard to the special offering for the saints in Jerusalem, to which he will refer shortly. For the first time, he is nearly in a position to realize his long-standing desire to visit the congregation in Rome. Evidently, Paul hopes to use Rome as his base of support for the new initiative in the Roman province of Spain on the western borders of the Empire. Most scholars agree that Paul realized his dream of a fourth missionary journey to the western reaches of the Empire after his release from Roman imprisonment recorded in Acts 28. The early church historian Eusebius reports that Paul was released following his appeal to the emperor. A number of the earliest writings of the church, including Clement of Rome's "Epistle to the Corinthians," indicate that Paul carried the gospel as far as Spain which was the western boundary of the then known world.

Verses 25-29
Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there. For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings. So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this fruit, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way. I know that when I come to you, I will come in the full measure of the blessing of Christ.

"Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem..." - One task remains unfulfilled before Paul can proceed to carry out his future plans. During his third missionary journey the apostle had promoted a love offering from the Gentile congregations on behalf of the mother church in Jerusalem (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:1-2; 2 Corinthians 8-9). Palestine had been stricken with a famine and the need was urgent. For Paul, this collection was more than an exercise in Christian compassion. It was a golden opportunity to help ease the tensions between Jews and Gentiles and demonstrate the unity of the church. The text here mentions both of these themes. Once Paul's responsibilities in regard to the offering have been completed he intends to get on with his mission to Spain. The Book of Acts indicates that this proved to be more complicated than anticipated. Paul was arrested in Jerusalem on a charge of sedition during a riot in the temple. As a Roman citizen, he exercised his right of appeal to Caesar. The concluding chapters of Acts detail his journey to the capital city under Roman guard (Acts 21-28). At that time Paul remained in Rome for two years.

Verses 30-33
I urge you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by our love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me. Pray that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea, and that my service in Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there, so that by God's will I may come to you with joy and together with you be refreshed. The God of peace be with you all. Amen.

"I urge you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ..." - The concluding sections of St. Paul's letter typically include requests for prayer. For Paul, such prayer was not only his personal reliance, but a expression of our solidarity in Christ. By praying for him and his mission the congregations not only invoked the blessing of God upon his work, they became participants in that mission. That sense of solidarity is clear in these opening words. "I urge you" is the Greek verb "parakaleo" which designates an urgent request motivated by love and concern. The traditional KJV translation of the term is "beseech" which carries much the same connotation in English. The strong verb is immediately followed by the repetition of the fraternal designation "brothers" which reinforces the emphasis. The repeated pronoun "our" also stresses the experience of the "Lord Jesus Christ" and the "love of the Spirit" which Paul shares with the believers in Rome. On the basis of all this, the apostle pleads for the Romans "to join me in my struggle." The specific focus of his petitions is twofold. First of all "that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea." Paul labors under no illusions about the personal risks involved in his return to Jerusalem. He is walking into the lions' den. To the leaders of Judaism he is an apostate, a traitor who has betrayed them and gone over to the enemy. His friends attempted to dissuade him from this journey without success (cf. Acts 20:13-38). He is resolved to carry out this mission at any cost. Secondly, Paul solicits prayer that the presentation of the offering may be well received and may serve to ease the tensions between Jew and Gentile in the church - "that my service to Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there." He reiterates his intention to come to Rome as soon as these tasks have been accomplished - "so that by God's will I may come to you with joy and togther with you be refreshed." The apostle appears to anticipate his stay in Rome as an opportunity for mutual encouragement and strengthening in the faith. This segment concludes with a brief prayer/blessing which invokes the presence of "the God of peace" - that is, the God who is the Source and Giver of peace - upon the Roman church.

(continue)