13-A brief foreword to Romans
A brief foreword to Romans The Epistle to the Galatians I have taken, as it stands, without any close enquiry as to its circumstance and origin, still less as to its authenticity. So likewise I propose to deal with ‘Romans,’ that longer and fuller letter, which followed shortly after the Asiatic one, and developed its teaching not a little. ‘Romans’ (I assume) was written from Corinth, where the Apostle was lodging with Gains, and very shortly before he started on that journey which so dramatically ended in bonds and imprisonment. That is to say it came at the end of the period of fruitful ministry, mainly centred around Ephesus, before the opening of which the shorter ‘Galatians’ was penned. St Paul had never been to Rome; though he fully hoped to get there, before many months were past. He had no personal knowledge of the ‘Church’ in the great capital. His readers to-day, in like manner, are strangely in the dark with regard to the Church’s origin. How the Gospel got to Rome, we can only guess. In all probability, the seed of ‘the word’ was sown by immigrants from Jerusalem, or by visitors to that city, belonging to the very large community of Jews who had settled in the metropolis. The Church was, therefore, originally a Church of Jewish believers. But we notice, with some astonishment, that when the great Apostle did get to Rome the Jewish leaders there (Acts 28:17) apparently knew nothing about it. The little knot of Hebrew Christians, that is to say, was wholly lost in the multitude of their countrymen long resident at Rome.
It is well known how hard it is to be sure, at any given moment or in any given passage, whether the Apostle is addressing himself to Jews or Gentiles. That difficulty is present in ‘Romans,’ as elsewhere. Whether there was a larger proportion of Israelites, or non-Israelites, in the little Church at Rome, it is very hard to settle; and indeed it is useless to try.
Zahn inclines to the belief that Jews preponderated. He also acutely observes that, though the Church was mainly ‘Jewish,’ and founded, years before, by Palestinian Jews, yet there was to be detected in it no element of apostacy, or reversion to Judaism. St Paul did not write to them, because they were exposed to reactionary influences. He wrote rather to pave the way for his anticipated visit, by introducing to their notice both himself and the doctrine he taught.
Whether Zahn is right in saying that Rome was, for St Paul, rather a place with which he must establish friendly relations (as a base for future Western mission activities) than an actual centre of work, I cannot tell. ‘Acts’ (one would have been inclined to say) suggests the great city was a goal and an end in itself. He had set his ambitions on it years before, and although his schemes expanded with the profuse magnificence of an Alexander or a Napoleon in the sphere of mundane conquest, yet it seems not wholly unreasonable to suppose he still set his heart on Rome, as Rome, when he wrote. With the question of the genuineness of certain sections of the letter, I am fortunately not concerned. All the sections I have to treat of come before those passages about which there are doubts and questionings.