Bible Commentaries
Romans

ROMANS

VIII

THE BOOK OF ROMANS INTRODUCTION

The prophet Daniel gives a forecast of the rise of five consecutive, great world empires: Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, and the kingdom of God as set up by our Lord. He shows how the people of Israel came in touch with each empire in turn. In this discussion we need to trace out, in historical order, the salient points of contact between Israel and Rome, Daniel’s fourth world empire. The first notable contact was when the Jews were resisting the aggressions of the Seleucids who, with Antioch in Syria as a capital and the head of one of the four divisions of Alexander’s Greek Empire, and who in contending with the Ptolemys of Egypt, another division of the Greek Empire, conceived it necessary to occupy the intervening Holy Land. Their aggression culminated in the attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to destroy the Jewish religion. The apocryphal book of Maccabees and Josephus give a vivid history of this conflict. It was in this struggle between these parts of the divided Greek Empire that Rome, rapidly rising to supreme power, intervened and became a staunch friend to the Jews, crushed between the two. The Romans for a long time were faithful to all treaty obligations toward the Jews, but as the Jews developed internal parties among themselves, one or the other, from time to time, would appeal to Rome. In this way Rome became the umpire of Jewish contentions, and finally the master. The whole Herodian dynasty were dependents of Rome.

About 70 B.C. Pompey came into power and in 63 B.C. captured Jerusalem and led away to Rome multitudes of Jewish captives who, though enslaved were usually kindly treated, and many of them who were set free became Roman citizens. Probably in this way Paul’s father became a Roman citizen, so that Paul himself was a citizen free-born. In the development of the history, a vast number of Jews were settled in Rome, having a special Jewish quarter in the city beyond the Tiber. The Roman classics abound with references to the Jews at Rome: Tacitus, Suetonius, Martial, Juvenal, Horace, Persius, Cicero, and others. It is a notable fact that 8,000 Jews at Rome protested against Archelaus being allowed to have all the dominion of his father Herod. This led to a division of Herod’s kingdom into four parts; hence the name tetrarch, the ruler of a fourth part, to which we have references in the life of our Lord. The Jewish restlessness and turbulence led finally to the appointment of procurators, one of whom was Pilate. Moreover, the points of Jewish contact "with Rome multiplied as they also came in contact with the rising fifth world empire, the spiritual kingdom of our Lord, and culminated A.D. 70 in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Titus, and the wider dispersion of the Jewish people among the nations.

Our next historical question is, How was Christianity established in the city of Rome? Doubtless many Jews from Rome attended the annual feasts in the time of our Lord and became, to some extent, acquainted with the issue between our Lord’s kingdom and the ruling part of Jerusalem. It is certain that, among the great number of Jews gathered together from various nations, Roman Jews and proselytes heard Peter’s great sermon on the day of Pentecost, some of whom doubtless were converted on that day. Through these converts on their return the gospel may have been carried to Rome. It is much more probable that Stephen’s ministry may have sent converts to Rome, particularly after the dispersion following Saul’s persecution. We, at least, note in the salutation of this letter certain kindred of Paul who were in Christ before him. This very fact may account for the bitterness and madness of Paul’s persecution of the church, since under Stephen’s mighty power a breach had been made into his family circle. The kindred, we know, were in Rome at the time this letter was written. Then Paul’s acquaintance and friendship with Aquila and Priscilla banished from Rome by Claudius would increase his knowledge of the personnel of Roman Christians. Moreover, his great meetings held in Syria, Cilicia, Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia necessarily brought many Romans, both Jews and Gentiles, under the influence of his ministry. Hence we note in this letter salutations to his converts in Asia. The travel and traffic to and from Rome along the lines of the great Roman roads, extending to the boundaries of the empire, would continually enlarge Paul’s knowledge of the Christians at Rome, whether Jews or Gentiles. In this natural way we account for the intimate personal salutations at the close of this letter.

There was no one central church at Rome. They had no common meeting place, but there were several churches meeting in private houses. At least three, we may gather from this letter, particularly the one in the house of Aquila and Priscilla. Hence the letter is not addressed to the church at Rome, but to all the faithful in Rome. In accounting for the establishing of Christianity here we must not lose sight of the labors of Christian women, whom he calls fellow workers, so manifest in the salutation.

It is a lying tradition that makes Peter the founder of Christianity at Rome and the first bishop of the church there.

As we see from this letter there was no central church and there was only a possibility of Peter’s indirect influence through his Pentecostal sermon. Stephen’s influence in this direction is more to be credited than Peter’s, and Paul’s much more than both of them. Aquila and Priscilla should have the credit of establishing the first church there, and the noble Christian women saluted by Paul share the honors with all of them. The Romanists indeed contend that Peter went to Rome immediately after the events recorded in Acts 12:1-18, and remained twenty years. But this contention contradicts the scriptures, for we find him soon thereafter at the council, Acts 15, and still further afterwards at Antioch, Galatians 2:11, and it may be inferred from 1 Corinthians 9:5 that Peter was at that time traveling as an apostle to the circumcision. And so as late as his first letter we find him in Babylon where were many Jews. That he was not at Rome when Paul wrote this letter is evident from the absence of any salutation to him among so many; nor there when Paul arrived more than two years later as a prisoner. There is no reference to him as being in Rome in the letters of either the first or last imprisonment there of Paul.

It has also been contended that the household churches cited by Paul in this letter were only worshiping and not organized bodies, but this is contrary to the meaning of the word "church," and also to the uniform apostolic method of ordaining elders in every congregation and otherwise fitting them up for housekeeping. They were not like cowmen on the range marking, branding, and letting loose. Indeed, there is only one passage in the New Testament that at all connects Peter personally with Rome, and that one only by a more than questionable interpretation, and, moreover, written long after this letter, viz.: 1 Peter 5:13. The contention is that by "She that is in Babylon" Peter means heathen Rome, mystical Babylon, a style followed by John in Revelation. But John writes a confessedly mystical book; not of this kind is Peter’s first letter. Moreover, John’s mystical Babylon is not heathen Rome, but the apostate Christian church – the woman in purple and scarlet. If Peter had been at Rome when Paul wrote this letter, why was he not saluted by Paul, as well as so many inferior ones? If he were there when Paul arrived as a prisoner, the silence of Acts is unaccountable. If he were there when Paul wrote the third group of letters during his first imprisonment, the silence of Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews is marvelous. If Peter was in Rome during Paul’s second imprisonment the silence of 2 Timothy is marvelous. Another argument against Peter’s using Babylon in the sense of Rome, is that in his second letter, presumably from the same place, he quotes Paul’s letter to the Romans using the phrase, "hath written unto you." If living at Rome he could not have been writing to Rome and quoting what Paul had written to them. The author does believe that the traditional evidence is sufficient to prove Peter’s martyrdom at Rome, but it is mixed with so much incredible and evidently manufactured matter – manufactured for a later purpose – that the real evidence is discounted by its bad company. At any rate, Christianity was established in the city of Rome before this letter was written, though certainly not by the present personal ministry of any apostle. Let the rank and file of the scattered disciples "who went everywhere preaching the word" have their lawful credit here, as at Antioch and many other places. The claim that Peter was the first bishop at Rome is in every way absurd and unscriptural. The apostles never exercised the office of bishop, or pastor, of a particular church, not even at Jerusalem. Their office was general as contradistinguished from the local office of bishop, or pastor.

We next consider the author, date, and place of the letter. Paul’s authorship has never been seriously questioned by the scholarship of Christendom. The letter avows it in the beginning, and every internal evidence and all its relations to Galatians and Corinthians support it. The date is largely determined by its relation to Corinthians and Galatians. In 2 Corinthians and Galatians he replies to a challenge of his apostolic authority with the internal evidence overwhelmingly in favor of Galatians following Corinthians. In Galatians and Romans he discusses justification by faith, with the internal evidence overwhelmingly in favor of Romans following Galatians, Romans being developed from Galatians. As Ephesians, the more general discussion, follows Colossians, so Galatians, being an offhand, fiery, impulsive letter, is followed by Romans – a calm, deliberative enlargement. The parallels between the two letters are very striking and abundant. The reader may find in Lightfoot on Galatians, or in the "Cambridge Bible", a fair statement of these remarkable parallels. So, we may say that Paul wrote this letter from the house of Gaius at Corinth about A.D. 58. Dr. Robertson’s argument for this date in his "Student’s Chronological New Testament” is very fine. Lightfoot’s arguments from internal evidence on the relative order of Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans is extraordinarily strong.

The occasion is evident from the letter itself. He is the guest of Gaius in the city of Corinth. He has concluded his labors in those parts, and is about to make his final visit to Jerusalem, carrying the alms for the poor saints there which he has gathered in the great collection in Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia Minor. After this Jerusalem visit he purposes a tour into Spain via Rome. To prepare the way for this forthcoming visit to Rome, he writes this letter, having an opportunity of sending it by Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea, the eastern Corinthian seaport.

But the purpose of the letter goes far beyond the occasion. The attack on his apostolic authority, and the very heart of his gospel by the Judaizing Christians whom he has been resisting locally and in a somewhat offhand manner in his letters to the Corinthians and Galatians, he now realizes to be not only more than a local matter, more than a personal attack on his authority, but an incorrigible, far-reaching, fundamental assault on the whole plan of salvation by grace. Impulsive, offhand, and local replies do not meet the exigencies of the situation. There must be a calm, dispassionate, and elaborate exposition of the whole plan of salvation sufficient for every emergency and for all time to come. Such a discussion would likely accomplish the greater good and attain the wider circulation if addressed to the saints at the imperial capital, from which as a center radiated influences to all the circumference of the world. Moreover, this very discussion, forwarded at once to Rome, might anticipate and forestall the Judaizing tendency steadily moving westward from Jerusalem. Hence there is nothing local in his argument. The concluding part, with its personal salutations, might well be left out of copies sent abroad, as we actually find to be the case in some later manuscripts. Hence, while it is a letter, it is much more than a letter – it is a doctrinal treatise, a veritable body of systematic theology. While Ephesians, developed from the more local letter to the Colossians, is of the nature of a general circular, and in this respect somewhat resembling this letter, and while Hebrews bears resemblance in that it is an elaborate discussion of the two covenants, yet addressed to Christian Jews only, this letter is unlike anything else in the New Testament.

It is the most fundamental, vital, logical, profound, and systematic discussion of the whole plan of salvation in all the literature of the world. It touches all men; it is universal in its application; it roots, not only in man’s creation and fall, but also in the timeless purposes and decrees of God before the world was, and fruits in the eternity after this world’s purgation.

It considers man as man and not as Jew or Greek. It considers law, not as expressed in statute on Mount Sinai, but as antedating it and inherent in the divine purpose when man was created in the image of God. It considers sin, not in ceremonial defilement nor as an overt act, but as lawlessness of spirit and nature. It considers condemnation, not as personal to an individual offender because of many overt acts, but as a race result from one offense of the one head of "the race. Consequently, it considers justification, the opposite of condemnation, not as an impossible acquittal of a fallen sinner on account of his many acts of righteousness but as resting on one act of righteousness through the Second Head of the race. It considers, not an impossible morality coming from a corrupt and depraved nature, but a morality arising from regeneration, sanctification, resurrection, and glorification. It considers, not the divine government and providence as here and there looking in on particular men, in special times and given localities, but as an all-comprehensive sweep from eternity to eternity reaching with microscopial minuteness every detail of the nature of man, and universal in its control of all forces, and all subsidiary to the original divine purpose. The God of this letter is God indeed – not a partial, local deity, not blind chance, not cold, inexorable fate, but a purposeful, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely holy, and infinitely loving God.

The integrity of the book has been questioned as follows:

1. Some have thought that the book should close, as they say, with the argument at Romans 14:23, but Romans 15 carries on the thought of Romans 14.

2. Others have thought more plausibly that it should close at Romans 15:33, with the benediction there. They think Romans 16, with its numerous salutations, should close the letter to the Ephesians where Paul had more personal knowledge. But that letter is a circular letter and designedly leaves out local references. Indeed, it would fit better to be called the letter to the Laodiceans.

3. These contentions are somewhat supported by the fact that later manuscript copies omit the concluding sections. But the oldest and best authorities give us the book as it is, and there are natural grounds, or reasons, for the omission of the conclusion in later copies. On the very highest external authority we may take the whole book as it stands. And we have already accounted for Paul’s large acquaintance in Rome.

I must not close this introductory chapter without calling attention to the connection between the Old Testament and New Testament as shown by the great number of Old Testament quotations in the book. There are more than three score of these quotations in this book, covering an unusually wide range of books. Genesis is quoted five times; Exodus, four; Leviticus, twice; Deuteronomy, five; I Kings, twice; Psalms, fifteen; Proverbs, twice; Isaiah, nineteen; Ezekiel, once; Hosea, twice; Joel, once; Nahum, once; Habakkuk, once; Malachi, once; and there are others more indirectly used.

It is also notable that Paul sometimes quotes from the Hebrew, at other times from the Septuagint, and sometimes follows the spiritual impulse in giving the true sense in his own words.

We now come to the subject of analysis, better illustrated in this book than in any other Bible book. A noted writer has said, "Analysis presents the classification of correlated truth." Professor Agassiz says, "Thorough classification is but an interpretation of the thoughts of the Creator." Dr. H. Harvey says, "The Bible should be studied analytically. A cursory reading of the Scriptures does not interpret them; they must be carefully analyzed if one would penetrate into their full meaning." Dr. Francis Wayland says, "(1) We must have a knowledge of the several parts of which it is composed. But this alone gives a very imperfect conception. (2) We must also understand how these parts are put together. This will greatly increase knowledge; but it will still be imperfect. (3) It is necessary, therefore, that we should have a conception of the relation which the several parts sustain to each other, that is, of the effect which every part was designed to produce upon every other part. When we have arrived at this idea, and have combined it with the other ideas just mentioned, then, and not till then, is knowledge complete. It is manifest that this last notion – that of the relation which the parts sustain to each other – is frequently of more importance than either of the others." Dr. Shedd says, "All truth is logical. It is logically connected and related, and that mind is methodical which detects this relation and connection, as it were, by instinct. Now, a methodizing mind is one which by discipline and practice has reached that degree of philosophic culture in which these systematizing laws work spontaneously, by their own exceeding lawfulness and instinctively develop, in a systematic and consecutive manner, the whole truth of a subject."

Bearing these reflections in mind, I submit for consideration four analyses of the letter to the Romans, three of them here, and my own later. The first is by Albert Arnold Bennet, of the Baptist Theological Seminary of Japan, and is by all odds the best in many respects. In his book we have three parallel columns, the right hand column containing the Greek text according to Westcott and Hort, the middle column the revised translation verse by verse, and the first column the analysis itself in detail, carried entirely through the book. It is the most remarkable specimen of analysis I have ever known. I am very proud that a Baptist is the author of it. Who would expect such a thing from a Baptist Theological Seminary in Japan?

ANALYSIS OF ROMANS
(Albert Arnold Bennet, Baptist Theological Seminary, Japan.)

I. The Gospel plan of salvation by Faith (Romans 1-8).

1. The importance of the gospel shown by the moral condition of man, both Jew and Gentile (Romans 1-2).

2. The gospel plan of justification by faith (Romans 3-5).

3. The gospel plan of the sanctification and glorification of those justified by faith (Romans 6-8).

II. The problem of Israel’s unbelief (a reconciliation of the gospel plan of salvation set forth in Romans 1-8, with the seeming rejection of God’s chosen people, Romans 9-11.)

1. Israel’s unbelief and God’s severity (Romans 9-10).

2. Israel’s unbelief and God’s goodness (II).

III. Faith applied; or, the duties of those who have been saved by faith (Romans 12-16).

1. (Of broadest application) Duties, individual or common, belonging to every Christian, strong or weak (Romans 12-13).

2. (Of more limited application) Duties largely relative; especially duties of the strong on account of the weak, Romans 14-15.

3. (Of narrowest application) Greetings, and directions about fellowship, mainly designed for the original readers only, (but suggestive, by inference, of application on a broader scale), Romans 16.

The next outline is by Dr. A. T. Robertson:

Introduction (Romans 1:1-17).

1. The Doctrine of a righteousness from God (Romans 1:18-11:36).

(a) Its necessity (Romans 1:18-3:20).

(b) Its nature (Romans 3:21 – 4:25).

(c) Its results(Romans 5:1 – 11:36).

(1) It makes possible peace and joy (Romans 5:1-11).

(2) It is analogous to the relation of Adam to the race, Romans 5:12-21.

(3) It should lead to greater holiness (Romans 6-8).

(4) It throws light on the salvation of Jew and Gentile (Romans 9:11).

2. General and special exhortations growing out of a righteousness from God, Romans 12:1-15:13.

3. Personal matters (Romans 15:14-16:23).

The closing doxology (Romans 16-25-27).

The third analysis is by my lamented and scholarly colleague. Dr. John S. Tanner:

Introduction Romans 1:1-17

(1) Romans 1:1-7, Salutation.

(1) Romans 1:1 a, Author’s name and character.

(2) Romans 1:1; Romans 1:6, His mission (apostleship).

a. Romans 1:1 b. Source (divinely called).

b. Romans 1:2-4, Nature: Gospel.

a) Romans 1:2, Fulfillment of prophecy.

b) Romans 1:3 f, Concerning Christ.

c. Romans 1:5 a, Agency of Appointment (Christ)

d. Romans 1:5 f, Sphere: To all Gentiles, including Romans

(3) Romans 1:7, Salutation proper.

(2) Romans 1:8-15, Paul’s deep personal interest in the Roman Christians

(1) Romans 1:8, Thanksgiving for their faith.

(2) Romans 1:9-15, His desire to visit them.

a. Romans 1:9 f. Had prayer to this end.

b. Romans 1:11 f, Motive of the visit

c. Romans 1:13, Had often purposed to come

d. Romans 1:14 f. The desire prompted by his obligation to all classes

3) Romans 1:16 f. Theme of the letter: The gospel the power of God unto salvation universally available through righteousness of faith

I. Romans 1:18 – Romans 8:39, The plan of salvation.

1. Romans 1:18 – Romans 4:25, Method of justification.

1) Romans 1:18 – Romans 3:20, Not by works of law (legalism) because guilt and condemnation are universal

(1) Romans 1:18-32, Case of the Gentiles.

a. Romans 1:18, The wrath of God abides upon them; because

b. Romans 1:19-23, They refused the light given them

a) Romans 1:19 f. They had a revelation of God in nature and conscience

b) Romans 1:21-23, But they consciously turned from him to idolatry

c. Romans 1:24-32, The result was to plunge them into the depths of guilt

(a) Romans 1:24-28, God withdrew his beneficent restraints

(b) Romans 1:29-32, Their depravity was deepened

(2) Romans 2:1 – Romans 3:19, Case of the Jews

a. Romans 2:1-16, Argument stated: God’8 judgment will be on the basis of moral conduct

(a) Romans 2:1-5, Folly of arrogant confidence ill special divine favor.

(b) Romans 2:6-11, Judgment will have reference to moral conduct in view of the amount of light possessed

(c) Romans 2:12-16, It is obedience, not to the letter, but to the spirit of the Jaw that is availing.

b. Romans 2:17 – Romans 3:8, Objections answered:

(a) Romans 2:17-24. First objection: Being possessors and teachers of the law is assurance of their acceptance. Ans. – Additional sin in teaching what they do not practice.

(b) Romans 2:25-29. Second objection: Circumcision is availing. Ans. Efficient circumcision is not of the flesh but of the heart.

(c) Romans 3:1 f. Third objection: Then the Jew has no advantage. Ana. – They have much advantage, particularly that they are the recipients of divine revelation.

(d) Romans 3:3 f. Fourth objection: For a Jew to be lost would annul the promises, Ans. – Not so.

(e) Romans 3:5-8. Fifth objection: Unjust in God to punish sin that displays his righteousness. Ans. – This is absurd.

c. Romans 3:9-19. Conclusion: Jew as well as Gentile is hopelessly lost.

(a) Romans 3:9 a. The Jew has no advantage in the matter of justification; because

(b) Romans 3:9 b, 18, Both alike are under sin

(c) Romans 3:19, Purpose of the law is to convict of sin

(3) Romans 3:20, Therefore, legalism as a method of justification is a failure.

2) Romans 3:21 – Romans 4:25, It is by grace through a righteousness of faith, available alike to Jews and Gentiles

(1) Romans 3:21-26, This method stated and described

a. Romans 3:21-24, Its character

(a) Romans 3:21 a, Apart from law

(b) Romans 3:21 b, A righteousness of God

(c) Romans 3:21 c. Witnessed by the Old Testament scriptures

(d) Romans 3:2-20, Through faith in Christ

(e) Romans 3:22 b. Universal

(a) Romans 3:2-26, Available to all

(b) Romans 3:23, Needed by all

(f) Romans 3:24, Distinctly gratuitous

b. Romans 3:25 f, Its basis: Propitiatory sacrifice of Christ

(a) Romans 3:25 n, A Propitiation provided by God

(b) Romans 3:25 bf, For the reconciliation of God’s righteousness and the sinner’s justification

(2) Romans 3:27 – Romans 4:25, Its bearing upon Jewish conduct and faith

a. Romans 3:27-30, Upon their conduct

(a) Romans 3:27 f, Condemns their pride

(b) Romans 3:29 f, Condemns their exclusiveness

b. Romans 3:31 – Romans 4:25, Upon their faith

(a) Romans 3:31, Does not subvert but confirms the Old Testament law

(b) Romans 4:1-25, Is not contradicted, but confirmed by the case of Abraham

(a) Romans 4:1-8, Abraham was justified by faith and not by works

aa. Romans 4:1-3, The scriptures so declare

bb. Romans 4:4 f, This excludes a condition of works.

cc. Romans 4:6-8, Confirmed by the observation of David

(b) Romans 4:9-12, Circumcision not a condition; for Abraham justified before" circumcision

(c) Romans 4:13-22, The promise to Abraham was conditioned on faith, not law

aa. Romans 4:13, Statement of fact

bb. Romans 4:14-17, A legal condition would annul the promise

cc. Romans 4:18-22, The historical facts of the faith of Abraham

(d) Romans 4:22-25, The method in Abraham’s case equally applicable to all who believe on Christ

2. Romans 5:1-8:39, The completion of salvation (sanctification), as based upon this method of justification

(1) Romans 5:1-21, The method of justification promises the completion of the divine work of salvation

(1) Romans 5:1-5, That it is by faith

a. Romans 5:1 f, Having received such a gift, we should realize our blessed state and be confident of the consummation

b. Romans 5:3-5, We should embrace gladly God’s trying means of discipline.

(2) .5:6-11, Christ’s sacrifice for us as rebels insures the completion of his work of salvation in us as his children.

(3) Romans 5:12-21, The same is further assured by the superiority of the redemption in Christ over the loss in Adam

a. Romans 5:12-17, (First parallel and contrast) Christ’s work more extensive; efficient for the multiplied sins and sinners

b. Romans 5:18-21, (Second parallel and contrast) Christ’s work more intensive; overcomes both Adam’s sin and the sin of the individual developed through disobedience to the law

2) Romans 6:1-23, This method of justification encourages not am but its abandonment

(1) Romans 6:1 fa, Proposition stated

(2) Romans 6:2-13, The change of personal relations involves a life of righteousness with Christ and a death to sin

a. Romans 6:2-6, This is set forth in baptism

b. Romans 6:7-13, As Christ’s death and resurrection were once for all, so should be the believer’s death to sin and resurrection to righteousness.

(3) Romans 6:14-20, That the believer has exchanged sin for grace as a master which forbids that sin should longer dominate him.

(4) Romans 6:21-23, The mutual antipathy of sin and grace are evident from their opposite results, viz.: Death and eternal life

3) Romans 7:1-25, The law a failure as an agency of sanctification.

(1) Romans 7:1-6, The believer’s objection to the law has been annulled by death, and he has entered into another companionship, viz.: A fruitful one with Christ.

(2) Romans 7:7-23, The law, though righteous in itself, is unable to produce good works.

a. Romans 7:7-13, In the unbeliever its effect is to manifest and aggravate the presence and character of sin.

b. Romans 7:14-23, In the believer likewise, it aggravates, but does not overcome sin.

(3) Romans 7:24 f, Conclusion: Efficacy only in a personal relation to Christ.

(4) Romans 8:1-27, The believer’s sanctification is accomplished by the guiding and transforming work of the Holy Spirit.

(1) Romans 8:1-8, He implants a disposition to holiness that freely attains in life and conduct what was impracticable as obedience to law.

(2) Romans 8:9-11, The resurrection of Christ is a guaranty of the renovation and resurrection of those in whom the Spirit dwells.

(3) Romans 8:12-17, The Spirit bears personal witness to the believer of the latter’s sonship to God and joint inheritance with Christ.

(4) Romans 8:18-27, The Spirit also prompts and guides to hopeful longing and righteous supplication for the consummation.

(5) Romans 8:28-30, Believers are the elect of God, PREDESTINED to be called, justified, SANCTIFIED and GLORIFIED.

(6) Romans 8:31-39, Triumphant peroration on the blessedness of the believer.

II. Romans 9:1 – Romans 15:13, PRACTICAL BEARING OF THESE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS UPON CHOICE, LIFE AND CONDUCT.

1. Romans 9:1 – Romans 11:35, The apostasy and rejection of the Jews.

1) Romans 9:1-5, Paul’s intense grief over the fact.

(2) Romans 9:6 – 10-21, Moral responsibility for the fact.

(1) Romans 9:6-29, God not culpable.

a. Romans 9:6-13, His promise not broken.

(a) Romans 9:6-8, The promise not given to all the natural seed of Abraham.

(b) Romans 9:9-13, God’s plan of discrimination exemplified in the cases of Isaac and Jacob.

b. Romans 9:14-24, It could not transcend his absolute sovereign right.

(a) Romans 9:14-18, Scripture proof that God’s acts are sovereign.

(b) Romans 9:19-24, His right unimpeachable.

c. Romans 9:25-29, That only a. fraction will be saved, is according to prophecy.

(2) Romans 9:30 – Romans 10:21, The Jews themselves are to blame, for their rejection was caused by their self-righteous unbelief.

a. Romans 9:30 – Romans 10:3, Their zeal for righteousness has been misdirected.

b. Romans 10:4-13, The true way, viz., belief in Christ upon testimony of the preached gospel, much simpler than the one they employed.

c. Romans 10:14-21, Israel has heard and refused.

(a) Romans 10:14 f. Importance of preaching admitted.

(b) Romans 10:16. Israel did not believe.

(c) Romans 10:17 f, Having heard the gospel.

(d) Romans 10:19-21, And having been warned in prophecy of their apostasy.

(3) 11-1-32, Limitations of the fact.

(1) Romans 11:1-10. It is only partial.

a. Romans 11:1 fa. The salvation of Paul himself proves it.

b. Romans 11:2 b-4. The doctrine of a remnant exemplified in the experience of Elijah.

c. 11 :5-10, God makes sure of a few by election of grace.

(2) Romans 11:11-32, It in only temporary and conditional.

a. Romans 11:11-24, Israel will surely be redrafted upon his native stump.

b. Romans 11:25-32, His lopping off is only a part of the divine plan of universal mercy.

(3) Romans 11:33-35. Exclamation over the supreme wisdom and knowledge of God.

2. Romans 12:1 – Romans 15:13, Reflections and exhortations on Christian conduct.

1) Romans 12:1 – Romans 13:14, On the general conduct proper for a Christian.

(1) Romans 12:1 f, As a child of God.

(2) Romans 12:3-21, As a member of the church.

(3) Romans 13:1-7, As a citizen.

(4) Romans 13:8-10, As a member of society.

(5) Romans 13:11-14, As one who expects the judgment.

2) Romans 14:1 – Romans 15:13, Special directions concerning non-essentials of faith.

(1) Romans 14:1-13 a, One no right to interfere with another.

(2) Romans 14:13 b – Romans 15:13, Obligation to self-restraint for the sake of others on basis of love and edification.

CONCLUSION: Romans 15:14-16:27.

(1) Romans 15:14-16, Paul’s apology to the Roman Christiana for his letter to them.

(2) Romans 15:17-22, Explanation of his past course.

(3) Romans 15:23-29, His plan of future operations.

(4) Romans 15:30-33, His request for their prayers.

(5) Romans 16:1 f, Commendation of Phoebe.

(6) Romans 16:3-24, Salutations.

(7) Romans 16:25-27, Benediction.

Having these three analyses before us, and all of them good, it may seem immodest to submit my own. But there are to my mind overwhelming reasons arising from defects in the others, particularly on Romans 3-8 – the most vital in the book. But my own analysis will appear in the body of the discussion.

QUESTIONS

1. Of what group of great letters is this a climax?

2. What prophet forecast the succession of five world empires, what the name of each, what the Jewish touch with each, especially what the salient points of Jewish contact with the Romans in historic order, and who the most important Jewish writer of this history?

3. How may we account for the multitude of Jews in the city of Rome, what position did they occupy there, and what Roman classical authors refer to them?

4. How was Christianity established in Rome, and what the credit due, respectively, to Peter, Stephen, Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla, and the women mentioned?

5. What is the proof from the letter itself of at least a remote connection between the Jerusalem apostles and the planting of Christianity in Rome?

6. What is the proof from the letter that Paul’s converts were not the only factors in planting Christianity there?

7. How may we account for Paul’s extensive personal acquaintance with Christians there?

8. To whom was this letter written, why not addressed to the church at Rome, and what is a better way to express it?

9. What is the evidence that there were many Christiana in Rome at this time?

10. Were these Christians there Jews or Gentiles, or both? If both, which mainly?

11. Who was the amanuensis?

12. What is the scriptural evidence pro and con for the Romanist contention that Peter went to Rome and remained there twenty years just after the incidents of Acts 12:1-18, and what the answer to the Romanist interpretation of 1 Peter 5:13?

13. How was it impossible for Peter to have been the first bishop of the church at Rome?

14. Is the traditional evidence credible that Peter was martyred at Rome, and if so, how is it yet discounted?

15. If there was not one central church at Rome, what evidence that the several worshiping congregations were organized bodies with officers?

16. Who is the author of this letter, and what the proof from the letter itself?

17. What is the date of this letter and how obtained, and where was it written?

18. What circumstances conditioned the writing of this letter as expressed in the relation of this letter to 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians?

19. What is the internal proof of the relation of Romans to Galatians?

20. What is the occasion of this letter?

21. What is the purpose of this letter?

22. What is the nature of this letter?

23. What other books of the Bible may be classified with it as a discussion, or treatise, on a great theme?

24. How is it unlike anything else in the New Testament?

25. What questions have been raised as to the integrity of the book?

26. How does this letter emphasize the connection between the Old Testament and the gospel of the New Testament?

27. What is the importance of an analysis? Quote the sayings of Professor Agassiz, Dr. Harvey, Dr. Wayland, and Dr. Shedd on this subject.

28. What analyses were commended by the author?

29. Which analysis is the most remarkable in literature, and what its excellencies?

30. In what two respects does Dr. Robertson’s outline excel?

31. In Dr. Robertson’s outline what is the great theme of the letter?

32. In Bennet’s outline what the theme?

33. In Tanner’s outline what the theme?

34. Are these three themes practically the same?