5. The heterogeneous composition of this Church ex- plains the general character of the Epistle to the Romans. In an assemblage so various, we should exj)ect to find not the exclusive predominance of a single form of er- ror, but the coincidence of different and opposing forms. The Gospel had here to contend not specially with Ju- daism, nor specially with heathenism, but with both to- gether. It was therefore the business of the Christian teacher to reconcile the opposing difhculties and to hold out a meeting-point in the Gospel. This is exactly what Paul does in the Eiiistle to the Romans, and what, from the circumstances of the case, he was well enabled to do. He was addressing a large and varied commu- nity which had not been founded by himself, and with which he had liad no direct intercourse. Again, it does not appear that the letter was specially written to an- swer any doubts, or settle any controversies, then rife in the Roman Ciiurch. There were therefore no disturb- ing influences, such as arise out of personal relations, or peculiar circumstances, to lierange a general and S3'S- tematic exposition of the nature and working of the Gospel. At the same time, the vast importance of the metropolitan Church, which could not have been over- looked even by an uninspired teacher, naturally pointed it out to the apostle as the fittest body to whom to ad- dress such an exposition. Thus the Epistle to the Ro- mans is more of a treatise than of a letter. If we re- move the personal allusions in the opening verses, and the salutations at the close, it seems not more partic- ularly addressed to the Church of Rome than to any
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE 106 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
other Church of Christentlom. In this respect it differs wiitelv from the Epistles to the Corinthians and Gala- tians, with which, as being written about the same time, it may most fairly be compared, and which are full of personal and direct allusions. In one instance alone we seem to trace a special reference to the Church of the metropolis. The injunction of obedience to temporal rulers (xiii, 1) would most fitly be addressed to a con- iiregation brought face to face with the imperial govern- ment, and the more so as Home had recently been the scene of frequent disturbances, on the part of either Jews or Christians, arising out of a feverish and restless antici- pation of the Messiah's coming (Sueton. (7(/«f/.-25). Oth- er apparent exceptions admit of a different explanation.
6. This explanation is, in fact, to be sought in its re- lation to the contemporaneous epistles. The letter to the Komans closes the group of epistles written during the second missionarv journey. This group contains, be- sides, as already mentioned, the letters to the Corin- thians and Galatians, written probably within the few months preceding. At Corinth, the capital of Achaia and the stronghold of heathendom, the (iospel would encounter its severest struggle with (Jentile vices and prejudices. In (ialatia, which, either from natural sym- pathy or from close contact, seems to have been more exposed to Jewish influence than any other Church within Paul's sphere of labor, it had a sharp contest with Judaism. In the epistles to these two churches we study the attitude of the Gospel towards the Gen- tile and Jewish world respectively. These letters are direct and special. They are evoked by present emer- gencies, are directed against actual evils, are full of per- sonal applications. The Epistle to the Romans is the summary of what he had written before, the result of his dealing with the two antagonistic forms of error, the gathering together of the fragmentary teaching in the Corinthian and (Jalatian letters. What is there im- mediate, irregular, and of partial application is here ar- ranged and completed and tlirown into a general form. Thus, on the one hand, his treatment of the Mosaic law |(i)ints to the difficulties he encountered in dealing with the (Jalatian Cliurch; while, on the other, his cautions against antinomian excesses (vi, 1.5, etc.), and his pre- cepts against giving offence in the matter of meats and the observance of days (ch. xiv), remind us of the er- rors which he had to correct in his Corinthian converts (coinp. 1 Cor. vi, 12 sq. ; viii, 1 sq.). Those injunctions, then, which seem at first sight special, appear not to be directed against any actual known failings in the Ro- man Church, but to be suggested by the possibility of those irregularities occurring in Rome which he had already encountered elsewhere.
7. Viewing this epistle, then, rather in the light of a treatise than of a letter, we are enabled to explain cer- tain phenomena in the te^rt above alluded to (§ ii). In the received text a doxology stands at the close of the epistle (xvi, 2.5-27). The pre|)onderance of evidence is in favor of this position, but there is respectable au- thority for placing it at the end of ch. xiv. In some texts, again, it is found in both places, while others omit it entirely. The phenomena of the MSS. seem best ex- ]ilained by supposing that the letter was circulated at an early date (whether during the apostle's lifetime or not it is idle to iufpiire) in two forms, both with and without the two last chapters. In the shorter form it v.-as divested, as far as possible, of its epistolary charac- ter by abstracting the personal matter addressed espe- cially tx< the Romans, tlie doxology being retained at the close. A still further attempt to stri|) this epistle of any special references is found in MS. (J, which omits tv 'Vio^iy (i, 7) and Tohj iv Viofiy (ver. 1.5) ; for it is to be observed, at the same time, that this MS. omits the dox- ology entirely, and leaves a space after ch. xiv. This view is somewhat confirmed iiy the parallel case of the opening of the Ephcsian epistk-, in which there is very high au- thority for omitting the words tr 'Kptaiij, and which bears Strong marks of having been intended for a circular letter.