Charles Ellicott Commentary Romans 1

In writing to the Romans, a Church to which he was personally unknown, and which might be supposed, so far as it was Jewish, to be prejudiced against him, the Apostle delivers with somewhat more than usual solemnity his credentials and commission. A divinely appointed minister of a system of things predicted by the prophets, and culminating in the revelation, divinely ordained and attested, of Jesus Christ, he greets the Roman Christians, themselves also divinely called.

Note the repetition of terms signifying “calling,” “selection,” “determination in the counsels and providence of God;” as if to say: “I and you alike are all members of one grand scheme, which is not of human invention, but determined and ordained of God—the divine clue, as it were, running through the history of the world.”

A solemn note is thus struck at the very commencement, and in what might have been regarded as the more formal part of the Epistle, by which the readers are prepared for the weighty issues that are to be set before them.

Servant.—More strictly, here as elsewhere in the New Testament, slave; and yet not wrongly translated “servant,” because the compulsory and degrading side of service is not put forward. The idea of “slavery” in the present day has altogether different associations.

Separated.—Compare especially Acts 13:2 (Separate me Barnabas and Saul), where human instruments—the leaders of the Church at Antioch—are employed to carry out the divine will. The reference here is to the historical fact of the selection of St. Paul to be an Apostle; in Galatians 1:15 (it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb), it is rather to the more distant act of divine predestination.

To the gospel of God.—Singled out and set apart to convey the message of salvation from God to man. The ambiguous genitive, the gospel of God, seems to mean, “the gospel which proceeds from God,” “of which God is the author;” not “of which God is the object.”

Which he had promised.—More correctly, which He promised before by His prophets in holy writings. There is a subtlety of meaning expressed by the absence of the article before this last phrase. A slight stress is thus placed upon the epithet “holy.” It is not merely “in certain books which go by the name of holy scriptures,” but “in certain writings the character of which is holy.” They are “holy” as containing the promises referred to in the text, and others like them. Thus, it can be seen how even this faint shade of meaning works into the general argument. The writings in which the promises are contained, like the promises themselves, their fulfillment, and the consequences that follow from them, all are part of the same exceptional divine plan.

The prophetic writings describe not only salvation, the substance of the gospel, but also the preaching of salvation, the gospel itself. (See Isaiah 40:2, Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and following verses; Isaiah 42:4; Isaiah 52:1 and following; Psalms 19:4; Psalms 68:11 and others.)

Prophets.—In the wider sense in which the word is used, including not only Samuel (Acts 3:24), but also Moses and David, and all who are regarded as having prophesied the Messiah.

Who, on the human side—as if to show that the prophecies were really fulfilled in Him—was born of the seed of David, the rightful lineage of the Messiah; who, on the divine side, by virtue of the divine attribute of holiness dwelling in His spirit, was declared to be the Son of God, by that mighty demonstration, the resurrection of the dead.

According to the flesh.—The word is here used as equivalent to “in His human nature, in that lower bodily organisation which He shares with us humans.”

With power. This means, in a transcendent and superhuman manner.

According to the spirit of holiness. This is in contrast to “according to the flesh,” and therefore appears where we might expect “in His divine nature.” Yet there is a difference, the precise shade of which is not easy to define. What should we understand by the “spirit of holiness”? Should we regard it as simply interchangeable with “Holy Spirit”? Not quite.

Or should we view it as corresponding to “the flesh,” as “spirit” and “flesh” correspond in a human being? Again, not quite—or not only that. The spirit of Christ is human, for Christ took upon Himself our nature in all its parts.

It is human; and yet, it is in this spirit more especially that the divinity resides. It is in this spirit that the “Godhead dwells bodily,” and the presence of the Godhead is seen in the unique and exceptional “holiness” by which it is characterized.

The “spirit,” therefore (or that part of His being to which St. Paul gives this name in Christ), is the connecting link between the human and the divine, and shares equally in both. It is the divine “enshrined” in the human, or the human penetrated and energized by the divine.

It is, perhaps, not possible to get beyond metaphorical language like this. The union of the human and divine must necessarily evade exact definition, and to push such definition too far would be to misrepresent the Apostle's meaning.

We can compare this passage with 1 Timothy 3:16: God (rather, Who) was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit: or with St. Peter’s phrase, Put to death in the flesh. but quickened by the Spirit—rather, in the spirit, as the seat of that divinity by virtue of which He overcame death (1 Peter 3:18).

The particular act in which Christ's Sonship was most conspicuously ratified and confirmed was His resurrection from the dead. It was ratified by His resurrection, as a manifestation of transcendent and divine power. (Compare to Acts 2:24 and following; Acts 17:31; Romans 4:24).

It should be noted that this contrast between the human and divine natures in Christ is not intended here to imply any disparagement of the human nature. Rather, the Apostle wishes to bring out the completeness and fullness of Christ's dignity, as shown on both its sides. He is at once the Jewish Messiah (a fact that would carry great weight with the Jewish section of the church in Rome) and the Son of God.

By the resurrection from the dead. Strictly speaking, it means by the resurrection of the dead. A slight distinction should be observed between the two phrases. It is not “by His resurrection from the dead,” but in an abstract and general sense, “by the resurrection of the dead”—by that resurrection of which Christ was the firstfruits.

Through Him—through Christ the Son—he, Paul, had received his own special endowment and commission to bring the Gentiles into that state of loyal and dutiful submission which has its root in faith, all of which would tend to the glory of His name.

We have received.—The Apostle means himself alone, but the plural is used (as frequently in Greek) with delicate tact, so as to avoid an appearance of egotism or assumption.

Grace and apostleship.—Grace is here divine favour manifested in various ways, but especially in his conversion. St. Augustine notes that grace is common to the Apostle and all believers—his apostleship is something special and peculiar; yet apostleship is an instance, or case, of grace. Origen distinguishes between the two—“grace for the endurance of labours, apostleship for authority in preaching”; but both terms are perhaps somewhat wider than this.

Apostleship includes all those privileges which St. Paul possessed as an Apostle; grace is all those privileges that he possessed as a Christian. At the same time, in either case, the meaning tends in the direction of that particular object which is expressed in the next clause. The light in which the Apostle most valued the gifts that had been bestowed upon him was because they enabled him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.

For obedience to the faith among all nations.—Literally, For (to produce) obedience of faith (the obedience which springs from faith) among all the Gentiles.

Faith is not here equivalent to “the faith”—a positive body of doctrine received and believed—but, in its strict sense, that active habit and attitude of mind by which the Christian shows his devotion and loyalty to Christ, and his total dependence on Him (Galatians 2:19).

For his name.—For His name’s sake. “His,” i.e., Christ’s. The whole of that divine economy of which St. Paul himself forms part tends to the glory of Christ. The Apostle’s call to his office, his special endowment for his ministry, and the success of his preaching among the Gentiles, just as they proceed from Christ, so also have as their object the extension of His kingdom.