Original Meaning

Thanksgiving and Prayer (1:8–12)

THE “FIRST” THAT begins this section is never followed by a “second” or “third.” Paul may simply have forgotten to go on with his enumeration, or the word “first” may indicate priority rather than sequence: “first of all.”

Paul’s thanksgiving is expressed to “my God” and is mediated “through Jesus Christ.” Christ has created the access to God that enables Paul to approach him in thanksgiving.1 The reason for Paul’s thanks is the wide reputation the Roman Christians have gained for their faith. “Reported all over the world” is hyperbole, but it would be natural for Christians throughout the Mediterranean world to be aware that the gospel was planted in the capital of the empire itself. In verses 9–10 Paul reinforces the sense of commitment to the Roman Christians hinted at in verse 8 by emphasizing his constant prayers for them. He reiterates one of the key motifs in this opening part of the letter by asserting again his commitment to the gospel of God’s Son.

According to the NIV, Paul claims that he serves this gospel “with my whole heart.” But the Greek word here for heart is pneuma (spirit), and Fee is probably right to insist that this must be a reference to the Spirit of God resident in Paul.2 Paul’s own spirit has been caught up in God’s Spirit, and he now serves the gospel “in” and “by means of” that transformed spirit. When Paul asserts that he “constantly” (v. 9) makes mention of the Roman Christians in his prayers, he means that he brings them regularly before the Lord—testimony to the importance and wide-ranging nature of Paul’s prayer life.

One specific focus of Paul’s prayer in relationship to the Romans is that he may be able finally to come to Rome to minister (v. 10b). Specifically (v. 11), he wants to go to Rome so that he may “impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong.” What Paul means by “spiritual gift” is not clear. He may have in mind a specific “gift,” of the sort he describes in 1 Corinthians 12–14, that he hopes to use for the benefit of the Roman Christians when he arrives.3 But Paul nowhere else uses the specific language we have here (charisma pneumatikon) to denote such a gift, and the indefinite language (“some”) makes this view difficult.

The apostle may, then, refer to a general spiritual “blessing” he hopes will result from his work at Rome (see 15:27).4 But “gift” seems too specific for this interpretation, so perhaps the reference is to an insight or ability given to Paul by the Spirit that he hopes to share with the Romans. In any case, the purpose of sharing the gift is to “strengthen” (see also 1 Thess. 3:2; 2 Thess. 2:17; 3:3) the faith of the Roman Christians.

But Paul immediately qualifies this purpose, revealing again his hesitancy to claim too much authority over a community he has not himself founded. It is not, Paul hastily adds (v. 12), that the spiritual benefit will flow all one direction, from Paul to the Romans. Rather, he anticipates a time of mutual edification with them, as the faith God has given each individual stimulates and encourages spiritual growth in the others.

Bridging Contexts

APPLYING BIBLICAL NARRATIVE. Since Paul is speaking in these verses of his own ministry and plans, application of the overall teaching of the section will depend considerably on the extent to which we can validly use Paul as a model for our own Christian service. In many ways, of course, Paul’s service of the Lord was unique; no one else was, or had been, called the way he was or given a mandate directly from the risen Christ. But are there other ways Paul may serve as a model for us? If so, how can we discern those ways?

The question we raise here is a basic one in the interpretation of Scripture. Much of Scripture comes to us in the form of narrative, stories depicting specific experiences of the people of God. How are we to make such historical narratives relevant for the people of God today? Many preachers, unfortunately, resort to analogy to make the connection: As “x” did in this passage of the Bible, so we today can/should do. But such an approach, if pursued too rigidly, robs the biblical narratives of their power. The point of those narratives is often to portray for us the historical foundation for the faith we now share. God did certain things in history to provide salvation for his people and to reveal his glory and his will. The preacher who fails to see and proclaim these elements in the narrative often misses the essence of these accounts.6 Taken to its logical conclusion, one can imagine a sermon on the crucifixion that focuses on how we can learn to die gracefully!

But we must also grant that biblical narratives and personal accounts sometimes—perhaps often—have a subsidiary purpose of providing for God’s people an example for them to emulate. Thus, the question cannot be avoided: How can we know what is to be modeled and what is not? Some interpreters suggest that virtually everything in a narrative not branded as morally wrong elsewhere in Scripture should be taken over. In other words, we must disciple people just as Jesus did or evangelize people just as Paul did.

There is undoubtedly much to be learned from such examples, but we think the wholesale transfer of virtually everything not morally evil in narratives goes too far. On the one hand, we must remember that the specific culture in which Jesus and Paul ministered plays a fundamental role in the methods and approaches they adopted. They perhaps often did things a certain way simply because that was the most effective way to reach people molded by their distinctive first-century social and religious environment.

A more sound procedure is to scrutinize the details of narratives in light of Scripture elsewhere and draw far-ranging conclusions only when specific teaching or general principles found elsewhere in the Bible legitimize the application. In the case of Paul, then, we should not assume his specific methods are to be imitated unless we have teaching that endorses the methods as universally applicable.

On the other hand, Paul often puts himself forward as a person to be imitated by his converts (e.g., 1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 2 Thess. 3:7). Some scholars think that this call to imitate him involves only general moral qualities and that Christians are generally called not to active evangelism but to passive evangelism, that is, living good lives as a light that may attract converts. But Peter O’Brien has shown that the call is broader than that, extending to the ministry of evangelism that Paul was himself committed to.7 Thus, we have good grounds within Paul’s writings themselves to conclude that the sense of obligation to preach the gospel to those who have not heard it in Romans 1:13–15 provides us with a model we are to imitate.

Contemporary Significance

ZEAL FOR EVANGELISM. With this solid hermeneutical foundation in place, we can now assert that Paul’s zeal for preaching the gospel should serve as a model for us. As this passage reveals, he was motivated to evangelize and plant churches because he was a man under obligation. To be sure, Paul’s obligation had at least one unique cause: Christ’s commissioning him as “apostle to the Gentiles” on the Damascus Road. This event gave his ministry a clear basis and special direction.

Few of us will have such clear direction about a call to ministry or about the direction our ministry should take. But the imperative to evangelize is an obligation, Paul suggests, that all believers share. In 1 Corinthians 3–4, he describes his dedication to the task of evangelism (3:3–15), a task that brought him much personal hardship (4:8–13). He concludes with a call to the Corinthians to imitate him (4:16). Similarly in 2 Corinthians Paul asserts that, knowing the fear of the Lord, he tries to persuade people to follow Christ (2 Cor. 5:11). And the reason for his commitment? “Christ’s love compels us” (5:14).8 Contemplation of the benefits won for us by Christ should motivate all of us to seek to share these benefits with others.

But another motivation also appears regularly in Paul’s discussion of his ministry: the enhancement of God’s name and glory. We have seen such a concern already in Romans, as Paul claimed that his apostolic work was “for his [Jesus Christ’s] name’s sake” (1:5). In a climactic section of Romans, Paul announces that the inclusion of Gentiles within the people of God is so that they “may glorify God for his mercy” (15:9; see also 15:16; 2 Cor. 4:15; Phil. 1:11). Paul’s evangelism, his letters suggest, has two great motivations: a sense of obligation derived from what God has done for him and commissioned him to do for others, and a desire that God will be glorified by as great a number of people as possible. We are to imitate Paul by extending God’s grace in the gospel just as he did.

Not all of us will be called to engage in evangelism full-time; we may have a tough time deciding whether we have a “call” to ministry and where that call should be discharged. We will struggle as well to balance the demands of life with those of evangelism. But every Christian should have the same sense of obligation that Paul speaks of in Romans 1:14–15. We must pray that God will impress on our hearts such an obligation so as to become imitators of Paul.

Discipleship. Thus far we have used Romans 1:14–15 as a basis for involvement in evangelism. But we can perhaps take this one step further. Easily overlooked in this passage is the fact that Paul announces his intention to preach the gospel “to you who are at Rome” (1:15). What can he mean by this, since he is writing to people who are already Christians (see 1:7)? Some answer that Paul is reflecting here only on his past plans.9 Others suggest that the “you” is general, so that Paul is simply indicating he wants to evangelize in Rome.10 But such alternatives do not do justice to the text. What Paul seems rather to hint at is that he includes within the scope of “preaching the gospel” the continuing work of discipleship that follows evangelism.

Certainly Paul modeled such a broad concern throughout his ministry, for his initial evangelistic work in towns was usually followed by teaching, pastoral exhortation, and later visits. As Paul Bowers has argued, “the gospel” in Paul includes “not simply an initial preaching mission but the full sequence of activities resulting in settled churches.”11 Only when a church had reached the point of sufficient maturity as to be self-producing did the apostle feel he could leave to move on to new fields. The point for us is obvious and has been made so often in recent years that it need not detain us for long: Successful evangelism includes follow-up. Discipling those who have “come forward” to receive the gospel is not an optional add-on, but a necessary component of the initial preaching of the gospel itself.

Original Meaning

Paul’s Plans (1:13–15)

AS PAUL THINKS of the ministry he hopes to have in Rome, he turns attention naturally to his plans for such a visit. He is apparently aware that some Christians in Rome may have been critical of him for “ignoring” them for so long. So he wants them to understand that his failure to visit Rome was not because of lack of will but because of lack of opportunity. Paul has often planned to visit them but was prevented from doing so. We do not know for sure what kept him from Rome. But it was probably the pressing needs of the ministry in the eastern Mediterranean, where Paul had been working up to this point. But Paul is still intent on getting to Rome, where he wants to enjoy a time of mutual edification in the gospel.

Paul’s desire to preach in Rome is motivated not by a concern to expand his personal “territory” but by his deep sense of obligation to preach the gospel to all kinds of people. “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!” Paul exclaims on another occasion (1 Cor. 9:16). The NIV translation suggests a rather loose connection between Romans 1:13 and 14. That is, a sense of obligation to preach to all people, including both “Greeks and non-Greeks,” only generally grounds Paul’s determination to reap a spiritual harvest among Gentiles in Rome. But a closer connection can be established if we define this first pair of terms in verse 14 differently.

“Greeks” is a faithful translation of the Greek word Hellen, but the second word is barbaros, from which we get “barbarian.” Educated Greeks used this word to mock those who could not pronounce the Greek language as accurately as they did. But Jewish writers usually did not include themselves among the “barbarians.” Probably, then, “Greek and non-Greek” is Paul’s way of referring to all of Gentile humanity.5

The relationship between this first pair of terms and the second (“the wise and the foolish”) is not clear, but it probably refers again to Gentiles only. This, then, explains (v. 15) why Paul is so eager to “preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.” Paul has been given a commission from the Lord to be “apostle to the Gentiles,” and it is this divine mandate, not any personal benefit or emotional satisfaction or marketing strategy, that impels Paul to travel ever farther afield.

Bridging Contexts

APPLYING BIBLICAL NARRATIVE. Since Paul is speaking in these verses of his own ministry and plans, application of the overall teaching of the section will depend considerably on the extent to which we can validly use Paul as a model for our own Christian service. In many ways, of course, Paul’s service of the Lord was unique; no one else was, or had been, called the way he was or given a mandate directly from the risen Christ. But are there other ways Paul may serve as a model for us? If so, how can we discern those ways?

The question we raise here is a basic one in the interpretation of Scripture. Much of Scripture comes to us in the form of narrative, stories depicting specific experiences of the people of God. How are we to make such historical narratives relevant for the people of God today? Many preachers, unfortunately, resort to analogy to make the connection: As “x” did in this passage of the Bible, so we today can/should do. But such an approach, if pursued too rigidly, robs the biblical narratives of their power. The point of those narratives is often to portray for us the historical foundation for the faith we now share. God did certain things in history to provide salvation for his people and to reveal his glory and his will. The preacher who fails to see and proclaim these elements in the narrative often misses the essence of these accounts.6 Taken to its logical conclusion, one can imagine a sermon on the crucifixion that focuses on how we can learn to die gracefully!

But we must also grant that biblical narratives and personal accounts sometimes—perhaps often—have a subsidiary purpose of providing for God’s people an example for them to emulate. Thus, the question cannot be avoided: How can we know what is to be modeled and what is not? Some interpreters suggest that virtually everything in a narrative not branded as morally wrong elsewhere in Scripture should be taken over. In other words, we must disciple people just as Jesus did or evangelize people just as Paul did.

There is undoubtedly much to be learned from such examples, but we think the wholesale transfer of virtually everything not morally evil in narratives goes too far. On the one hand, we must remember that the specific culture in which Jesus and Paul ministered plays a fundamental role in the methods and approaches they adopted. They perhaps often did things a certain way simply because that was the most effective way to reach people molded by their distinctive first-century social and religious environment.

A more sound procedure is to scrutinize the details of narratives in light of Scripture elsewhere and draw far-ranging conclusions only when specific teaching or general principles found elsewhere in the Bible legitimize the application. In the case of Paul, then, we should not assume his specific methods are to be imitated unless we have teaching that endorses the methods as universally applicable.

On the other hand, Paul often puts himself forward as a person to be imitated by his converts (e.g., 1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 2 Thess. 3:7). Some scholars think that this call to imitate him involves only general moral qualities and that Christians are generally called not to active evangelism but to passive evangelism, that is, living good lives as a light that may attract converts. But Peter O’Brien has shown that the call is broader than that, extending to the ministry of evangelism that Paul was himself committed to.7 Thus, we have good grounds within Paul’s writings themselves to conclude that the sense of obligation to preach the gospel to those who have not heard it in Romans 1:13–15 provides us with a model we are to imitate.

Contemporary Significance

ZEAL FOR EVANGELISM. With this solid hermeneutical foundation in place, we can now assert that Paul’s zeal for preaching the gospel should serve as a model for us. As this passage reveals, he was motivated to evangelize and plant churches because he was a man under obligation. To be sure, Paul’s obligation had at least one unique cause: Christ’s commissioning him as “apostle to the Gentiles” on the Damascus Road. This event gave his ministry a clear basis and special direction.

Few of us will have such clear direction about a call to ministry or about the direction our ministry should take. But the imperative to evangelize is an obligation, Paul suggests, that all believers share. In 1 Corinthians 3–4, he describes his dedication to the task of evangelism (3:3–15), a task that brought him much personal hardship (4:8–13). He concludes with a call to the Corinthians to imitate him (4:16). Similarly in 2 Corinthians Paul asserts that, knowing the fear of the Lord, he tries to persuade people to follow Christ (2 Cor. 5:11). And the reason for his commitment? “Christ’s love compels us” (5:14).8 Contemplation of the benefits won for us by Christ should motivate all of us to seek to share these benefits with others.

But another motivation also appears regularly in Paul’s discussion of his ministry: the enhancement of God’s name and glory. We have seen such a concern already in Romans, as Paul claimed that his apostolic work was “for his [Jesus Christ’s] name’s sake” (1:5). In a climactic section of Romans, Paul announces that the inclusion of Gentiles within the people of God is so that they “may glorify God for his mercy” (15:9; see also 15:16; 2 Cor. 4:15; Phil. 1:11). Paul’s evangelism, his letters suggest, has two great motivations: a sense of obligation derived from what God has done for him and commissioned him to do for others, and a desire that God will be glorified by as great a number of people as possible. We are to imitate Paul by extending God’s grace in the gospel just as he did.

Not all of us will be called to engage in evangelism full-time; we may have a tough time deciding whether we have a “call” to ministry and where that call should be discharged. We will struggle as well to balance the demands of life with those of evangelism. But every Christian should have the same sense of obligation that Paul speaks of in Romans 1:14–15. We must pray that God will impress on our hearts such an obligation so as to become imitators of Paul.

Discipleship. Thus far we have used Romans 1:14–15 as a basis for involvement in evangelism. But we can perhaps take this one step further. Easily overlooked in this passage is the fact that Paul announces his intention to preach the gospel “to you who are at Rome” (1:15). What can he mean by this, since he is writing to people who are already Christians (see 1:7)? Some answer that Paul is reflecting here only on his past plans.9 Others suggest that the “you” is general, so that Paul is simply indicating he wants to evangelize in Rome.10 But such alternatives do not do justice to the text. What Paul seems rather to hint at is that he includes within the scope of “preaching the gospel” the continuing work of discipleship that follows evangelism.

Certainly Paul modeled such a broad concern throughout his ministry, for his initial evangelistic work in towns was usually followed by teaching, pastoral exhortation, and later visits. As Paul Bowers has argued, “the gospel” in Paul includes “not simply an initial preaching mission but the full sequence of activities resulting in settled churches.”11 Only when a church had reached the point of sufficient maturity as to be self-producing did the apostle feel he could leave to move on to new fields. The point for us is obvious and has been made so often in recent years that it need not detain us for long: Successful evangelism includes follow-up. Discipling those who have “come forward” to receive the gospel is not an optional add-on, but a necessary component of the initial preaching of the gospel itself.