Romans 15:14–33

Original Meaning

Paul’s Ministry and Its Past Expression (15:14–21)

PAUL IS ESPECIALLY concerned to explain to the Romans why he has taken the liberty to write to them so “boldly” (v. 15) about the gospel. As he explains, he has been called to convert and strengthen Gentiles so that he might present them as an acceptable offering to the Lord.

As in 1:11–12, Paul again displays his tact and diplomacy in writing to a church he has neither planted nor visited. Thus, he compliments the Roman Christians on being “full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another.” The word translated “goodness” (agathosyne) is rare (occurring elsewhere in the New Testament only in Gal. 5:22; Eph. 5:9; 2 Thess. 1:11). It denotes moral goodness of any kind.1 Paul knows he is not writing to a novice community or to a deeply sinful one, but to one that both knows and practices the faith.

To be sure, Paul has written “quite boldly on some points” (i.e., in some parts of the letter). But he did so not to impart new knowledge but to “remind” the Roman Christians of truth they already knew. If Paul has not let his diplomacy here descend into insincere flattery—for surely the believers in Rome did not know everything Paul teaches in this letter!—he must mean by this that he has simply explicated gospel truth that they already know.

Paul’s second excuse for writing so boldly is more important. It is introduced in the last phrase in verse 15—“because of the grace God gave me”—and elaborated in verses 17–21: Paul has been given by God the gracious ministry of bringing Gentiles into obedience to God. Since the Roman church is mainly Gentile in composition, it lies within the scope of the mandate God himself has given to Paul.

Paul’s use of cultic language to describe this ministry is striking. He calls himself a leitourgos (servant; NIV “minister”), a word that in this context has priestly connotations.2 This ministry consists in “proclaiming the gospel of God” as a “priestly duty,” in order that “the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable” (lit. trans.). Some interpreters think that the offering is not the Gentiles themselves (which presumes that ton ethnon [“of the Gentiles”] is an epexegetic genitive) but the praise or obedience that the Gentiles offer (a subjective genitive).3 But the epexegetic genitive suits the context better. In other words, Paul pictures himself as a priest, using the gospel as the means by which he offers his Gentile converts as a sacrifice acceptable to God. But, like the animal sacrifices of the old economy, these new sacrifices also must be “sanctified by the Holy Spirit” if they are to be acceptable.

Because God is the One who has given Paul this service, he can legitimately “glory” in it (v. 17). Glorying or boasting in something can be wrong when we are trying to take credit for our own achievement (cf. 2:17, 23; 3:27; 4:2–3), but it is appropriate when it is the product of God’s own work (cf. 5:2, 3, 11).

In verse 18 Paul pursues this idea further, explaining just how it is that his glorying is “in Christ Jesus.” Paul speaks “quite boldly” to the Romans (v. 15), but “he would not be so bold” (NIV “will not venture”) as to say anything beyond what Christ himself has done in and through him. The goal of what Christ does through Paul is (lit.) “the obedience of the Gentiles,” an important echo of the letter’s opening (1:5). The means of Christ’s work in Paul is both “word and deed” (lit. trans.; NIV “what I have said and done,” 15:18).

Verse 19 elaborates this last point. It is tempting to arrange the two pairs in a chiastic structure, whereby “word” is related to “through the power of the Spirit” and “deed” to “by the power of signs and miracles.” But Paul’s actions as well as his words are certainly done in the Spirit’s power, and his deeds include more than miracles. Therefore verse 19 continues Paul’s description of his ministry. “Signs and wonders” (NIV “miracles”) is standard biblical terminology for miraculous acts that accompany and give credence to God’s Word. The phrase is especially prominent in Old Testament descriptions of the Exodus (e.g., Ex. 7:3, 9; 11:9–10; Deut. 4:34; Ps. 78:43) and in the book of Acts (e.g., Acts 2:22, 43; 4:30; 5:12; 14:3; 15:12). Paul perhaps uses this expression to signal his importance in salvation history. God works miracles through him because he is God’s “point man” to open up the Gentile world to the gospel.4

Paul has identified the agent of his apostolic ministry (Christ) and its purpose (leading Gentiles to obey the Lord). In the second half of verse 19, he states the results of his ministry: “From Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ.” Illyricum was the Roman province that incorporated modern-day Albania and parts of the old Yugoslavia. The NIV “all the way around” translates a difficult word (kyklo), but it probably means “around” (see Mark 6:6 in a similar context).5 Paul’s journey from Jerusalem to Illyricum has not been a direct one but a circuitous one.

More important than geography is Paul’s sense of having completed a significant phase of the ministry God has given him. The Greek word for “fully proclaimed” is pleroo (lit., fulfill), a word full of theological import in the New Testament. Paul has brought to the divinely ordained climax his commission to plant thriving, self-reproducing churches throughout the region he has described.6 He is now, therefore, in a position to move on. For, as he explains in verse 20, his ministry is to “preach the gospel where Christ was not known.” There is nothing wrong with building on someone else’s foundations. Significant ministers like Apollos did just that (see 1 Cor. 3:3–11). But this is not the job God has given Paul. He sees himself carrying out the commission given to the servant of the Lord in Isaiah 52:15, revealing the good news to people who have not been told before and who have not heard before (Rom. 15:21).

Bridging Contexts

PRINCIPLES FOR DEFINING APPLICATION. Bridging the gap between Paul’s travel plans and application today is not easy. Straightforwardly applying the main points of these verses—where Paul has been, where he is going, what he hopes to do in Rome, and what he wants the Roman Christians to do—is simply not helpful to us today. Yet God inspired these words for our benefit. What and how are we to learn from them? Most interpreters would argue that we can learn a lot from the principles that underlie Paul’s words. We may not derive much spiritual benefit from knowing that Paul was going to Spain, but knowing why he is going there may shed light on New Testament principles of ministry.

But if most would agree that isolating principles in this kind of text is a valid procedure, not everyone agrees on what these principles are. By definition, we are isolating points in the text that are not explicitly applied to us by Paul. How, then, do we determine which apply and which do not? Two questions that we pose to each possible principle will be helpful, if not definitive. (1) Is the principle dependent on something distinct to that time, place, culture, or situation in salvation history? (2) Is the principle taught elsewhere, perhaps more clearly, in Scripture?

Two of the most potentially significant principles in these verses—Paul’s description of his ministry (vv. 16–22) and the collection (vv. 25–27)—yield confusing answers. On the one hand, both contain elements unique to that time and place. Paul is not just any minister, but the apostle to the Gentiles. As we have see, Paul has a unique ministry, predicted in Scripture, to open the door of faith to the Gentiles. Some of what he says about his ministry, then, will not be transferable to us today. The same is true of the collection. Paul viewed this as a way that the Gentiles who shared in Israel’s spiritual blessings could repay that debt to the Jerusalem Christians. No other charitable collection in history will have quite this significance. On the other hand, what Paul says here about his ministry also contains elements true for any ministry, and some find parallels in other New Testament passages. The same is true for the collection.

No clear answers await us as we raise these kind of hermeneutical questions. Good and sincere interpreters will sometimes disagree on just what we can carry over from a text like this. But we need to be aware that a problem exists and not make the mistake of finding all kinds of specific points of application in a text that simply are not there. Moreover, those points of application that we do isolate probably need to be taught somewhat tentatively—unless, of course, we can find clear Scriptural support for the idea elsewhere.

Paul himself sometimes uses Old Testament narratives in just this fashion (e.g., 1 Cor. 10:1–6), so perhaps we have good biblical basis for using the New Testament in a similar way. But before examining what principles we might be able to isolate in Romans 15:14–33, we must look more deeply into two specific contextual issues that will help our application.

The New Testament transformation of the cult (cf. 15:16). As we have noted elsewhere (see comments on 12:1–2), cultic worship, involving priest, sacrifice, and temple, was the focal point for the religious experience of many in the ancient Greco-Roman world. Paul picks up this language in 15:16, thereby tapping into one of the most basic religious elements of the ancient worldview. He calls himself a priest (leitourgos, NIV “minister”), describes his missionary activity as “the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God,” and claims that Gentile converts constitute the “offering” (prosphora) he makes to God. What are we to make of this language? For both Paul and the Roman Christians, of course, the cultic system taught in the Old Testament and practiced by the Jews is the key reference point. We can only appreciate what he is saying by exploring this tradition and its transformation in the New Testament.

We need not here detail the importance of the cult in the Old Testament. But we should note that the Old Testament itself suggests that the animal sacrifices, in and of themselves, are not efficacious to bring a worshiper into right relationship with God. The prophets frequently criticize the Israelites for making this very assumption (see comments on 12:1–2). During the intertestamental period and into the New Testament period, this criticism was sharpened under the influence of Hellenistic philosophy. A number of Greek philosophers scorned the notion of sacrifice, claiming that the cult deflected people from the true meaning of religion, which consisted in intellectual truth and moral living. Certain more radical Jewish thinkers, such as Philo of Alexandria, echoed this criticism, although in muted form.

Few Jews wanted to do away with sacrifices. But many wanted to validate them by finding spiritual significance behind them. Philo’s famous allegorizing method of interpretation had precisely this purpose. He wanted to make Judaism both intelligible and palatable to sophisticated Greek thinkers by finding philosophical and moral truths behind the history and strange customs of his people, the Jews.

All this sets the stage for the early Christian church. Jesus himself did not speak against the cult, though he continued and even radicalized the prophetic critique of meaningless sacrifice (see, e.g., Matt. 12:7–8; 23:23). But in one famous saying, at least, he lays the foundation for a new way of viewing the cult. When asked to give a “sign” to justify his authority to cleanse the temple, Jesus responded, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days” (John 2:19). While the Jews thought Jesus was talking about the physical temple, John explains Jesus was speaking about his own body (v. 21). Here, in the typical “replacement” motif of John’s Gospel, Jesus suggests his own body takes the place of the temple as the focal point for worshiping God.

The early Christians eventually developed the notion of the church as “the body of Christ.” The center of worship was transferred from a physical building in Jerusalem to the people of God. God lives in the midst of his people and no longer manifests himself in any special way in a temple. Christians, both individually and corporately, are now “God’s temple” (see 1 Cor. 3:16–17; cf. 6:19; Eph. 2:21; 1 Peter 2:5; Rev. 21:22).

Along with the replacement of a physical temple goes a transformation in sacrifice and priesthood. As Hebrews reveals, Christ’s own sacrifice climaxes and brings to an end the Old Testament sacrificial system. He is now our high priest, presenting his own sacrifice to God the Father on our behalf. New covenant sacrifices, then, are obedient Christians (cf. Rom. 12:1) and the praise they offer God (Heb. 13:15). Every Christian, called to offer such praise, becomes a priest (1 Peter 2:5, 9). What the early Christians, did, then, was different from the spiritualization going on in the world at that time. They did not find a hidden, spiritual meaning in the cult. Rather, they announced that God had, in Jesus and in their community, brought his cult to its fulfillment. They transformed the cult through their eschatology.14

Paul builds on this world of metaphor in his allusions in verse 16. He is not claiming in any technical sense to be a priest. He picks up the concept of new covenant transformation of the cult as a way of describing what he does as a minister of the gospel. Nor is Paul claiming a monopoly on the priesthood. He is not denying that other Christians might also be priests.

Old Testament background to Paul’s special ministry. The text we have just looked at carries eschatological overtones in another important sense. Paul, we must remember, is not here describing Christian ministry generally. He is characterizing his own apostolic ministry, “the grace God gave me” (v. 15). While not excluding other Christians from serving as priests, Paul does suggest that he was been given a unique priestly duty: to offer the Gentiles up to God.

Contributing to this notion are two interesting Old Testament allusions. (1) The characterization of the Gentiles as “sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (v. 16) probably alludes to the Old Testament prediction that God will sanctify his name among the Gentiles in the last days (see esp. Ezek. 36:22–28).15 This allusion is particularly striking, since Ezekiel’s prediction occurs in the same text in which Israel’s exile is said to have caused God’s name to be “profaned among the nations” (vv. 21, 22, 23). Paul uses this same language, perhaps from this same text, in Romans 2:24 to castigate Israel. The Ezekiel passage is also the text in which God promises to give to his people a new heart and a new spirit. Thus, Paul seems to imply, God has now reversed the profanation of his name among the Gentiles by sanctifying those Gentiles themselves.

(2) The second Old Testament text Paul may have in mind in verse 16 is Isaiah 66:20: “And they will bring all your brothers, from all the nations, to my holy mountain in Jerusalem as an offering to the LORD.” If these “brothers” are Gentiles, then this verse fits well with Paul’s understanding of his ministry. As one of the Jewish remnant who has experienced God’s salvation, Paul brings in Gentiles converts “as an offering to the Lord.”16 The “brothers” may, however, be fellow Jews, in which case the allusion is not so evident.

Whether or not we can include the latter as an allusion, Paul clearly pictures his own ministry in eschatological terms. Without buying into the whole package presented by J. Munck in his picture of the eschatological ministry of Paul, the unique significance of Paul’s own ministry must not be missed. He claims, according to Acts, to be fulfilling Israel’s vocation as servant of the Lord to be “a light for the Gentiles” (Acts 13:47). As “the apostle to the Gentiles” par excellence, he carries out a priestly ministry with clear eschatological significance. With the coming of Christ, the barrier between Jew and Gentile represented by the cult is broken down. No longer are atonement, sacrifice, or worship Jewish-oriented or Jerusalem-centered. Through the priestly ministry of Paul, Gentiles such as those in Rome have heard the gospel and become an offering pleasing to God.

Several interpreters think that certain Old Testament traditions related to these verses in Isaiah may have influenced Paul at other points in this passage. Popular is the notion that Paul may have regarded the collection he was putting together from the Gentile churches as the fulfillment of the prophetic predictions that the wealth of the nations would flow to Jerusalem in the last days (e.g., Isa. 45:14; 60:5–17; 61:6; Mic. 4:13).17

A few have even thought that Paul chose Spain as his next missionary outreach through these same prophecies. In Isaiah 66:19, God through Isaiah predicts that in the last days, “I will set a sign among them, and I will send some of those who survive to the nations—to Tarshish, to the Libyans and Lydians (famous as archers), to Tubal and Greece, and to the distant islands that have not heard of my fame or seen my glory. They will proclaim my glory among the nations.” There is some evidence that ancient people identified Tarshish with the area of Spain. Perhaps Paul’s plans for Spain are thus the result of identifying his own ministry with the prophetic forecast of God’s work to bring the Gentiles into fellowship with Jews.18

Contemporary Significance

WHAT PRINCIPLES CAN we isolate from Paul’s travel plans in 15:14–33 that are significant for the church today? I think three principles emerge clearly, and one other more tangentially.

Successful ministry. One clear principle is this: Successful ministry is always God’s doing. Paul implicitly gives himself a significant role in salvation history as he describes his ministry in verses 16–22. Yet he gives all the credit for his ministry to the Lord, to “the grace God gave me.” His role as apostle to the Gentiles is not one he has earned through hard study or by virtue of intrinsic talent. God chose him, prepared him, gave him the ministry, and empowers it. All is of grace. The Gentile converts he offers as a sacrifice to God are acceptable only because they are “sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (v. 16). What Paul has done is no more than what “Christ has accomplished through me” (v. 18), as the “power of the Spirit” enabled both his deeds and his words (v. 19).

“Successful” ministers are prone to pride, one of the most basic of all sins. It is frighteningly easy to fall into a mode in which we begin taking credit for whatever positive spiritual impact we are having. The people with whom we minister will often be the innocent inducers to this pride. In an effort to be supportive and encouraging, they will often flatter us about the sermon preached, book written, or life changed. Our dutiful response, “Glory to God, it was his doing,” can become both formulaic and insincere.

God, of course, has his own ways of humbling our pride. For every parishioner who flatters us, God sends two others to ask, after we preach, “Was your week particularly busy?” or “Did you lose your watch?” Yet the natural inclination for many of us is to listen to the flatterers far too much. Moreover, pride is not only wrong in itself, it can lead to so many other sins. I am positive that many prominent ministers fall into sexual sin precisely because they begin to think that they are immune to such ordinary temptations or, worse yet, they begin unconsciously thinking they are above the law.

How can one fight the temptation to pride and imitate Paul in giving all the glory to God? I have no magic formula, but I am convinced that interaction in a small group of peers to whom we are accountable can be a great help. Many ministers tend to be isolated, spending all their time with people to whom they minister and never developing any genuine peer relationships. Any isolated Christian is in a dangerous situation. That situation is doubly dangerous for the pastor who may be a special target of the evil one. All of us in ministry need at least one peer (in addition, of course, to our spouse!) who will feel free to “tell us off” when necessary.

Balancing spontaneity and obligation. A second principle we can validly derive from this text is the need to balance spontaneity and obligation in giving to the Lord and to his people. As Paul describes the collection for the saints in Jerusalem, he emphasizes that those who gave “were pleased” to do so (vv. 26–27). This verb (eudokeo) has the idea of free decision (cf. TEV, “their decision was their own”). Yet Paul can also say, in the same verse, that the Gentiles “owe it to the Jews to share with them.”

Paul combines these same points in 2 Corinthians 8–9 when he talks about giving. In the famous words of 9:7, God loves “a cheerful giver,” who does not give by compulsion (9:7; cf. also 8:2; 9:5). Yet the Corinthians’ giving is also a matter of “obedience” (9:13). Of course, both Romans 15 and 2 Corinthians 8–9 are about the collection for the saints in Jerusalem, and that collection, as we pointed out above, has certain unique dimensions. But the motivation for giving is not attached to any unique feature of that collection, and 2 Corinthians 9:7 expresses a general truth about God’s attitude toward the giver.

Each of us, then, must recognize that we are under a certain obligation to give back to the Lord a portion of what he has given us. We owe it to him in repayment for his grace, and we owe it to other believers who need our help. Yet, at the same time, our giving should be free and unconstrained.

How can these both be true at the same time? Perhaps an analogy will help. I know I am under obligation to be a good father to my children; I owe it to them. Yet I also delight in being a good father to them (most of the time). The key is the personal relationship. Because I love my children, my fathering is not an onerous obligation but a glad responsibility. I discharge the obligation with delight and gratitude. Our giving to the Lord must arise from the joy of our relationship with him so that it is also a glad obligation. The same can be said about our Christian giving. The more I get to know other believers who are in need, the more sincerely motivated I will be to share with them from the good things God has given to me.

Praying for people in ministry. Prayer for people involved in ministry is a third principle we can isolate in this text. Paul typically asks his churches to pray for him at the end of his letters. Romans is no exception. After informing the Christians in Rome about the collection he is bringing to Jerusalem (15:25–27), he asks them to pray for him and for the success of this venture. As we indicated in the Original Meaning section, the collection held great significance for Paul. He hoped it would become an important means of healing the growing rift between Gentile and Jewish Christians. The unity of the church was at stake. No wonder he asks for prayer.

Yet we should not miss the significance of this request. (1) It illustrates the humility and sense of need Paul has. Though he has a divinely given mission, unique in salvation history, he still needs other believers to pray for him. How much more, then, do the rest of us, engaged in far humbler tasks and with far less biblical confirmation, need the prayers of God’s people. Pride can be an obstacle here as we can subtly begin depending on our own skills, talents, or resources rather than on the Lord, who empowers through the prayers of his people.

(2) Paul’s call for prayer also illustrates the biblical tension between God’s determination of events and the situation-changing power of prayer. Paul undoubtedly sensed that God himself had inaugurated and was empowering this collection. Yet he still asks people to pray for it. To be sure, we have no evidence Paul saw the collection in terms of a divine prophecy, sure to succeed because God had said it would. But even if this were the case, evidence from other texts shows that he would still have asked prayer for it.

Our own enterprises come with no more (and usually considerably less) divine mandate than Paul’s collection. We can fall into the error of assuming our own ministries or projects are so important for the cause of Christ that God, as it were, is bound to prosper them. We can fail to pray for them or to enlist others in prayer. No matter how hard we try to avoid it, the antisupernaturalism of our culture exerts a strong pull on us. Particularly at a time when the business world is becoming more and more a paradigm for ministry, it is easy for us in ministry to put our projects in the same category as a business enterprise and assume that the keys to success are the same: hard work, careful planning, effective execution. Prayer can get left out.

Church planting. A point of application that I advance only hesitantly comes from Paul’s description of his own ground-breaking church planting ministry. As he makes clear in verse 20, he made it his practice to “preach the gospel where Christ was not known.” Many early American pioneers moved to a new log cabin whenever they could see the smoke from another person’s chimney. Paul seems to have a been a bit like that, moving his ministry on whenever there were too many Christians around. His job, he was convinced, was to plant churches that could thrive and carry on the work of ministry on their own. Then he could leave for new, untilled gospel ground.

Nothing in our text justifies the conclusion that Paul is setting forth here a general way to “do missions.” That is why our application must be tentative. But maybe we can learn a couple of things from Paul’s example. (1) Obviously, God may today also be raising up people who have the difficult job of bringing the gospel to places it has not been heard before. Most of us know of missions organizations and missionaries dedicated just to this task—“New Tribes Missions,” for example. But are there enough missionaries giving themselves to this task? The vast majority of Christian workers are serving a small minority of the world’s population. We need more workers willing to follow Paul’s example.

(2) Paul’s example may also suggest that our missions work should have as its goal the planting of self-reproducing churches. Sometimes we do not stay long enough in a given area for a church to reach this critical mass. Perhaps more often, however, the missionary stays too long, beyond the time when the help of foreigners is any longer needed.

Original Meaning

Paul’s Immediate Travel Plans (15:22–29)

PAUL GOES ON to mention his next three destinations (in order of visit): Jerusalem (vv. 25–27), Rome (vv. 22–24, 28–29), and Spain (vv. 24, 28). He is not interested is simply giving the Roman Christians his itinerary. His main concern is to explain why it has taken him so long to get to Rome (v. 22) and why, when he does get there, he does not plan to stay long (v. 28). He must fulfill his commission to bring the gospel where the name of Christ has not yet been heard, and Spain is a fertile field for pioneer church-planting. But a stop in Rome is necessary for the apostle to secure logistical support for this new outreach, so far from his original home base of Antioch. But before these plans can be carried out, Paul must first visit Jerusalem, where he hopes to bring to a successful climax his long-cherished project of collecting money from Gentile churches for the impoverished saints in the home city of the gospel.

The NIV makes verse 22 the concluding verse of the preceding paragraph. But it is better, following modern editions of the Greek text and most English versions (e.g., NRSV; TEV; NASB; NJB), to make it the first verse in the new paragraph. Because Paul has been “fully proclaiming” the gospel all the way from Jerusalem to Illyricum (vv. 18–19), therefore (Gk. dio in v. 22, untranslated in NIV) he has been hindered up to now from coming to Rome (cf. 1:13).

Now, however, things have changed. With his ministry in the east fulfilled, there is no longer a place for him in those regions. Because he has so long wanted to visit the Romans, he now plans to stop there on his way to Spain. The clause “I plan to do so [i.e., to see you]” in 15:24 does not occur in the Greek but helps clarify Paul’s syntax, which he breaks off awkwardly in verse 24 (NASB preserves the incomplete sentence in vv. 23–24a and indicates the break with a dash). In other words, Paul has two reasons to come to Rome: a negative one (the hindrance of ministry in the east has been removed) and a positive one (he longs to see them).

Still, Rome is not his final destination. He will visit them and hopes to “enjoy [their] company,” but he will not remain there long; he is “passing through” on his way to Spain. Parts of Spain had been occupied by the Romans since about 200 B.C. But the Romans had fully organized the area as a province only in Paul’s lifetime. There may have been a significant Jewish community there, although the matter is debated.7 Obviously, Paul thinks it a good place to embark in a fresh church-planting ministry.

Paul’s plan to spend only a short time in Rome creates a certain tension with what he says in the introduction to the letter, where he speaks about preaching the gospel in Rome and says nothing about Spain (1:15). What is said here probably reflects a delicacy about seeking financial support. For the verb “assist” (propempo) that he uses in verse 24b has the regular New Testament connotation of missionary support (Acts 15:3; 20:38; 21:5; 1 Cor. 16:6, 11; 2 Cor. 1:16; Titus 3:13; 3 John 6). Paul hints, then, that he hopes to enlist the support of the Roman Christians for his new missionary effort in Spain. Spain is a long way from Antioch, his original sending church, and he knows he will need a new base of operations. In addition to financial support, the Romans can perhaps also help with translators and other specific needs.

One obstacle, however, still remains in the way of Paul’s trip to the western part of the empire: He is on his way to Jerusalem “in the service of the saints there” (v. 25). “In the service” translates the Greek verb diakoneo (to serve, minister). This word refers to any kind of ministry, but the context reveals that Paul is referring to the specific ministry of “the collection” (words from this root refer to the collection also in 2 Cor. 8:4, 19, 20; 9:1, 12, 13).

Paul initiated this enterprise on his third missionary journey, requesting contributions from the Gentile churches he had planted to be sent to Jerusalem for the believers who were suffering from severe want (1 Cor. 16:1–2; 2 Cor. 8–9). In somewhat of a parenthesis, Paul now explains this “service” (Rom. 15:26–27) before continuing to discuss his plans to visit Rome (vv. 28–29). Macedonia is the Roman province that includes important Pauline churches like Philippi and Thessalonica, while Achaia includes Corinth. Paul has requested money from them, but he makes clear that they gave of their own free will: They were “pleased to make a contribution [koinonia].” Koinonia is the usual New Testament word for “fellowship” enjoyed by believers in Christ. The money sent by the Gentiles is a tangible expression of this fellowship.

The recipients of this collection are “the poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (15:26). This NIV rendering (cf. also most modern versions) assumes a particular interpretation of the Greek phrase used here. Some commentators think that “the poor” may have a theological meaning, derived from the Old Testament and Jewish use of that word to denote the “pious.” But since Paul gives no hint of this theological use of the word, the NIV interpretation is preferable.

In verse 27 we detect why the collection is so important to Paul. It is not just a charitable project; it is also designed to bring into closer fellowship Gentile and Jewish believers. The Gentiles, after all, have benefited spiritually from the Jews. As Paul explains in 11:17–18, Gentile Christians derive whatever spiritual blessing they experience from the Jewish Messiah and the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel (cf. also 4:13–16; 15:7–8). The Gentile Christians can partially repay this debt by sharing with the Jews their own material blessings.

Paul will only head for Rome and Spain when he has “completed this task” of bringing the collection to Jerusalem. Why must Paul himself accompany the collection? He hints at the reason in the phrase the NIV translates “I … have made sure that they have received this fruit” (lit. trans.: “I have sealed for them this fruit”). The idea of “sealing” (sphragizo, affix a seal) often connotes an official affirmation of authenticity (see, e.g., Est. 8:8, 10; John 3:33; cf. also Paul’s references to believers being sealed by the Holy Spirit in 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13; 4:30). Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, must accompany the gift to Jerusalem in order to authenticate its purpose as a healing gesture.

In verse 29 Paul breathes “a sigh of relief.”8 For by the time he gets to Rome the tension over the collection will be over. He will therefore be able to come to them “in the full measure of the blessing of Christ.” Paul probably refers here to the mutual ministry of edification he anticipates when he comes to Rome (cf. 1:12).