The Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Romans

interpreted by St. Theophan

INTRODUCTION

1) THE ENLIGHTENMENT OF THE ROMANS BY FAITH

The Apostle Paul writes to the Romans without seeing them. For it was not he who enlightened them by faith: it came to them without him, and formed of them a glorious Christian society, the glory of which, at the time of the writing of the Epistle, was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Romans 1:8). How did this happen?

There are no definite indications of how this was done. But it is possible to construct very probable assumptions about this.

In Clemen's Cognitions (see: Clemens Romanus. Recognitiones. 1:6) it is said that, even during the Lord's sojourn visibly on earth, the news of Him and His deeds reached the Romans and aroused not only wonder at Him, but also faith in Him. This legend cannot be questioned. In Rome, from the time of the subjugation of Judea by Pompey (63 B.C.), a multitude of Jews began to live, for whom a special quarter beyond the Tiber was later allotted. But while living here, they did not alienate themselves from their homeland, especially from Jerusalem, and were there on feast days, and even more so at the main thing, the Passover. Those who were in Jerusalem could not only hear about the Lord, but also see Him and believe in Him; then, returning to Rome, to tell others about Him and arouse in some a desire to see Him for themselves, in order to believe in themselves, in others – direct faith. New visitors to Jerusalem could return as new believers and bring new faith-stirring messages. Thus, even before His death on the cross and resurrection, the Lord could have had many worshippers among the Jews living in Rome.

On the day of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, the Romans were among other witnesses to this event (Acts 2:10). Three thousand believers were baptized on this day. It is very improbable that no Romans should be in such numbers, especially if there were any of them who had been prepared before. This believer and baptized, if he was one, or several of them, if not one, returned to Rome, could baptize all those who had been prepared before, and add new believers to them. Baptism was then accompanied by wondrous changes in the baptized and served as an undoubted sign of the truth of the faith of those being baptized. And this could not but draw to the Lord those who were destined to be from His court. Assuming this, we must agree that since kvass was put into a mixture of flour, it could not remain without action. The community of believers was to grow, attracting new worshippers of the Lord not only from the Jews, but also from the proselytes (a proselyte is a pagan converted to Judaism), and through them from other pagans. This effect could be aggravated if we assume that some of the new visitors to Jerusalem returned believing and baptized; Which is very unwonderful. In addition, a multitude of people always flocked to Rome from various places, some of whom remained there, either on their own business, or even to live there. Among them could be believers, Jews and Gentiles, who could not be there without connection with the community of believers. According to all these probabilities, how many believers could have been formed in Rome, during the twenty-five years of the existence of the Church of Christ on earth, before the writing of the Epistle to the Romans? Here is the community of believers, whose faith was proclaimed throughout the world!

But this way can only explain how such a multitude of believers and baptized people were formed in Rome; and the organization of the Church from them, in its full order and composition, cannot be explained in this way. Anyone could baptize, and baptism immediately manifested all its power clearly to all; but the reception of the gifts of the Holy Spirit was impossible except through the laying on of hands by the holy Apostles or by the primates ordained by them – bishops (now Chrismation). Meanwhile, St. Paul, writing in his Epistle to the Romans the rules of life, mentions the various grace-filled gifts that were active in them — about prophecy, teaching, intercession, or the rectory of the Church (Rom. 12:6-8). This means that the Church there was in its full structure. How could this have happened? Either one of the Apostles was there and personally established the Church there, or one of the Apostles ordained another, worthy and trustworthy, and entrusted him with the organization and administration of it. It is fully organized and preserves the order and order common to all the Churches. What to accept?

The tradition of the Roman Church says that St. Peter was in Rome and established the Church of Christ there, that he arrived there after a miraculous release from the prison in which Herod was imprisoned (Acts 12:3-11), in the year 43 after the Nativity of Christ, and from that time he was bishop of Rome for twenty-five years. That St. Peter could have been in Rome cannot be denied on the ground that he is the Apostle of the Jews: for even in this capacity he had to act not only in Jerusalem and not only in Judea, but in all other places where the Jews lived in great numbers. Nor can this be denied on the grounds that, according to the instructions of Acts, St. Peter, after his release from prison, was in Jerusalem, at the time of the Apostolic Council, then soon after in Antioch, and then in Babylon, whether to consider it an Egyptian city or to recognize it as ancient Babylon. From these indications it is only evident that St. Peter did not sit constantly in Rome; but on the basis of them it cannot be considered impossible for St. Peter to be in Rome and establish the Church there. He could have been there and, having done his work, departed for other places, as his apostolic duty demanded. Five years elapsed between the release of Saint Peter from prison and the Council; and to visit Rome from Palestine and arrange the necessary things there, one year is enough.

For all this, the existence of St. Peter in Rome and his personal action in the organization of the Church there cannot be considered indubitable. That St. Peter was not in Rome when St. Paul's Epistle was written, there is no need to say about it. And St. Paul would not have painted it if St. Peter had been there; or, even if he had decided to write for some important reasons, he could not have written directly to the community of Christians, without any relation to St. Peter, with whom he was on sincere terms. But the fact that the structure of the Church there was not owed to St. Peter by its beginnings is also evident from the Epistle. For in some way St. Paul would have hinted at this, according to the usual order among people. It must be added that he should have done this, if it had been true, for the sake of honor for the sake of the faith and the Apostleship of Christ.

Moreover, if to write an Epistle and teach is to build, the Apostle Paul was not in the habit of building on someone else's foundation; then it is difficult to admit that he would dare to write an Epistle, except on the instructions of St. Peter himself. If he writes, and – on his own behalf, it means – the Apostolic foot has not yet been in Rome.

Thus, it is probably necessary to assume that St. Peter was not in Rome before St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans. He was not there until the end of St. Paul's first bonds: for otherwise he would have mentioned it in one of his Epistles, and he, if he writes something about himself, always says that it is impossible to assume the presence of any other Apostle in Rome at that time. If there was St. Peter in Rome, it was after the first imprisonment of St. Paul. "And so, who authoritatively organized the Church of Rome?"