Introduction:
The book of Romans is a letter written by Paul of Tarsus to the Christian community in Rome. According to the NIV notes, Paul probably wrote it during his last missionary trip (which began in Antioch, took him through Asia Minor and Greece, and then to Jerusalem. (Acts 15-21)). The notes suggest that he probably wrote this letter during the tail end of his trip; during Acts 19, he mentioned his strong desire to visit Rome, but wound up going to Jerusalem instead to participate in a big powwow with the Apostles (Acts 21). (Of course, shortly after the powwow he got arrested and his judicial proceedings ultimately took him to Rome anyway. (Acts 22-28) Funny how things work out.)
Christianity and Judaism were banned in Rome by Emperor Claudius and all the Christians and Jews were evicted from the city (link); after Claudius’ death in 54AD, his successor Nero overturned the ban, and the Christians and Jews returned. Thus this letter would have had to be written sometime after 54AD, when the ban was overturned, and before 60AD, when Paul finally arrived in Rome in person (Acts 28, link).
The letter was intended for the (recently-returned) community of Christians in Rome. According to the NIV notes, the theme of the letter is the basic gospel, and God’s plan of salvation and righteousness for all people.
What Happens:
Paul introduces himself and begins his letter: “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God – the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son […] Jesus Christ our Lord. …. And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”
He tells them that he prays for them frequently, and thanks God for their strong faith. “I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you,” and that he longs to visit them so they can strengthen each other’s faith. He says he has planned many times in the past to come to them, but each time something came up preventing him, until now. He is eager to preach the gospel in Rome just as he has in other cities.
He continues that the “wrath of God is being revealed … against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness.” He says that the evidence of God is all around, in his creation, and God’s “invisible qualities” such as his power and divine nature are evident in the world, so men are “without excuse.” He says that such people knew of God, but willfully ignored him, and “their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they were fools”, chose to ignore the real God to make idols that were just statues of animals, and knowingly worshiped a lie.
“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
Because these people “did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God”, they developed depraved minds, and lost all their sense of morals. “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity,” Paul says. “They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”
Commentary:
Paul is clearly about to go to Rome when he is writing this letter, which could place its date of writing immediately after the Apostles’ powwow in Jerusalem (in the gap between the powwow ending and getting arrested, Paul could have been planning his next trip, and written this letter.) Or it could have been written a few years later, after his arrest, when he appealed his case to the Emperor and was slated to head off to Rome as a prisoner.
Luke was the author of the books Luke and Acts, which he wrote as a two-part series, detailing Jesus’ life in Luke and the early activities of the Church in Acts – mostly Paul’s missionary journeys. Despite Acts being a fairly comprehensive description of Paul’s activities, Luke never described him writing any letters. It’s possible that Luke just didn’t think letter-writing was a momentous enough thing to merit mention; he intended his book as sort of a history book, a chain-of-events type summary, and excluded many other minor activities of Paul’s. No doubt space constraints for the book were also an issue.
So anyway, on to the letter itself. The first couple paragraphs are mainly introductory: “Hi, I’m Paul, and I’m writing to you guys, the followers of Jesus in Rome, to tell you I’m fixing to come to town.”
There’s an interesting discrepancy between the print and online versions of one sentence, where Paul says, “To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints.” That’s from the print version; the online version says, “To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people.” The Greek word is αγιοις (agiois), which means “saints”. Not sure why the online version went with a different word – perhaps they felt that both translations were accurate, in the sense that if the definition of “saint” IS a “holy one of God” then they mean the same thing, but why bother using the clunky and non-literal translation if it’s all the same? My inner conspiracy theorist suspects that the online NIV people thought that “saint” sounded too Catholic, and went with something more Prostestant-y. Being as how the NIV is a protestant translation. This isn’t the first time we’ve run into a similar difference.
Which brings us to the next question of what exactly does “saint” even mean? The definition I usually think of is someone who’s extra holy, or in a non-religious sense maybe just a person who’s a really good person. That’s pretty much exactly how dictionary.com defines it, too. However, there are more precise definitions. In the Catholic Church, a saint is anyone who is in heaven. The Church says that they don’t “make” saints, but merely recognize them; there are many people in heaven, and the Church is able to know of only a few.
For a person to be recognized as being a saint (i.e., how do we know if they’re in heaven?), the Catholic Church uses various criteria, mainly centering around miracles attributed to the person. There have to be at least two, and they have to be posthumous. Evidently the thinking goes that if the person is in heaven, they will be able to do miracles, with the help of God’s divine power; and if they’re not in heaven, they will not be able to do any miracles – presumably if they could do any supernatural activities at all while in hell, any such activities would be evil, not miraculous. So divine miracles from a dead person are held to be pretty conclusive proof that that person is in heaven. Obviously, not everyone in heaven does miracles, or presumably the world would be awash in them, but there are very few (or none, depending on how your beliefs go). (link) Also, the Church can’t erroneously declare someone to be in heaven if they’re really in hell, because the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit (back in Matthew 16, Jesus promised that hell would never prevail against the Church, and the only way for hell to defeat the Church besides outright eradication would be to lead it into error, e.g. getting them to teach falsehoods. Getting people to pray to someone who’s in hell by tricking them into thinking that person is really in heaven would count as a definite example of this, and therefore be protected against by the Holy Spirit. At least according to Catholic thought.)
The Catholic Church doesn’t consider their list of saints as an exhaustive list of all the saints (i.e. everyone who is in heaven), but rather as only a list of the small fraction they know of. The Church believes that people on earth can ask the people in heaven to pray for them or intercede for them, just like you can ask a person on earth to pray for you or help you. (Because they believe the people in heaven aren’t dead, they’re just alive in heaven). The “communion of saints” mentioned in the Apostles’ Creed refers to the spiritual union of all members of the Christian Church, both those who are on earth as well as those in heaven. I’m not Catholic, so if I’ve gotten any of this wrong, please correct me.
Protestant churches have dropped most of the Catholic Church’s beliefs regarding sainthood; generally, the newest denominations in Protestantism diverge most widely from Catholicism, and the oldest denominations’ beliefs are the most similar to it. The Lutheran church (founded 1521, by the original Protestant himself) and the Anglicans (founded 1534) share almost all the Catholic ideas about saints except the idea that you can ask them to pray for you. Mormons, one of the newer denominations (founded 1830), use the word “saint” to refer to any living Christians. Most other Protestant denominations use it in the same way, or, more commonly, have abandoned the term altogether, and use it only in the secular sense of “a really good person”, with no religious connotation.
Annnnnd that was way more than I intended to write about saints, so on to a less mystic topic!
Re: “wrath of God is being revealed … against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness.” At first I took it that Paul was aiming this at the Romans who had previously thrown the Christians out of Rome (“suppressing” their truth), but then his, uh, tirade continued and it appears he was actually referring to a much broader group of people. As far as evidence for God being visible in nature, we’ll get to that in depth once we hit Genesis, so I won’t spend any time on it here.
Who is this terrible group of people he is talking about? Roman pagans? Rome absorbed the religions of the tribes they conquered (some of which were crazier than others), and by the 50’s AD their Empire vast, so there were scores of various religions in Rome. Maybe it’s some hypothetical example Paul is using? A veiled reference to the aristocracy, or the government? Well, whoever Paul is speaking of, he has plenty to say about them.
This group of people: A) knew good and well that God existed (according to Paul), and consciously chose to ignore him in favor of self-made idols, leading to B) them losing all their morals and sense of right/wrong, and becoming basically greedy, self-indulgent and self-absorbed fools who C) have gay sex, become greedy, malicious, murderous, arrogant, ruthless, etc etc etc.
Paul: Clearly not a fan of gay sex. In fact he spends almost as much talking about that as he does about all their other vices combined. Well, a paragraph each, which isn’t exactly a lot, but it’s a lot more than the single sentence you normally hear anti-gay Christians quote from the OT (“Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” Leviticus 18:22. The KJV calls it “an abomination” rather than detestable. Leviticus 20:13 says basically the same thing.) I’m not sure why Christians who believe gay sex is a sin don’t quote Paul’s paragraph from Romans more often; I don’t think I’ve ever heard it used (maybe once?), and I’ve been on the intarwebs a long time. I suspect that this is because most of the anti-gay crowd (and maybe Christians in general?) don’t know their Bibles very well.
Anyway, Paul wrote that God “gave them over” to shameful lusts, almost making it sound like God caused it. The notes say that the people chose such behavior, and God let them do it (i.e. gave them over to it), rather than forcibly stopping them. Not sure what the “due penalty for their perversion” was that the gay men received; Paul said that they were not executed. Maybe some kind of STD? Did STD’s even exist in ancient times?
Also, Paul: Apparently a fan of the death penalty. He advocates capital punishment not just for gay sex, but also for the other crimes he listed: murder, evil, gossip, slander, ruthlessness, malice, deceit, and all the other forms of iniquity on the list. I’m not sure if he genuinely advocates death for things like gossip, lying, etc.; or if he’s just giving a lump-sum description of all the awful things these people do and how terrible they are, and finishing off by saying that they’re so terrible that they all deserve death. (Rather than saying that each specific vice listed deserves death in and of itself.)