Who were the Romans?

Suetonius records that the Roman Emperor Claudius kicked all of the Jews out of Rome in AD 49, because they were rioting over a man named “Chrestus.” He writes, “Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Emperor Claudius] expelled them from the city.”[] The Latin for Christ is only one letter away from this title (Christus). Blomberg writes that “most historians think that Suetonius’s statement reflects a garbled reference to Christian and non-Christian Jews squabbling over the truth of the gospel.”[] Even Critic Bart Ehrman explains that “this kind of spelling mistake was common.”[] If this is a reference to Christ, this means there were Christians in Rome at least by AD 49. Luke mentions Claudius’ edict in Acts 18:2, when Priscilla and Aquila are living in Corinth, bringing the news about the expulsion from Rome. After Claudius died in AD 54, the Jews flooded back into Rome. Priscilla and Aquila must have found their way back to Rome, because Paul mentions them at the end of his letter to the Romans (Rom. 16:1-5), which we’ve dated to AD 56-57.

Many of these Jews had lost their homes and jobs due to Claudius’ edict. This must have created tension between the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers, when the Jewish believers came back into town. Since Paul wrote his letter in AD 57, these issues must have still been fresh to the audience, and there was still tension between the Jews and Gentiles.

Did Peter or Paul start the church in Rome?

Roman Catholic tradition holds that Peter founded the church in Rome. They base this on two church fathers: Eusebius (~AD 354) and Irenaeus (AD 180). Eusebius writes that Peter was in Rome in AD 42 (Ecclesiastical History, 2.14.6), and Irenaeus (AD 180) states that Peter and Paul “founded” the church in Rome (Against Heresies, 3.1.1; 3.3.2; cf. Ignatius, Romans, 4.3). However, this seems unlikely for several reasons:

First, Paul is clear that he is a stranger to Rome (Rom. 1:10, 13, 15:22).

Second, if Peter travelled anywhere after Acts 12:17 (“[Peter] left and went to another place”), he no doubt went to Antioch (Gal. 2:11-14), not all the way to Rome. After all, we find Peter back in Jerusalem in Acts 15. Is it really likely he travelled all the way to Italy and back in such a short time? Schreiner comments, “Few contemporary scholars espouse the theory that Peter established the church when he went into hiding.”[]

Third, why wouldn’t Luke mention Peter in Rome in the book of Acts—especially since that is such a focus of Luke’s writing?

Fourth, other church fathers deny that an apostle made it to Rome. Ambrosiaster (the fourth century Latin father) said that the Romans “had embraced the faith of Christ, albeit according to the Jewish rite, without seeing any sign of mighty works or any of the apostles.”[]

Finally, why wouldn’t Paul mention Peter in his sixteen chapter letter—especially since he greets so many believers in chapter 16?

Regarding Irenaeus’ statement that Peter and Paul “founded” the church in Rome, Schreiner comments, “[Irenaeus] probably does not mean that they both established the church in Rome, since it is obvious from Romans that Paul had no role in the church’s founding. Irenaeus likely refers to the fact that Peter and Paul both ministered and were martyred in Rome.”[]

Paul’s Reason for writing Romans

Get the picture in your mind. Paul has just finished his third missionary journey. He settles down at the house of a friend in Corinth to get some rest. He probably had heard from Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:2) that a revival is occurring in none other than Rome, the capital of the ancient world! Rome contained anywhere from a quarter million to a million people, and the Jewish population was anywhere from 20,000 to 50,000 people.[] Yet no apostle had ever been there.

Most likely, the church was started by a “visitor from Rome,” who had come to Christ during Pentecost (Acts 2:10). Paul knows a lot of the believers involved in the church in Rome (see his closing comments in Romans 16), and he can’t stand being away from them. He wants to show up to Rome to teach doctrine and theology, and he’s looking forward to helping this young (but thriving) group, as they grow in Christ. In Romans 1:9, Paul writes, “How unceasingly I make mention of you.” As Paul prayed for them, he was hoping that he could come to them “at last” (Rom. 1:10), longing to see them (Rom. 1:11).

Given the cost of papyrus and the labor of a scribe (amanuensis, Rom. 16:22), scholars estimate that the book of Romans cost roughly 20.68 denarii (or $2,275 by today’s standards).[] The average ancient letter was only about 87 words. Roman statesman Cicero averaged about 295 words per letter, and Seneca averaged 995 words. With this in mind, Paul’s letter to the Romans is 7,114 words![] This was a long and expensive letter to write, but millennia later, we’re glad he made this investment during his sabbatical in Corinth.

Genre of Romans

Paul wrote Romans in the style of a diatribe. Diatribe is a back and forth style of writing, where the author interacts with a hypothetical opponent. It’s similar to a courtroom argument. Imagine Paul in a courtroom arguing with an opponent. Carson and Moo argue that this is the style of Romans—not the genre of Romans. They write, “While Paul clearly uses some of the devices of the diatribe, it was not so much a genre as a style that could be employed in many different genres.”[] In other words, Paul uses the literary device of diatribe in the letter. As one commentator explains,

Paul’s interlocutor [opponent] was no straw man… In fact we would probably not be far from the mark if we were to conclude that Paul’s interlocutor is Paul himself—Paul the unconverted Pharisee, expressing attitudes Paul remembered so well as having been his own![]

Udo Middleman writes, “Until recently, Romans was studied in American law schools in order to teach students the art of presenting an argument. A reasoned case is made for a foundational proposition. Counter statements are considered one by one, and refuted. Romans is not about a leap of faith but presents a comprehensive argument for the central proposition.”[]

Is Romans Paul’s systematic treatment of Christianity?

Yes and no. Because Paul had never personally visited Rome, he needed to explain the essentials of Christianity to them—from A to Z. Unlike his other letters, Paul didn’t have an overt pastoral concern for the Romans which he need to address (compare with 1 Corinthians, for example). In this sense, Romans is a unique letter.

On the other hand, Paul did know many of the believers in Rome (R0m. 16). Furthermore, he was no doubt aware of Claudius’ expulsion of the Jewish believers in Rome, because he spoke with Aquila and Priscilla in person (Acts 18:2; cf. Suetonius, Claudius, 25.4). By the time he wrote Romans, he addresses this Christian couple personally (Rom. 16:3). His knowledge of the Jewish-Gentile tensions comes out throughout the letter. Specifically, he addresses this tension in chapters 1-3, 9-11, and 14.

Furthermore, if Romans is truly a comprehensive account of core Christianity, it’s odd that there is little mention of eschatology (though see ch.11) and Christology (though see 1:3-4; 9:5).[] In conclusion, it’s probably better to say that Romans is the most systematic account of Paul’s teaching. We agree with Mounce when he writes, “Although written to a specific church, it would prove to serve the broad interests of the Christian faith everywhere.”[]