Romans chapter 1

I feel totally underqualified for this one - all the big Christian players of the modern times have done Romans.

vs 1

Always the same, always a little different. Another letter by Paul. This time, his calling from God to be an apostle is key, and also his specific setting apart for the sake of spreading the gospel. This is of first importance in the book, but doesn't really show its head again until chapter 10 or so.

vs 2

This is still part of his introduction. Which gospel is it? It's the one promised through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures (that is, the Old Testament).

vs 3

It's the gospel that is about the Son of God, who followed in the line of king David.

vs 4

It's the gospel about the guy who, through the Holy Spirit, was appointed as Son of God because he was resurrected. His name is Jesus, and his position is Christ.

Tell me you don't find the word 'appointed' here kind of strange. It's a TNIV word - all the other of my translations translate that word 'declared', which makes perfect sense. The word is horizo, and it means "to define; to mark out boundaries; to ordain, determine, appoint; that which has been determined (acc. to appointment, decree)".

This word is only translated as "declare" once in the NT - and it's in Romans. It's only used 8 times, but it's translated mostly as determined (3) or appointed (2).

See, 'declare'ing Jesus as Son of God makes sense - it means he always was, but now it's just being shouted out by the resurrection. But to say that Jesus is 'appointed' God's Son sounds weird. Perhaps it is the "in power" that pulls us over the line here. Now, was the declaration (appointment) with power, or is it Son of God in power? I could probably tell you if I knew greek. However, I asked my local language scholar, and she is of the opinion that it is "Son of God in power" (NASB) rather than "declared with power the Son of God" (NIV).

The resurrection is a powerful declaration, so it's not like that is an untenable translation. Is it an appointment though? I guess you could argue that, but it feels uncomfortable. But the idea of the Son of God being 'in power', declaritively or appointedly, because of the resurrection is also quite legitimate.

vs 5

Paul's apostleship comes directly through this Christ. It is an apostleship not just to be a messenger, but to the gentiles specifically. This is still his introduction - so he is explaining more fully which gospel he's talking about, and what his calling for it is exactly.

vs 6

Paul wants the Romans to know that this includes them. That doesn't mean that Paul did preach to them - it means instead that they are included in the group "gentiles who should belong to Christ". This doesn't mean as much as it could mean. After all, Paul was called to call all gentiles to faith - so being a gentile makes you "among those gentiles".

I hate the term gentile.

vs 7

Ok, this is a little confusing. If we take "called" in the same sense as verse 5, then this letter is to every gentile in Rome - pretty much everybody. But it isn't - it's to the church in Rome. Paul is fairly obviously using the term 'called' here in two different ways. If he was in fact using the same word at all, which he was not. In fact, the greek is really sparse in verse 5 - it basically says "for obedience of faith" - so "to bring about" (NASB) is just as much an insert as "called" (NIV, TNIV).

So it would seem that when Paul uses the word 'called' (kletos), he means it in a specific sense. His personal calling, now the direct calling of the gentiles who are in the church in Rome.

Which is why the word 'called' shouldn't be used in verse 5 - it makes it sound like a call can be general and specific. But Paul doesn't say that.

So, letter is from Paul, and is to the church at Rome. Took us 7 verses to get there - I think that may be a record. Typical pleasantries follow.

vs 8

So many things to say! Paul thanks God for the Romans. Why? Because their faith is being reported all over the world. They are in Rome, after all, and it is a bit of a centre, so news from there travels fast no doubt. This may also be a slight wink at them to let them know that the world's eyes are on them, so they need to represent Christ fully.

But also notice that Paul thanks God 'through Christ' for the Roman church. You could dismiss this as idiomatic, but I think we'll see later in Romans that there's something to this - that Paul builds up an internally consistent theology of prayer. Point one - thanking God. Second- doing it through Jesus. Why? Not sure. Yet.

vs 9

Wow, Paul is being wordy and verbose. This is going to be a long letter. He reiterates here his service for God, and how it is service via the gospel of his Son. He's actually talking about how he prays for the Romans.

vs 10

Paul's never been to Rome, apparently - at least not to visit the Roman church. He wants to though. So this letter is to a church Paul has never visited. It's an interesting idea. I mean, that is in fact every modern church.