Sunday School Notes: Romans 15:19b-23

¹⁹ … so that from Jerusalem and around as far as Illyricum I have fulfilled the gospel of Christ, ²⁰ and in this way, aspiring to preach the gospel not where Christ has been named [already] so that I may not build upon another’s foundation, ²¹ but, just as it has been written: “To those it has not been proclaimed concerning him, they shall see, and those not hearing shall understand.” ²² Therefore I also have been hindered many times from coming to you, ²³ but now, no longer having a place in these regions, and having a desire to come to you for many years…”

We’re cutting in on Paul mid-sentence and mid-thought, so to re-cap, Paul is reflecting on the ministry he has been doing, and planning ahead. By the power of God, through words and works, signs and wonders, he has brought the gospel to many people around the Mediterranean. The sense of his words are that he feels a season of ministry is coming to an end, and he’s looking to take a short break before embarking on what the Lord has planned for him next.

A couple of questions come out of Paul’s statement in 19b: Why does he suggest his gospel ministry started in Jerusalem when he was converted, and first proclaimed Christ, in Damascus, and his first missionary journey started in Antioch (see Acts 9 and 13)? Acts doesn’t record a visit of Paul’s to Illyricum, so is he referring to an otherwise unmentioned trip (which seems hard to fit into the itinerary given in Acts), and if not, is he mis-remembering, or is there some other way these words can be understood?

With regard to Jerusalem, I think Paul considers this the starting point of his ministry because it was in Jerusalem that Barnabas took him under his wing and introduced him to the Apostles. It was there his ministry was given “official” sanction (Acts 9:26-28). In other words, Paul does not consider himself a “Lone Ranger” Christian. He saw his ministry within the context of the church. For him, his labors for the gospel didn’t start until it was under the auspices and sanction of the church. Perhaps there is also a theological element to Paul’s statement: the gospel went to the Jews first (Jerusalem). He made an attempt to reach out to his Jewish brethren first, by visiting synagogues and preaching there (Acts 13:44-52). It was after being rejected by his own that he realized the true call the Lord placed on his life.

I think Acts 20:1-6 sheds some light on the Illyricum reference, especially since it is somewhere in the midst of this section of Acts that I believe Romans was composed. Paul left Ephesus in Asia to go to Macedonia. He then traveled “through those parts” to Greece. After three months, he returned. Luke’s account is a little vague as to exactly which “parts” of Macedonia Paul visited, but he probably went through Thessalonika and Berea, where he picked up Sopater, Aristarchus, and Secundus. I think it’s possible that going “through those parts” included a trip to the north of Macedonia, at least as far as (a legitimate translation of the Greek mechri which he uses in 19b) Illyricum–i.e., right up to the border. See the map below for visual help:

In what sense does Paul mean that he has “fulfilled the gospel of Christ?” Probably that he believes he has fulfilled the mission he was given to plant churches in strategic areas of the Gentile world. This is not to say he has finished his work and he’s going to retire. On the contrary, he plans to make a pit-stop in Rome before embarking on what he believes is the next phase of his missionary endeavors: Spain. So the sense of his words are that he has fulfilled the gospel of Christ with regard to this current mission. Whether or not the Lord will bless his plans further west was unknown to him at that time. But he believed he had left the churches he planted in good hands and was ready to move on.

One reason Paul gives for his conviction that he has “fulfilled the gospel of Christ” is the fact that he doesn’t want to “build upon another’s foundation.” These churches he planted were pioneering works; the gospel had not been preached in these places prior to Paul’s arrival. He didn’t see himself as someone who would go in to an existing church situation and settle in as one of the elders for the rest of his life. His mission was to establish churches where churches didn’t exist, train up the leaders, and then move on. I think he was convinced he had done this in these churches around the Mediterranean.

But isn’t this very epistle an example of Paul “building upon another’s foundation”? I don’t think so because:

• Paul is responding to a situation in the Roman church; he has not had on-going dealings with this church. It’s possible the Roman elders contacted Paul to get his advice, and perhaps lend Apostolic weight to their attempts at reconciliation.
• Paul is not trying to pastor the church: he’s simply offering counsel to help resolve the situation.
• When Paul visits Rome, he plans to rest, preach, and encourage the saints. He’s not looking for a Senior Pastor position.

As biblical support for his missionary approach, Paul quotes Isaiah 52:15b. The quotation is almost verbatim the LXX, which in turn is a faithful translation of the Hebrew we have. This passage in Isaiah is a Messianic “Servant of the Lord” passage. Indeed, it leads into the famous Isaiah 53 prophecy of Christ. The passage speaks of “kings” in the context of those who will see and understand, which Paul clearly associates with the Gentiles. There’s mention of “sprinkling” many nations in the first part of Isaiah 52:15, which Paul understands as spreading the gospel, bringing in the Gentiles who are, as a result, clean and acceptable to God. These “kings” come to the Servant of the Lord–to Christ. This is Paul’s mission: to take the gospel to “those who haven’t been told,” and “those who have not heard of it.” People who have no foundation upon which to build. Paul, by the grace of God and the power of the Spirit, wants to build that foundation; and he believes he has fulfilled that in the churches he has planted.

In verses 22-29, Paul discusses his travel plans. As we’ve already noted, he ultimately wants to go to Spain, but he must first make a stop in Jerusalem. He will then set off west, dropping in on the Roman church on route–presumably for the first time. He speaks in verse 22 of having been “hindered many times” from visiting the Romans. We shouldn’t see this as a negative “hindrance.” Indeed, his hindrance has been the vital ministry he has been involved with over the past three missionary journeys, planting churches, training leaders, encouraging the saints, battling heretics, and so forth. I’m sure Paul didn’t regret any one of these “hindrances,” but this explains why it has taken him so long to get around to visit the Roman church. Now, however, he no longer has a “place” in “these regions.” As we observed, he believes he has fulfilled the purpose for which Christ sent him to the Gentiles in this part of the world. He has done all he can for the gospel there–this is probably what he means by having no “place” for him. Those churches are being pastored by appointed elders. Paul has no day-to-day role in their lives. It’s now time for him to look to the future, and what the Lord has in store for him next.

That Paul would desire to visit the Roman church is understandable. Rome was the center of the Empire, the most important city; the church in Rome would, therefore, have some natural esteem attached to it. Also, it’s a church that neither Paul nor Peter planted (Peter’s ministry at this time was to the Jews in Jerusalem and Judea). As the hub of the Empire, Rome would have had many people from all over the world visit: statesmen, merchants, slaves, and others. It’s not impossible that some of these had been Christians, and they had taken it upon themselves to establish a church. This church clearly flourished since even after the expulsion of the Jews under Claudius, there were enough Gentiles present to sustain it. The church was also known to Paul, and, as we shall see in Chapter 16, he knew a number of people at the church. So both to catch up with friends, and out of personal curiosity, I’ve no doubt Paul harbored a strong desire to visit.

What I think is particularly interesting in verse 23 is that Paul says he’s desired to visit “for many years” (the Greek is pollôn etôn). We can’t know for certain how long a period of time this is, but it must be more than, say, five years. Perhaps ten or more? If Romans was composed in the latter 50s A.D., this would mean the church in Rome was established sometime in the mid-40s A.D. at the latest. Within 10-15 years of the death and resurrection of Christ in Jerusalem, there was already a church as far west as Rome. Again, given trade and travel to and from Rome, this is not inconceivable. However, consider the contents of this letter. The issue under dispute is freedom in Christ. Paul seems at liberty to assume an acceptance of Christ’s deity, salvation through grace by faith, and many other basic gospel doctrines. Which means these were already established early on in the Roman church’s history. Many liberal theologians today like to assume that much of what we consider to be basic Christian doctrine (e.g., the Trinity, the deity of Christ, etc.) developed slowly over many years. The first century church in Rome refutes that idea.

We’ll pick up with verse 24 next time.