PAUL’S LETTER TO THE CHRISTIANS IN ROME

Home Introduction Contents

ROMANS

[0.1] The famous quotation from Suetonius is available in ‘A New Eusebius’ edited by J Stevenson S.P.C.K, London 1975 at page 1. It is likely, of course, but not certain that the riots were to do with Christianity. ‘Chrestus’ is probably ‘Christ’.

[0.2] ‘A New Eusebius’ (page 1) gives Josephus’ account of the martyrdom of James. The version is Eusebius is more elaborate.

[0.3] The famous account by Tacitus is in ‘A New Eusebius’ pages 2 and 3.

[0.4] A phrase like this introduces ‘the main information - bearing focus of the letter’. See the helpful article by Dr Loveday Alexander in JSNT 37 pg. 87.

[1.1] (1:5) It is worth looking at 1 Timothy 1:14; Romans 3:25 and 28 and 4:16; Galatians 26:16-20; Ephesians 3:12; 6:23; Philippians 3:9; Colossians 2:12; 2 Timothy 1:13. In some of these passages, understanding ‘faith’ to mean ‘God’s faithfulness to us’ - not every time! - can make Paul’s meaning clearer.

[1.2] (1:16) In the Journal for the Study of the New Testament (JSNT) 32 at pg. 61 there is an article by Halvor Hoxnes on ‘honour’ and ‘shame’ in Romans. My real introduction to the topic was an article by Bechtel in the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament (JSOT) 49 at pg. 67.

[1.3] (1:17) ‘From God’s faithfulness to man’s faith’ is rejected by C K Barrett (p 31) although he acknowledges that this was Karl Barth’s view. (‘A Commentary on The Epistle to the Romans’ in the Black’s N.T. Commentaries, A & C Black, London 1979)

[1.4] (1:18) C.K.Barrett (p.31) translates ‘ men.........hold the truth imprisoned’.

[2.1] (2.1) There is much discussion about the first half of the chapter. Akio Ito in JSNT 59 at pg 21 I did not find quite convincing. See also T. Schreiner in B.B.R. (Bulletin for Biblical Research) 3 at pg. 31.

[2.2] (2:7) On the subject of good works in the New Testament period, I found B.W.Winter in JSNT 34 at pg. 87 useful. Good works were honoured publicly by society. Some Christians were no doubt rich enough to engage in such benefactions (Romans 5:7), but probably the great majority of Christians were far too poor, and their ‘good works’ were far more humble.

[2.3} (2:8) On reflection, I think C.K.Barrett’s view is right that there is here this contrast between the long-term and the short-term view.

[2.4] (2:8) So H W Cassirer, ‘God’s New Covenant’, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1989.

[2.5] (2:15) We avoid using passives because they are difficult for many people to grasp. But this often means that there is some guesswork in finding an active construction. Paul will use a passive to avoid naming God - the ‘veiling passive’, because the Jews were very cautious in speaking about God. There is no alternative but to assume God to be the agent here. This is not always safe.

[3.1] (3:3) ‘Nullify’ is a fair translation of ‘Katargeo’. See 3:31. ‘Abolish’ is too strong. Vine (pg.3) says:- ‘....no loss of being is implied, but loss of well being’. See Baker in BBR 10 at pg. 1 on 2 Corinthians 3. ‘To make of no effect’ is fair.

[3.2] (3:4) We appreciate that the last part of verse 4 could mean that God will prevail when men judge Him. It is hard to imagine Paul intending this.

[3.3] (3:9) C.K.Barrett discussd in detail but does not help much.

[3.4] (3:10-18) This is one of the few passages in which I found Karl Barth’s celebrated commentary threw some light on the text. Mostly I have to confess I could not understand it anyway.

[3.5] (3:25) See Owen on Hebrews 9:5, for example; Karl Barth; the Amplified Bible; Calvin; and C.K.Barrett. H.C.G.Moule in the ‘Expositors Bible’ series reflects this view as ‘unlikely’. I have difficulty in reconciling what Stuhlmacher says on pg. 58 with what he says on pg. 59. Maybe pg. 59 simply discusses the way the concept passed through the Early Church. Matthew Black (pp. 68-69) is helpful on the distinction between expiation and propitiation. See also pp. 72-73. Black makes the point that the Gentile would hear the reference to propitiation; the Jew would hear the reference to the Mercy Seat.

[3.6] (3:25) In the middle part of the verse, the R.S.V. which joins ‘in His blood’ with expiation rather than faith is of course valid. Further, ‘faith’ could well here mean that God the Father is faithful to Christ Who shed His blood.

[3.7] (3:26) ‘What would become of us if the provisions of divine grace were not sufficient to meet the claims of divine holiness?’ (C H M on Numbers 15:22)

[3.8] (3:28) See C.B.Cranfield in JSNT 43 at pg.89. He argues that Paul means not ‘the distinctive Jewish practices’ but ‘what is morally right’ (contra Dunn).

[4.1] (4:2) We assume that Abraham is the one doing (or rather not doing!) the boasting here. But could it just be the Jews boasting about Abraham’s works before God?

[4.2] (4:4) I have considered the possibility that this might be a (hypothetical) Jew speaking to Abraham. This however does not seem comfortable with the progression from verse 3 to verse 4, and it does not really help us to bridge the gap in the argument from verse 4 to verse 5.

[4.3] (4:11) See C K Barrett, pg 92 for a discussion of this question.

[4.4] (4:13) Vine, pg 685 suggests that the meaning here may be the ‘earth’ in contrast with heaven. C.K.Barrett refers to the LXX of Genesis 22:17 and 18, where the idea of ‘inheriting’ rather than merely ‘possessing’ is present, and the world is ‘all the nations’. Stuhlmacher is wiser here!

[4.5] (4:14) ‘Worthless’ (NIV) here is hardly a fair translation of ‘katargeo’. See [3.1] above.

[4.6] (4:18) ‘From a mistake of its nature, few Christians labour after it or have the benefit of it; for to live by hope they suppose infers a state beneath the life of faith and all assurance...........’ (John Owen, On Spiritual Mindedness; Works Vol.1 pg 321)

[5.1] (5:18) C.K.Barrett, sadly, (pages 116-117) takes the route of ‘double predestination’, following Karl Barth, which takes away the whole meaning from salvation.

[5.2] (5:20) Richard Sibbes, Works, Vol. 7 pg. 294.

[6.1] (6:3) Cited by Karl Barth, in ‘Romans’, on this verse.

[6.2] (6:3) The ‘households’ which were baptised in the New Testament would in several cases have been unlikely to include children. In Acts 16:29, the Philippian jailor shouts out to a slave for lights, but he would be a tough old soldier with slaves but no family. The same applies in Acts 11:14 with Cornelius. Lydia’s household (Acts 16:15) was that of a business woman. Kurt Aland pointed out that there is one New Testament household where we know the make up - see Hebrews 11:7. There were four men and their wives and lots of animals, but so far as we know, no children!

[6.3] (6:6) ‘katargeo’ again!
Throughout this passage, and indeed in much of Chapter 5, it would be so much easier if we could bring in ideas of the federal headship of Christ and the Covenant theology. Apart from the fact that we could probably not express these things in simple enough English, I am not sure that Paul’s thought had advanced to such precision. Similarly, mystical views seem out of place.

[6.4] (6:7) S.E.Fowl in ‘The Story of Christ’, JSNT Supplement Series 36, Sheffield Academic Press, 1990 at pg 164, compares this with 1 Timothy 3:16: ‘God (or Christ) was........justified in the Spirit’. The only other option really is to take 6:7 as a proverb which Paul uses to illustrate his point. Some think this was a Jewish saying.

[7.1] (7:1) Karl Barth, I believe, understood this to mean ‘the law of sin and death’. See 8.2. But insofar as Paul is writing to Jews here, he is writing to Jews whose law on this point was largely the same as civil law around them. Of course, the law governing Roman citizens was severe. The Roman husband had the power of life and death over his wife. A widow could re-marry but she probably did not have much say in what happened to her!

[7.2] (7:1) So Amplified, RSV and REB.

[7.3] (7:7) Great as one’s respect must be for C.K.Barrett, I could not go along with him at this point. See pg. 140 which refers back to pg. 84. Perhaps Karl Barth’s desire to make a general application to human religion has got the better of him here. In the latter part of verse 7 and in verses 12 and 14 Paul must refer to God’s law in the narrowest sense. I do not find a real need to broaden the meaning much in other verses.

[7.5] (7:8) ‘Opportunity’ is an interesting word which H C G Moule rendered by ‘fulcrum’ and which is often taken to mean ‘a base of operations in war’.

[7.6] (7:6) One is bound to suspect that an Epistle like Romans was not just dictated by Paul. Much of it could be made up from notes written by Paul and then arranged to suit his argument. One dares not suggest that it is Paul’s Jewish respondent who speaks his experience in 7:7-24!

[8.1] (8:3) In his great Commentary on Romans, Karl Barth places a good deal of stress on the word ‘likeness’ here. This I found to be one of the illuminating points in this work. ‘.........His......flesh becomes a parable or likeness.......that it is a ‘sign or parable’ is not unimportant......men may be vastly more important when seen as signs than when we separate them from their relation to God.........’ This is very true, but perhaps not at this point what Paul is saying.

[8.2] (8;4) Based on a quotation in G B Wilson from G D Brown

[8.3] (8:9) This mutual indwelling may be compared with some sayings of Jesus in John’s Gospel. There is a danger of such language being given a mystical twist!

[8.4] (8:10) H C G Moule understood this to mean ’the (Holy) Spirit in life’. We may respect this, but feel there is a danger in moving the reality of change out of the human sphere.

[8.5] (8:13) Anyone who has read Dr Owen’s Treatise on Mortification will have done themselves a service. Notes which I made many years ago are still always in my Bible. Good to have them, but it would be far better to apply them!

[8.6] (8:14) See Keesmat in JSNT 54, pg 38.

[8.7] (8;17) Greek and Jewish adoption was rather different. In Roman society, adoption became important because of the low birth rate among the upper classes.

[8.8] (8:24) I think that Calvin understood the first part of verse 23. The trouble is that I am not sure that I understand Calvin! Barth also says a great deal, none of which I understand. But then, Barth probably did not understand what Paul meant!

[8.9] (8:27) ‘Let us set aside our investigation of God. HE searcheth us! (Karl Barth - quite plain, and right!) The words of Luther at this point I find as profound and true as any outside Scripture: ‘The work of God must remain hidden in any other form than that which contradicts our thinking and understanding.’

[8.10] (8:28) The slight various reading gives rise to differences in translation. NEB and REB understand that the thought of the Holy Spirit at work is carried forward from verses 26 and 27.

[8.11] (8:29) In Bulletin for Biblical Research 14.2 (2004) there is a short study at page 241 by J.R.V. Kirk. This draws attention to the connection between Romans 1:4 and 8:29. In 1:4 it is Christ who is the marked out Son and Paul here uses the word ‘Horizo’. Here in 8:29 we are all marked out in advance as sons. There is also the connection in the thought of resurrection life, first for Christ , then for His people.

[8.12] (8:39) It is often remarked that the words for ‘height’ and ‘depth’ were the words used in astrology for zenith and nadir. Many of Paul’s readers may have been superstitious, not least the Jews. Mosaics of the Signs of the Zodiac crop up in ancient synagogues. This may have been a timely word then, and it may be today.

[9.1] (9:5) This is the translation of H.W.Cassirer in ’God’s New Covenant’, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1989 and of the NIV text. It is surprising to find how many translations are hesitant about this. Moule in the old Expositors Bible provides a good defence of this approach.

[9.2] (9:15) I am quite aware that this legal context is not thought to be the one in which we should understand the word ’mercy’ e.g. Vine p.403 ’the outward manifestation of pity; it assumes need on the part of him who receives it, and resources adequate to meet the need......’ Yet here the context seems to require it.

[9.3] (9:22) There is a much greater difficulty here for most readers. At the end of the verse ‘prepared for destruction’ involves a passive or middle voice participle with no stated agent. Nor is there the temporal prefix ‘pro’. It is all too easy for us to read ‘prepared for destruction’ as though it was parallel with ‘who He prepared in advance’. It is not, but just as the English passive is obscure to many people around the world, so the Greek middle is very difficult to the English! We have tried to make the point clear.

[9.4] (9:22) Neither Calvin nor his followers could find Scripture to prove that ‘reprobation’ belonged in the sphere of grace, not in the sphere of creation. The point at issue is not whether reprobation as a doctrine is correct, but whether it should be put in a bundle with other doctrines and labelled ‘The Doctrines of Grace’.

[10.1] (10:16) A point made by Hvalvik in J.S.N.T. 38 at p.87.

[11.1] (11:4) The number 7,000 probably is factual and has not great meaning. See Revelation 11:13, which may be an eyewitness account of the earthquake at Sardis in AD 17.

It seems that there is also a reference to 7000 men at 1 Samuel 11 in a text preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This seems to have been known to Josephus.

[11.2] (11:6) H.C.G. Moule in the Expositor’s Bible volume on Romans p. 286.

[11.3] (11:8) Of course, we would like to leave the ’veiling passive’ and keep God out. But see Black (p.142) and Barrett (p.210) for example. They are firm.

[11.4] (11:12) I really do not feel able to go along with C.K.Barrett and others at this point. The idea that Paul is talking about ’their loss’ - meaning only the reduction in the number of Jews, and their fulness - meaning their numbers brought up to full strength - is unthinkable. ’Overthrow’ and ’full inclusion ’ in Cassirer seem so much better.

[11.5] (11:17) The general drift of what Paul says about the olive tree in 17-24 is clear enough. Yet Paul was a man of the city, and even in the early church, Origen questioned whether Paul knew what he was talking about here. Paul knew better than Origen!

An article appeared in The Journal for the Study of the New Testament,24 (Sheffield) in June 1985 (pages 25-32) (A.G.Baxter and J.A. Ziesler) which raises a number of questions. Our interest in these is that the answers could add more meaning to what Paul is saying. Mr. Dudley Perrin has kindly drawn my attention to a Website, ‘Olive Tree’, but this is mostly helpful regarding the soil the olive needs.

We are, of course, familiar with the grafting of apple trees. Our stock may have seven varieties grafted on to it. It then requires careful pruning, or the strongest growing variety will take over, and the other varieties will be lost. The questions are:-

a) Exactly what does Paul mean by ‘contrary to nature’? Grafting is not natural: but does he mean that to graft wild onto cultivated is still more unnatural?
b) Where did the olive come from? Was it cultivated from the wild olive? Are there wild olives which are cultivated olives ‘gone wild’ that is, escaped? Or are wild and cultivated olives two distinct species? There is some confusion over the naming of these trees.
c) Was there a practice of grafting ‘wild’ olives on to cultivated trees? Ancient writers say that this was done to stimulate new life in an ailing tree. If so, was the wild olive an ‘escaped’ olive or the true ‘wild’ olive?
d) There are two witnesses to the process of root grafting of olive trees, both quite recent. Now this is also to rejuvenate an ailing tree, but it is not clear what root material would be used for the graft.

Overall, the picture is clear enough. The olive tree stands for God’s people. See Psalm 52:8 and Hosea 14:6 but especially Jeremiah 11:16. The tree is not as fruitful as it should be, so new shoots are grafted in to stimulate the root and to bear fruit.

[11.6] (11:17) I suppose that at this point we ought really to make the point that our apple and pear trees are all grafted onto a root stock.

[11.7] (11:25) Many in the ’Reformed’ camp deny that God has any future for Israel. This is, of course, linked to Post-or A millenarianism. Longenecker in JSNT 36, pg.95 and Hvalvik in JSNT 38 pg.87 labour the issue and they are only two of many. The argument turns, of course, on the opening of verse 26. ’And so........’. What does so mean? Does it mean that the completion of the Gentile election is itself the true Israel? It does seem so much more natural to understand that when the ’fulness of the Gentiles’ has come in, God will again open the door of faith to Israel.

[11.8] (11:34) Karl Barth in ’The Resurrection of the Dead’ said of these verses in 1 Corinthians: ’Only God Himself can be the subject of the knowledge of God.’ The marvel of the Doctrine of the Trinity is that it reveals fellowship within the Godhead. Without that, there would be no fellowship between God and man, and no fellowship in the church.

[12.1] (12:1) Paul uses the word ‘latreia’ for service here, rather than the word from which our word ‘liturgy’ comes. ‘Latreia’ had a humbler history, but probably by Paul’s day there was little difference in meaning or feeling between the two words.

[12.2] (12:6) In verses 6-8, Paul seems to mix spiritual and natural gifts. The question of spiritual gifts is contentious. My thinking begins with 1 John 4:1. It is necessary to judge the exercise of spiritual gifts but this brings dangers with it. We may condemn as the work of the Evil One what is in fact the work of the Holy Spirit. We may accept as the work of the Holy Spirit what is the work of the Evil One. And then, although we have judged rightly, we shall give great offence to the person who exercised the gift.

Many good Christians will disagree with me now!
1. The Cessationist theology was put together in the Early Church to combat Montanism and has since commanded wide respect. It does not seem to me to be taught in Scripture, and it is not honest in its view of gifts.

2. This is not to say that what are thought to be spiritual gifts in Charismatic circles today are the same as those in the New Testament.

3. God gives gifts; we exercise them. Prayer for gifts and attempts to identify them miss the whole point.

4. Gifts not exercised will atrophy; gifts used for self, not for others, will go sour.

5. God could give gifts which would suit our day, even though they find no place in New Testament lists.

[12.3] (12:6) In the late sixteenth century, the Puritans in Suffolk had ‘prophesyings’. These were probably just mid-week lectures or sermons. They were probably close to what Calvin says at this point. But this should remind us that what we understand by the word may not be the New Testament meaning - or, indeed, at all correct.

[12.4] 12:6) ‘Proportion’ is our English word analogy, and it is ‘the analogy of their faith’. There does not seem much agreement about these words. ‘Analogy’ would be a wrong translation, and ‘the faith’ should not be taken to mean ‘Christanity’ as a System of doctrine.’ I like A.S.Way:- ’He whose gift is inspired eloquence must have regard to the symmetrical presentation of the Faith’. But I am not convinced that this is Paul’s point!

[12.5] (12:9) John Owen warns us on this verse to beware of resting in the outward duties of love without the inward working of it; see also 1 Corinthians 13:2. ’If we allow our profession of love to run ahead of our feelings for others, we are guilty of hypocrisy’.

[12.6] (12:8) We have already seen that Paul does not speak of a church or churches at Rome. The reference to leadership in this verse is the closest Paul comes to speaking of any organisation in the Christian body. This is very different from (say) Philippians or 1 Thessalonians.

What Paul says is a little unclear. It could mean leadership in the church, but it need not. It may mean leadership in home or family and our English versions wisely avoid precision on the point. We have to concede that the context suggests the church, but Paul does not know the situation in Rome. In Acts 28:17, Paul calls together ‘the first men’ of the Jews in Rome.

[13.1] (13:1) Lutherans tend to accept bad government. Calvinists are more disposed to seek to improve it. See M.V.Jackson in the Baptist Quarterly, Jan.2003 for a useful but inconclusive discussion. He refers to O.Cullman for the view that ‘the powers that be’ or authorities were supernatural rather than political. There is also a discussion by N G Wright in Baptist Quarterly, July 1996, entitled ‘Baptist and Anabaptist attitudes to the state’.

[13.2] (13:3 and 4) It may be that Paul is making another point here. See, for example, C.K.Barrett, p.246. ‘Do the good work and you shall have praise from the civil authority’. See 1 Peter 3:13. My introduction to this topic was an article by B.W.Winter in Journal for the Study of the New Testament at page 87. Rich people who were public benefactors received recognition for what they did. The local authorities prided themselves that they knew how to repay with their favours those who were benefactors. See also Romans 5:7 where ‘the really good man’ may be a public benefactor.

[13.3] (13:12) I thought that an article by Matthews in J.S.O.T. 65 at page 25 - ‘Anthropology of clothing in the Joseph narrative’ - was my introduction to this topic. But Horatius Bonar, ‘Light and Truth’, Volume 3 (1876) has a paper at page 294 which I had read long before.

[14.1] (14:1) The whole subject of ‘things indifferent’ is one which takes up a great deal of space in Paul’s letters. It is a great temptation to eliminate them by legislating. Drinking in moderation and theatre and cinema going are good examples. Cigarette smoking is perhaps not, now that we know the health effects it has.

[14.2] (14:7) C.H.Spurgeon in a sermon on Matthew 11.:28.

[14.3] (14:17) I have read nothing on the subject which has helped me more than a piece by Rick Brown in ’Notes on Translation’ - Wycliffe Bible Translatiors - 15/1 p.3. Sadly this booklet is longer published but the few issues I received included very valuable material. Brown discusses the history of the interpretation of the concept and rejects the view that it is possible to interpret the phrase uniformly.

In John Owen’s Commentary on Hebrews 1 and 2 there is a lengthy note entitled ’of the Kingdom or Lordship of Christ’. In my ancient copy this is Volume 2 at page 450. Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones on Matthew 6:10 says that the kingdom was fully present in Jesus; it is present in some measure in the believer; it is yet to come on the earth. This is useful, but not all that should be said. R.C.H.Lenski on Luke 4:43 and 44 is useful. He makes the point Trench makes: ‘The Lord is King, not borrowing this title from the Kings of the earth, but having lent His own title to them........’There is also useful material in Hendriksen on Galatians 5:21. But I am still not quite satisfied. We wish the topic was discussed in some of the Epistles, just as we wish the title ‘Son of Man’ had been explained!

[14.4] (14:22) The second part of the verse ‘cannot be translated with confidence’. (C.K.Barrett)

[15.1] (15:2) The first part of 1 Corinthians 14 has a great deal to say about this ’building up’. People think it is about spiritual gifts but in fact Paul is saying that gifts are in vain without ’building up’.

One passage, Ephesians 2:19-22 conveys the picture of a number of buildings which are being built according to a common plan. 1 Corinthians 14:1-26 contains half a dozen words of this group. God ‘builds’ our resurrection body (2 Corinthians 5:1). Each local church has to be ’built up’. See 1 Corinthians 3:9 and Acts 9:31. Love ’builds up’. See 1 Corinthians 8:1; see also 10:3 and 1 Thessalonians 5:11. Of course, the idea is present in other places. It is one which does not seem to get due attention in preaching and teaching.

[15:2] (15.10) The rest of the verse in Deuteronomy is pretty harsh - judgment on the nations. It is the subject of learned debate; see Cockerill in BBR 9 at page 51 and Sailhamer in BBR 10 at page 103.

[15:3] (15.14) See note 16:4. One wonders whether Paul’s Roman citizenship would have made it possible for him to go to Rome in spite of him being a Jew.

[15:4] (15.14) See, for example, Matthew 28:29; 1 Corinthians 2:4,6; Ephesians 2:18 and 4:4-6; Colossians 1:7 and 8; Hebrews 9:14; 1 Peter 1:2; Jude verses 20 and 21.

[15.5] (15.19) An article has been published in Current World Archaeology issue 3. regarding the archaeology of the Cetina Valley. This throws some light on ancient Illyria.

[15:6] (15.24) See E.E.Ellis in BBR 1. page 123. Gades was the second city of the Roman Empire in wealth and prestige. Ellis thinks that Paul did reach Spain.

[16.1] (16:1) There are various theories about this chapter. From the mention of Aquila and Priscilla in verse 3 onwards, there are names which suggest Ephesus rather than Rome. Of course, Jewish Christians who had been exiled from Rome by Claudius might well have returned from Ephesus to Rome by the time Paul wrote Romans. Yet if Paul had several copies of Romans made in Corinth, might he not have sent one to Ephesus with these greetings? Few of the names in the chapter suggest people who belonged in Rome.

[16:2] (16.1) Caroline Whelan in JSNT 49(1993) at pg. 67 discusses the social position of women and the meaning of verses 1 and 2. She takes the view that the chapter was destined for Ephesus, which I think rather unlikely, and the article needs to be used with some caution in other respects.

Although the ESV retains ‘servant’ for Phoebe, in verse 2 she is a ‘patron of many’. REB retains the older view with ‘she has been a good friend to many’. ‘Protectress’ is a good literal translation.

There was a difference between Roman and Greek society, and a review of ‘after Paul left Corinth’ by B.W.Winter appears in BBR.13.1 at pg.306. Corinth was re-founded as a Roman Colony in BC.44. Winter’s view is that the culture of Corinth was thoroughly Roman. The reviewer is critical. We assume that Romans was written in Corinth so that this background is of interest. Perhaps the lower classes were more Greek.

[16.3] (16:13) Rufus is thought to be the man mentioned in Mark 15:21 as the son of Simon of Cyrene and the brother of Alexander. Matthew 27:32 and Luke 23:26 also speak of Simon being made by the Romans to carry the cross for Jesus. This is the crossbar, not the upright. It may be that Alexander is the man mentioned in Acts 19:33. The Alexander of 2 Timothy 4:14 is not the same. The name Simon was common: there are said to be nine in the New Testament.

Cyrene was west of Egypt and has given its name to Cyrenaica, part of Lybia. The Jewish community there was strong enough to take control at the time of the Jewish War and invade Egypt. The Romans suppressed this revolt and a later one. The area was fertile, not desert as it is now.

Acts 2:10 tells us there were people present on the first Pentecost from this part of the world. Some no doubt were converted. In Acts 6:9 we learn of the opposition to the preaching of Stephen. The Synagogue of the Freedmen would be for the descendants of Jews who had been enslaved and deported years before by the Romans. These Jews had regained their freedom and become Roman citizens as freed men. Their sons would be free men and citizens. Paul came from Tarsus in Cilicia. This must have been his background. There may be two synagogues here rather then one. No doubt these Jews who were Roman citizens felt different - superior! - to other Jews. Did they keep a grudge against the Romans? There is a well-known inscription which may relate to this synagogue (or one of them).

Acts 11:10 tells us that Jewish Christians who came from Cyrene and Cyprus were driven from Jerusalem by persecution after the death of Stephen. Some of them went to Antioch where they began the real evanglism of the Gentiles. So it may have been at Antioch that Rufus got to know Paul, and his mother cared for Paul.

In 1941 a Jewish tomb from the N.T. period in the Kidron Valley was excavated. See Tom Powers in BBR July 2003 at page 47. It has received little publicity. This could just be the family tomb of Simon of Cyrene. There is an ossuary (bone box) inscribed ‘Alexander son of Simon’. It may also have ‘Alexander of Cyrene’ (mis-spelt!) on it. There were eleven ossuaries, some with names which were not common in Palestine! Was Sabatis the wife of Simon? Was ‘Sara daughter of Simon of Ptolemais’ sister of Rufus? There were three cities called Ptolemais; one was in Cyrenaica.

There was at least one burial in the cave where the bones had not been gathered into an ossuary. This suggests a burial just before the Jewish War broke out about 66 A.D. There is no ossuary for Simon, it seems. It is worth remembering that some Jews arranged for their bones to be sent back to Jerusalem for burial.

[16:4] (16:15) It is when we look at these groups in Chapter 16 that it becomes almost impossible to believe that all the Jews were exiled from Rome under Claudius. Members of his own household and of the household of Narcissus must surely have been exempted.

If these groups had been at Ephesus, there must surely have been a greeting to the church at Ephesus.