Romans, Epistle to the – Rye

Romans, Epistle to the

1. Time, occasion, and character.— The letter to the Romans belongs to the central group— which includes also Galatians, and the two letters to the Corinthians— of St. Paul’s Epistles. Marcion’s order— Gal., Cor., Rom.— is not unlikely to be the order of writing. A comparison of the data to be found in the letter, with statements in Acts, suggests that Rom. was written from Corinth at the close of the so-called third missionary journey (i.«. the period of missionary activity described in Acts 18:23. After the riots in Ephesus (Acts 19:23–40) St. Paul spent three months in Greece (20:3), whither Timothy had preceded him. He was thus carrying out a previous plan somewhat sooner than he had originally Intended. Acts 19:21, 22 informs us that the Apostle wished to malse a tour through Macedonia and Achaia, and afterwards, having first visited Jerusalem once more, to turn his steps towards Rome. From the letter itself we learn that he was staying with Gaius (le^s), who is probably to be identified with the Gaius of 1 Corinthians 1:14. At the time of writing, Paul and Timothy are together, for the latter’s name appears In the salutation (IG^‘). Sosipater, whose name also appears there, may be identified with the Sopater mentioned in Acts 20:4. Phoebe, the bearer of the letter, belongs to Cenchreae, one of the ports of Corinth. The allusions in the letter all point to the stay in Corinth implied in Acts 20. Above all, the letter itself, apart from such important passages as l"- " and 15, ig ample evidence of St. Paul’s plans to visit Rome, — the plans mentioned in Acts 19:21, 22. it is then more than probable that the letter was written from Corinth during the three months’ stay in Greece recorded in Acts 20:3.

A comparison of Romans 15:22, 30 with Acts 19:21, 22 brings out oneof the most strildng of Paley’s ‘undesigned coincidences.’ The parallel references to Jewish plots in Romans 15:31 and Acts 20:3 are also noteworthy. It should, however, be mentioned that if on critical grounds eh. 16 has to be detached from the original letter, and regarded as part of a lost letter to the Bphesians, much of the evidence for the place and date of Romans is destroyed, though the remaining indications suffice to establish thefposition laid down above.

The date to which the letter is to be assigned depends on the chronology of St. Paul’s life as a whole. Mr. Turner (Hasthigs’ DB, s.v. ‘Chronology of NT’) suggests A.D. 55-56. But for further treatment of this subject, readers must consult the general articles on CHRON01.0QT OF NT and Paul.

The immediate occasion for the letter is clearly the prospective visit to Rome. St. Paul is preparing the way tor his coming. This explains why he writes to the Romans at all; it does not explain why he writes the particular letter we now possess. A shorter letter would have been sufficient introduction to his future hosts. How are we to account for the lengthy discussion of the central theme of the gospel which forms the larger part of the letter? Some suspect a controversial purpose. The Church at Rome contained both Jews and Gentiles; through Priscilla and Aquila and others St. Paul must have known the situation in Rome; he could, and doubtless did, accommodate his message to the condition of the Church. The objections he discusses may be difficulties that have arisen in the minds of his readers. But the style of the letter is not controversial. St. Paul warns the Romans against false teachers, as against a possible rather than an actual danger (16:17–20). Similarly, the discussion of the reciprocal duties of strong and weak (ch. 14) is marked by a calm conciliatory tone which suggests that the writer is dealing with problems which are probable rather than pressing. In fact, St. Paul seems to be giving his readers the result of his controversial experiences in Corinth and Galatia, not so much because the Church in Rome was placed in a similar situation, as because he wished to enable her members to profit from the mistakes of other Churches. If the letter is not controversial, it is not, on the other hand, a dogmatic treatise. Comprehensive as the letter is, it is incomplete as a compendium of theology. The theory that St. Paul is here putting his leading thoughts into systematic form ‘does not account for the omission of doctrines which we know Paul held and valued — his eschatology and his Christology, tor instance’ (Garvie). Romans is a true letter. and the selection of topics must have been influenced by the interest of the Church to which he was writing.

But apart from the position of the Roman Christiana, and apart from the wish of the Apostle to prepare the way for his visit to them, the form and character of the letter were probably determined by the place Rome held in the Apostle’s mind. St. Paul was proud of his Roman citizenship. He was the first to grasp the significance of the Empire for the growth of the Church. The missionary statesmanship which led him to seize on the great trade-centres like Ephesus and Corinth found its highest expression in his passionate desire to see Rome. Rome fascinated him; he was ambitious to proclaim his gospel there, departing even from his wonted resolve to avoid the scenes of other men’s labours.

It should be noted that the Church at Rome was not an Apostolic foundation. The Christian community came into existence there before either St. Paul or St. Peter visited the city.

He explains his gospel at some length, because it is all-important that the capital of the Empire should understand and appreciate its worth. He is anxious to impart some spiritual gift to the Roman Christians, just because they are in Rome, and therefore, lest Jewish plots thwart his plans, he unfolds to them the essentials of his message. Indeed, his Roman citizenship helped to make St. Paul a great catholic. The influence of the Eternal City may be traced in the doctrine of the Church developed in Ephesians, which was written during the Roman captivity. The very thought of Rome leads St. Paul to reflect’ on the universality of the gospel, and this is the theme of the letter. He is not ashamed of the gospel or afraid to proclaim it in Rome, because it is as world-wide as the Empire. It corresponds to a universal need: it is the only religion that can speak to the condition of the Roman people. It is true he is not writing for the people at large. His readers consist of a small band of Christians with strong Jewish sympathies, and perhaps]even tending towards Jewish exclusiveness. His aim is to’open theireyes to the dignity of the position, and to the world-wide significance of the gospel they profess.

JQlicher further points out that Rome was to be to St. Paul the starting-point for a missionary campaign in the West. Consequently the letter is intended to win the sympathy and support of the Roman Church tor future work. It is to secure fellow-workers that the Apostle explains so fully the gospel which he is eager to proclaim in Spain and in neighbouring provinces.

2. Argument and content. — Romans, like most of the Pauline letters, falls into two sections: doctrinal (chs. 1-U) and practical (chs. 12). In the doctrinal section, it is usual to distinguish three main topics: justification (chs. 1-4), sanctification (chs, 5-8), and the rejection of the Jews (chs. 9-11). It is not easy to draw any sharp line between the first two. The following is a brief analysis of the argument: —

The salutation is unusually long, extending to seven verses, in which St. Paul emphasizes the fact that he has been set apart for the work of an Apostle to all the Gentiles. ‘Then follows a brief introduction. The Apostle first thanks God for the faith of the Roman Christians, and then expresses his earnest desire to visit them and to preach the gospel in Rome. For he is confident — and here he states is central theme — that the gosi^el is the power of God unto salvation for all men, if they will only believe (l^-^‘).

Salvation for all through the gospel — that is the thought to be developed. And first it is necessary to show that such a saving power is a universal need, ‘rhe evidence for this is only too abundant. Nowhere have men attained God’s righteousness: everywhere are the signs of God’s wrath. The wilful ignorance which denies the Clreator has led to the awful punishment of moral decay with which St. Paul had grown sadly familiar in the great cities of the Empire. Indeed, so far has corruption advanced that the consciences of many have been defiled. They not only commit sin without shame; they openly applaud the sinner (w.^^-‘^). Nor can any one who still perceives this failure hold himself excused. ‘The very fact that he recognizes sin as such, oondemns him in so far as he commita it. His keener conscience, if it leaves him unrepentant, will evoke the heavier penalty. God will judge all men according to their deeds. Both Jew and Gentile will be judged alike, the conscience in the Gentile corresponding to the Law in the case of the Jew^ (2:1–16). . This passage is usually referred to the Jews .whose habit of judging and condemning others is rebuked in Matthew 7:1. It may have a wider application. The remainder of the chapter deals with the Jews. The principle of judgment according to deeds will be applied without distinction of persons. The

Srivileges of the Jew will not excuse him in the eyes of God. either the Law nor circumcision will cover transgression. The true Jew must be a Jew inwardly: the actual Jews have by their crimes caused the name of God to be blasphemed. A Gentile who does not know the Law and yet obeys it is better than the Jew who knows and disobeys (2). But is not this condemnation a denial of the Jews’ pnvileges? No, the privileges are real, though the Jews are unworthy of them; and themercy of God is magnified by their ingratitude. Yet even so, if God’s mercy ia brought to the light by their sin, why are they condemned? The full discussion of this difficulty is reserved to chs. 9-11. Here St. Paul only lays down the broad truth that God must judge the world in ri^teousneas, and apparently he further replies to Jewish objectors by a tu quoque argument. Why do they condemn him if, as they say, his lie helps to make the truth clearer? (3:1–8). St. Paul now returns to his main point, the universality of sin, which he re-states and re-enforces in the language of the OT. The whole world stands guilty in the sight of God, and the Law has butiutensified the conviction of sin (3).

To meet this utter failure of men, God has revealed in Christ Jesus a new way of righteousness, all-embracing as the need. Here too is no distinction of persons; all have sinned, and salvation for all stands in the free mercy of God, sealed to men in the propitiatory sacrifice of His Son, whereby we know that our past sins are forgiven, and we enter the new life, justified in the sight of God. The righteousness of God is thus assured to men who will receive it in faith. Faith is not defined, but it seems to mean a humble trust in the loving God revealed in Jesus. There can no longer be any question of establishing a claim on God by merit, or of superiority over our fellows. All need grace, and none can be saved except by faith. Jew and Gentile here stand on the same level (3).

Does not this righteousness through faith make void the Law? St. Paul scarcely answers the general question, but at once goes on to prove that the father of the race, Abraham, was justified by faith, i.e. by humble trust in God, in whose sight he could claim no merit. His trust in God was reckoned unto him for righteousness. His blessedness was the blessedness of the man whose sins are hidden, St. Paul here introducing the only beatitude found in his letters. This blessing came to Abraham before circumcision, on which clearly it did not depend. Similarly, the promise of inheriting the earth was given to him apart from the Law, and the seed to whom the promise descends are the faithful who follow their spiritual ancestor in believing God even againstnature, as Abrahamand Sarah believed Him. Surely it was for our sakes that the phrase ‘was reckoned unto him for righteousness’ was used in the story of Abraham. It enables us to believe in salvation through our faith in Him who raised Jesus from the dead (_3^^-4:^).

At this point opens the second main stage in the doctrinal section of the letter. The fact of justification by faith has been established. It remains to say something of the life which must be built on this foundation. Jesus has brought us into touch with the grace of God. His death is the unfailing proof of God’s love to us sinful men. What can lie before us save i)rogress to perfection? Reconciled to God while yet enemies, for what can we not hope, now that we are His friends? Christ is indeed a second Adam, the creator of a new humanity. His power to save cannot be less than Adam’s power to destroy. Cannot be less? Nay, it must be greater, and in what Jiilicher rightly calls a hymn, St. Paul strives to draw out the comparison and the contrast between the first Adam and the Second. Grace must reign till the kingdom of death has become the kingdom of an undying righteousness {5^-^).

Does this trust in the grace of God mean that we are to continue in sin? Far from it. The very baptismal immersion in which we make profession of our faith symbolizes our dying to sin and our rising with Christ into newness of life. If we have become vitally one with Him, we must share His life of obedience to God. The fact that we are under grace means that sin’s dominion is ended. If we do not strive to live up to this we fail to understand what is involved in the kind of t^ching we have accepted. If we are justified by faith, we have been set free from sin that we may serve God, that we may win the fruit of our faith in sanctification, and enjoy the free ^ft of eternal life (6). The new life likewise brings with it freedom from the Law; it is as complete a break with the past as that which comes to a wife when her husband dies. So we are redeemed from the Law which did but strengthen curpassions (T’-‘J. Not that the Law was sin; but as a matter of experience it is through the commandment that sin deceives and destroys men {7^-^^, Is, then, the holy Law the cause of death? No, but the exceeding sinfulness of sin lies in its bringing men to destruction through the use of that which is good. And then in a passage of mtense earnestness and noble self-revelation St. Paul describes his pre-Christian experience. He recalls the torturing consciousness of the hopeless conflict between spirit and flesh, a consciousness which the Law only deepened and could not heal. The weakness of the flesh, sold under sin, brought death to the higher life. But from this law too, the law of sin and of death, Christ has set him free (7:13–25). For the Christian is not condemned to endure this homeless struggle. God, in sending His Son, has condemned sin m the flesh. The alien power, sin, is no longer to rule. The reality and the strength of the Spirit of God have come into our hves with Jesus, so that the body is dead, to be revived only at the bidding of the indwelling Spirit CS^-‘^). We are no longer bound to sin. God has put it into our hearts to call’ Him ‘Abba, Father.’ We are His little ones already. How glorious and how certain is our inheritance! That redemption for which creation groans most surely awaits us, far more than recompensing our present woes; and patience becomes us who have already received the first-f nuts of the Spirit. The Spirit of God prays for us in our weakness, and we know that we stand in God’s foreknowledge and calling. All must be well (S’^-^i). And then in a final triumph-song St. Paul asks, ‘If God be for us, who can be against us?’ The victory of the Christian life requires a new word: we are more than conquerors. Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (8).

Almost abruptly St. Paul turns to his third main question. The rejection of the Jews, by which the grace of God has come to the Gentile, grieves him to the heart. How is God’s treatment of the Jews to be justified? There was from the first an element of selectiveness in God’s dealings with the race of Abraham. The promise was not the necessary privilege of natural descent. It was to Isaac and not to Ishmael, to Jacob and not to Esau (9:1–13). God’s mercy is inscrutable and arbitrary, but it must be just. Whom He wills. He pities: whom He wills, He hardens. If it be said, ‘Then God cannot justly blame men; how can the clay resist the potter? ‘, St. Paul does not really solve the problem, but he asserts most emphatically that God’s right to choose individuals for salvation cannot be limited by human thought (9:14–21). The justice of God’s rejection of the Jews cannot be questioned a priori. But what are the facts? ‘The Jews, in seeking to establish their own righteousness, have failed to find the righteousness of God. They have failed, because the coining of Christ puts an end to legal righteousness, a fact to which Moses himself bears testimony. They ought to have realized this, and they cannot be excused on the ground that they have had no preachers. They are responsible for their own rejection: -they have heard and known and disobeyed (9:30). But though God has the nght to reject His people, and though the Jews are themselves responsible for.their refusal to accept the gospel, yet St. Paul cannot believe that it is final. Even now a remnant has been saved by grace; and the present rejection of Israel must have been intended to save the Gentiles. What larger blessing will not God bestow when He restores His people? The Gentiles must see in the fall of Israel the goodness of God towards themselves, and the possibilities of mercy for the Jews. This is enforced by the illustration of the wild olive and the natural branches (ll^-^i). The Jews are enemies now, in order that God may bless the Gentiles. But they are still beloved, for the sake of the fathers. No, God has not deserted His people. If they are at present under a cloud, it is God’s mercy and not His anger that has willed it so. And the same unsearchable mercy will one day restore them to His favour (ll^s-ai).

_ With the thought of the infinite mercies of God so strikingly evidenced, St. Paul begins his practical exhortation, belt-surrender to God is demanded as man’s service. ‘Thou must love Him who has loved thee so.’ A great humility becomes us, a full recognition of the differing gifts which God bestows on us. A willingness to bear wrong will mark the Chnstian. He must be merciful, since his confidence IS in the mercy of God. The conclusion of ch. H underlies the whole of oh. 12. St. Paul goes on to urge his readera to obey the governing powers; to pay to all the debt of love, which alone fulfils the Law; to put off all sloth and vice, since the day is at hand (ch. 13) . The duties of strong and weak towards each other will call for brotherly love. We must not surrender the principle of individual responsibility. Each standeth and f alleth to the Lord. We have no right to judge, and we must not force our practices on our fellows. On the other hand, we must not push our individual liberty so far as to offend our brothera. Let us give up things we feel to be righjt, if we cause strife and doubt oy asserting our liberty. The strong must bear the infirmities of the weak. Even Christ pleased not Himself. May we find our joy and peace in following HimI (14-16’^).

St. Paul then concludes by explaining why he was so bold as to write to them at all, and by unfolding his plans and hopes for the future (15:13–33). The last chapter contains a recommendation of Phoebe who brings the letter, and a number of detailed salutations to individual members of the Church, and to some house-churches. A brief warning against teachers who cause division, greetings from St, Paul’s companions, and an elaborate doxology bring the letter to a close (ch. 16).

The theology and leading ideas of the letter cannot be treated here. In a sense, however, the importance of Romans lies rather in Us religious power than in its theological ideas. The letter is bound together by St. Paul’s central experience of the mercy of God. In God’s grace he has found the strength which can arrest the decay of a sinful, careless world. In God’s grace he has found also the secret of overcoming tor the man who is conscious of the awfulness of sin, and of his own inability to save his life from destruction. The problem of the rejection of the Jews is really raised, not so much by their previous privileges as by God’s present mercy. St. Paul cannot be satisfied till he has grasped the love of God, which he feels must be at the heart of the mystery. The reality and nearness of God’s mercy determine the Christian character and render it possible. It is noteworthy that, though St. Paul seldom refers to the sayings of Jesus, he arrives at the mind of Christ through the gospel of the grace of God. A comparison of the Sermon on the Mount with Romans 12 makes the antithesis, ‘Jesus or Paul,’ appear ridiculous. Above all, the glowing earnestness with which in chs. 4-8 he seeks to share with the Roman Christians — (note the use of ‘we’ throughout that section) — the highest and holiest inspirations he has learnt from Christ, reveals a heart in which the love of God is shed abroad. As Deissmann suggests, we do not recognize the special characteristic of St. Paul if we regard him as first and foremost the theologianof primitive Christianity. Romans is the passionate outpouring of one who has come Into living touch with his heavenly Father.

3 . Some textual points : integrity and genuineness . — The omission in manuscript G of the words en RBmi in 1:7, 15 is an interesting indication of the probability that a shortened edition of Romans, with the local references suppressed, may have been circulated in quite early times. The letter to the Ephesians seems to have been treated in the same way. This shorter edition may have concluded at l^, where the final doxology (16:25–27) is placed in several MSS (ALP, etc.). But theshif ting position of this doxology in our authorities perhaps indicates that it is not part of the original letter at all (see Denney, in the EGT). But there is further evidence to show that some early editions of the letter omitted chs. 15 and 16. Marcion apparently omitted these chapters. Tertullian, Ireneeus, and Cyprian do not quote them. There is also some internal evidence for thinking that ch. 16 at least may be part of a letter to Ephesus. The reference to Epaenetus in 16:5 would be more natural in a letter to Ephesus than in a letter to Rome. In view of Acts 18:2 it is diflScult to suppose that Aquila and Priscilla had returned from Ephesus to Rome. Moreover, it is not likely that St. Paul would have so many acquaintances in a church he had not visited. On the other hand, none of these considerations affects or explains ch. 15, and the two chapters cannot be separated very easily. Further, Sanday and Headlam have collected an imposing array of evidence to prove the presence at Rome of persons with such names as are mentioned in ch. 16 (‘Romans’ in ICC xxxiv f.). The question must stlil be regarded as open.

But while there is some probability that ch. 16 is part of a distinct letter, the theories of dismemberment, or rather the proofs of the composite character of Romans advanced by some Dutch scholars, cannot be considered convincing. The views of the late Prof^ W. C. van Manen have received perhaps undue attention, owing to the fact that the art. on ‘Romans’ in the EBi is from his pen. His criticism was certainly arbitrary, and his premises frequently inaccurate. Thus he quotes with approval Evanson’s statement that there is no reference in Acts to any project of St. Paul’s to visit Rome — a statement made in direct contradiction of Acts 19:21 (.EBi, vol. iv. col. 4137). The year a.d. 120 is regarded as the probable date of Romans, in face of the external evidence of 1 Clement (i6. col. 4143). The general argument against the genuineness of Romans, which weighs most with van Manen, lies in the fact that ‘it has learned to break with Judaism, and to regard the standpoint of the law as once for all past and done with.’ This is ‘a remarkable forward step, a rich and far-reaching reform of the most ancient type of Christianity; now, a man does not become at one and the same moment the adherent of a new religion and its great reformer’ (i6. col. 4138). Of this disproof of Pauline authorship it is quite sufficient to say with Prof. Schmiedel, ‘Perhaps St. Paul was not an ordinary man.’ Indeed, Prof. Schmiedel’s article on ‘Galatians’ (i6. vol. ii. col. 1620f.) is a final refutation of the Dutch school represented by van Manen. They have advanced as yet no solid reason for doubting the genuineness of Romans. H. G. Wood.

Rome

The beginnings of Rome are shrouded in obscurity. The city was situated on the left bank of the Tiber, about 18 miles from its mouth. The original Rome was built on one hill only, the Palatine, but the neighbouring hills were successively included, and about the middleof the sixth century b.c, according to tradition, a wall was built to enclose the enlarged city. The whole circuit of this wall was about 5 miles, and it was pierced by nineteen gates. Within these was a large area of vacant spaces, which were gradually built on later, and at the beginning of the Empire (roughly middle of 1st cent. B.C.) not only was the city congested with buildings, but large areas without the wall were also covered with houses. The Roman Forum, an open space measuring over 300 ft. in length, and about 160 ft. in breadth, was the centre of political, legal, and commercial life. At one end was the rostra or platform, from which speeches were delivered to the public; at the other end were shops. It was flanked by the senate-house and law-courts. On the top of the Capitoline Hill was the Capitolium, or great temple dedicated to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, and on the Palatine Hill the principal residence of the Emperor, and the Temple of Apollo, containing the public libraries, Greek and Latin. In the Imperial period four additional fora were built, devoted entirely to legal, literary, and religious purposes — the Forum lulium begun by Julius Caesar, the Forum Augustum built by Augustus, the Forum Transitarium completed by Nerva, and the Forum Traiani built by Trajan — the most splendid work of Imperial times. Various estimates of the population of Rome in the time of Christ have been given: 2,000,000 seems not unlikely. All nationalities in the Empire were represented — among them many Jews, who were expelled by Claudius in a.d. SO, but returned at his death four years later. The slave population was very large.

The Romans began as one of the members of the Latin league, of which, having become presidents, they eventually became masters. After conquering Latium they were inevitably brought into conflict with the other races of Italy, over most of which they were sovereign about the middle of the 3rd cent. b.c. The extension of Roman territory steadily continued until, in the time of Christ, it included, roughly, Europe (except the British Isles, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and Russia), the whole of Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, and the north-west of Africa.

The Roman State was at first ruled by kings, but these gave place to two rulers, known later as consuls. Their powers were gradually circumscribed by the devolution of some of their duties on other magistrates. The period of steady accession of territory was coincident with a bitter struggle between the patrician and the , plebeian classes, both of which comprised free citizens. The contest between the orders lasted for about two denturies, and at the end of that period all the offices of State were equally open to both. This was not, however, the establishment of a real democracy, but the beginning of a struggle between the governing class and the mass of the people, which eventually brought the Republic to an end. The civil wars, which during the last century of its existence had almost destroyed it, had shown clearly that peace could be reached only under the rule of one man. The need of the time was satisfied by Augustus, who ruled as autocrat under constitutional forms: the appearance of a republic was retained, but the reality was gone, and the appearance itself gradually disappeared also. For the city of Rome the Empire was a time of luxury and idleness, but the provinces entered upon an era of progressive prosperity. The Emperor was responsible for the government of all provinces where an army was necessary (for instance, Syria), and governed these by paid deputies of his own. The older and more settled provinces were governed by officials appointed by the senate, but the Emperor had his financial interests attended to by procurators of his own even in these. Under the Empire the provinces were much more protected against the rapacity and cruelty of governors than in Republican times. The Emperors themselves stood for just as well as efiicient administration, and most of them gave a noble example by strenuous devotion to administrative business.

The resident Romans in any province consisted of (1) the officials connected with the Government, who were generally changed annually; (2) members of the great financial companies and lesser business men, whose interests kept them there; ■ (3) citizens of colonim (or military settlements), which were really parts of Rome itself set down in the provinces;- (4) soldiers of the garrison and their officers; (5) distinguished natives of the province, who, for services rendered to the Roman State, were individually gifted with the citizenship. Such must have been one of the ancestors of St. Paul. The honour was not conferred on all the inhabitants of the Empire till 212 A.D., and in NT times those who possessed it constituted the aristocracy of the communities in which they lived.

The Romans have left a great legacy to the world. As administrators, lawyers, soldiers, engineers, architects, and builders they have never been surpassed. In literature they depended mainly on the Greeks, as in sculpture, music, painting, and medicine. In the arts they never attained more than a respectable standard.

A. SOUTEK.

Roof

See House, § 6.

Rope

See Cord.

Rose

1. chabazzeleth [Heb.], Song of Songs 2:1) [‘rose of Sharon’], Isaiah 35:1. All authorities are agreed that the tr. ‘rose’ adopted in the EV is incorrect. The chUbaszeleth appears to have been a bulbed flower. The RVm suggests ‘autumn crocus’ {Colchicum autumnale); on the other hand, many good authorities suggest the much more striking and sweeter-scented plant — the narcissus, which is a great favourite to-day in Palestine. Two species are known — N. Tazetta and N. serotinus. In Wisdom 2:8. Sirach 24:14 39:13 SO* we have mention of rhodon (Gr.). Whether this is, as Tristram maintains, the Rhododendron or the true rose is uncertain; both occur in parts of Palestine. E. W. G. Masteeman.

Ruby

See Jewels and Peecious Stones.

Rudder

See Ships and Boats, 2 (2).

Rue

(Luke 11:42). The rue of Palestine is Ruta chalepensis, a variety of the officinal plant, which is cultivated as a medicine. E. W. G. Masteeman.

Rufus

1. The brother of Alexander and son of Simon of Cyrene (Mark 15:21 only). 2. A Christian at Rome greeted by St. Paul (Romans 16:13) as ‘the chosen in the Lord,’ together with ‘his mother and mine.’ It has been conjectured that these two are the same person, that Simon’s widow (?) had emigrated to Rome with her two sons, where they became people of eminence in the Church, and that this is the reason why the brothers are mentioned by St. Mark, who probably wrote in Rome.

A. J. Maclean.

Ruhajviah

The second child (a daughter) of Goraer, Hosea’s wife, was called Lo-ruhamah, ‘unpitied’ (Hosea 1:6, 8). . The name was given symbolically to indicate that God had ceased to pity Israel, and given her over to calamity. The return of God’s mercy is indicated in Hosea 2:1 ‘Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi (i.e.’ my people,’ in opposition to Lo-ammi, ‘not my people’); and to your sisters, Buhamah’ (i.e. ye are ‘pitied’). A similar play on the word is found in Hosea 2:23 ‘I will have mercy on " her that had not obtained mercy" (.Lo-ruhamah).’ W. F. Boyd.

Ruler of the Feast

See Governor, Meals, 6.

Ruler of the Synagogue

See Synagogue.

Rulers of the City

EV tr. in Acts 17 of the Gr. politarchm, which was the special local title of the magistrates of Thessalonica.

Rumah

The home of Pedaiah, the maternal grandfather of Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:36). Josephus (Ant. x. v. 2) reads Abouma, no doubt a scribal error for Arouma, which may be the Arumah of Judges 9:41 near Shechem. There was another Rumah in Galilee (Jos BJ in. vii. 21), perhaps the modern Rumeh near Nazareth; and Pedaiah may have been a Galilsean. W. F. Boyd.

Runners

See Footman, Guaed.

Rush, Bushes

1. gsme\ Exodus 2:3 (EV ‘bulrushes’ RVm ‘papyrus’), Job 8:11, Isaiah 18:2 (AV ‘bulrushes,’ RV ‘papyrus’) 35:7. This was probably the once famous plant the papyrus (Cyperus papyrus, Arab, babir), which now flourishes in the Huleh swamps. The bulrush (Sdrpus marUimus) and other species may have been included in the Heb. name gSme’. 2. ‘agmOn, Job 41:2 (AV’ hook,’ RV ‘rope,’ RVm ‘Heb. a rope of rushes’) 41:20 (AV ‘caldron,’ RV ‘[burning] rushes’), Isaiah 9:14 19:15 58:5 (AV ‘bulrush’). There are some twenty kinds of rushes in Palestine, but it is impossible to fit the relerenoes to any one kind, and, indeed, some kind of ‘reed’ (wh. see) is quite as probable, especially in Isaiah 58:5. E. W. G. Mastebman. BtTTH (meaning uncertain). — A woman of Moab, who, like her mother-in-law Naomi, and her sister-in-law Orpah, was left a widow. On Naomi desiring to return to her own people in Bethlehem-Judah — which she had left with her husband owing to a famine — Ruth refused to leave her, and the two returned together to Bethlehem. Here she became the wife of Boaz, and bore him Obed, who became the father of Jesse; she therefore figures in the genealogy of Christ (Matthew 1:5). See, further, the next article. W. O. E. Oestekley.

Ruth

(Book of). 1. Contents.— The book is really the narrative of a family story, told in a charmingly idyllic way. The fact of most far-reaching interest which it contains is that the Moabitess Ruth, i.e. one who is non-Israelite, is represented as the ancestress of the house of David ; this is very important, as testifying to a spirit which is very different from ordinary Jewish exclusiveness, and as far as the OT is concerned can be paralleled only by the Book of Jonah. A point of subsidiary but yet considerable interest in the book is its archaeology; the notices concerning the laws of the marriage of next-of-kin (22» 4"i), and of the method of transferring property (4’- and of the custom of the formal ratification of a compact (4"- >2), are all evidently echoes of usages which belonged to a time long anterior to the date at which the book was written, though in part still in vogue.

2. Date.— The language of the book has an ‘Aramaicizing tendency’; it implicitly acknowledges itself to have been written long after the time of the events it professes to describe (1’ 4’); in the Hebrew Canon it is placed among the Hagiographa; these considerations lead to the conclusion that the book must be of late date. That it is post-exilic cannot admit of doubt; but to assign to it a date more definite than this would be precarious. This much, at least, may be said: the third portion of the Hebrew Canon was completed, at the earliest, after the close of the 3rd cent. B.C. Now it is not likely that a book which purported to contain a fuller genealogy of David than that of 1 Samuel would have been long in existence without being admitted into the Canon. W. O. B. Oebtehley.

Rye

See Rie.

s