1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Luther: This epistle is really the chief part of the New Testament, and is truly the purest gospel. It is worthy not only that every Christian should know it word for word, by heart, but also that he should occupy himself with it every day, as the daily bread of the soul. We can never read it or ponder over it too much; for the more we deal with it, the more precious it becomes and the better it tastes. Works, 35:365.
Introduction
What is Romans?
Romans is a letter which Paul wrote to the Christians in the city of Rome.
How did there come to be a church in Rome?
It was not started by Paul since he had never been there when he wrote this letter. (Romans 1:10, 13) We must conclude, then, that Jews who had become Christians on the day of Pentecost travelled to Rome with the gospel. We read in Acts 2, that there were people from “Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes… (Acts 2:10) These “visitors from Rome” would have returned to Rome carrying the gospel with them. This was the beginning of the church in Rome.
What was the gospel which they would have brought back with them to Rome?
The gospel would have been the good news about Jesus. In his sermon on that occasion, Peter gave the facts about Jesus concluding with, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ–this Jesus whom you crucified.” (Acts 2:36) Then he gave out the call, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” (Acts 2:38-39) This proclamation of Peter’s was taken to the people of Rome, and all those, who were ordained to eternal life, believed it and were saved. (Acts 13:48)
How much longer after Pentecost did Paul write this letter to the Roman church?
Jesus death, resurrection, ascension, and the day Pentecost all happened in the same year which was either 30 or 33ad. Wieseler covers this in exhaustive detail. Paul’s letter to Rome is typically dated to 56 or 57ad.
Why is Paul’s letter dated to this time?
Because Paul says that his collection of money for the saints in Jerusalem is ready to be delivered. (Romans 15:23-28) We know that this collection took place during Paul’s third mission journey. (1 Corinthians 16:1-4) Once this collection was complete, we read in Acts that Paul was in a hurry to get to Jerusalem (Acts 20:16) where he then delivered the gift (Acts 24:17) the churches had collected for them.
Did Paul write this letter from the city of Ephesus then?
No, it is more likely that he wrote it from the city of Corinth. We know that most of Paul’s third mission was spent in the city of Ephesus. (Acts 20:31) During this time, however, he made some trips to the city of Corinth, and it is surmised that Paul wrote his letter to Rome on the last of these trips.
Why Corinth?
There are two hints in this book that Paul was at Corinth when he wrote this letter. First, is the fact that Phoebe appears to have been the person who carried the letter to Rome and delivered it to the Christians there. Paul writes:
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a deacon in the church in Cenchrea. Welcome her in the Lord as one who is worthy of honor among God’s people. Help her in whatever she needs, for she has been helpful to many, and especially to me. (Romans 16:1-2)
The city of Cenchrea was very close to Corinth. A church had been established there, and Pheobe was a deaconess to these Christians.
Second, is Gaius whom Paul identifies as his host. (Romans 16:23) A man by the same name is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:14 as someone who Paul baptized in Corinth. Assuming these are the same people, we conclude that Paul wrote his letter to Rome while staying at Gaius’ house in Corinth.
Why did Paul write this letter?
To answer this question, first take note of these facts regarding Paul’s ministry. First, we know that Paul’s calling was to preach to unreached people groups. He writes:
And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man’s foundation; (Romans 15:20)
Second, we know that Paul had his eyes set on preaching the gospel in Spain:
But now I have finished my work in these regions, and after all these long years of waiting, I am eager to visit you. I am planning to go to Spain, and when I do, I will stop off in Rome. And after I have enjoyed your fellowship for a little while, you can provide for my journey. (Romans 15:22-24)
From this, we conclude that Paul was hoping that the church in Rome would serve as a sort of sending church for him as he pressed farther west into Spain. Note the words above “you can provide for my journey.” This is likely why he was at such pains to explain the gospel that he preached. He wanted the Roman Christians to understand who he was, what he stood for, the content of his preaching, and what his objectives were.
What other reasons may have driven Paul to write this letter?
One reason can be seen in Paul’s teaching in chapters 9-11. Why did Paul spend so much time explaining the role of Israel in God’s plan? We know from the book of Acts that the burning issue of that time was the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Christian church without them needing to adopt the rituals and lifestyle prescribed by the Mosaic law. (Acts 15:1) No doubt, this raised all kinds of questions about the promises made to the patriarchs and the role of the Jewish nation in God’s redemptive plan. Paul’s teaching in chapters 9-11 is precisely aimed at resolving some of these questions.
What can be said about the Roman church?
Our only information here are the hints we find in the letter itself. First, it would seem that many of the members of this church had come from a Gentile background since Paul emphasizes his own call to evangelize the Gentiles: Through Him [Jesus] and on behalf of His name, we received grace and apostleship to call all those among the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. (Romans 1:5) We also note that Paul directs his teaching regarding the strong and weak to the strong Christians. You can see this in the opening verses of these chapters:
- Now you, [who are strong] accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. (Romans 14:1)
- Now we who are strong [Gentile Christians] ought to bear the weaknesses of those [Jewish Christians] without strength and not just please ourselves. (Romans 15:1)
Now the strong Christians were those who had come from a Gentile background. The weak were those who had come to Christ from a Jewish background. Thus, the majority of Christians in the Roman church must have been Gentile since Paul addresses them directly.
What hints are there from this letter that there were Jewish-Christians in the church at Rome?
The first thing to note is that Claudius expelled all Jews from Rome (cf Acts 18:2) some time in 49 or 50ad. (p318; p9) Paul’s letter to Rome was written in 56-57ad. Now it is also well know that, even though the Jews were expelled from Rome, they did trickle back over time. Paul’s frequent references to the Old Testament (Abraham and David in Romans 4, Adam in Romans 5, Pharaoh in Romans 9, Elijah in Rom 11) indicate that there were Jews in the church at Rome.
Did not Mark write his gospel for the Christians in Rome as well?
Yes, there is good evidence to believe that about this same time, Mark was preparing his gospel account for the Christians at Rome; cf Wallace.
Why does Tertius claim to have written this letter in Romans 16:22?
Tertius was Paul’s amanuensis or secretary who would have done the actual writing of the letter while Paul dictated to him its contents. This was a common practice in those days; see Richards.
Outline
What is the basic outline of the book of Romans?
Paul’s purpose is to give an overview of the gospel he preaches.
I. Introduction – Romans 1:1-17
A. Opening – Romans 1:1
B. The Good News which Paul preaches – Romans 1:2-5
C. Personal thoughts – Romans 1:6-15
D. The righteousness of God – Romans 1:16-17 (expanding on Romans 1:3; fully developed in Romans 3:21-26)
II. A New Legal Status (or justification) – Romans 1-5
A. The Legal Status of Every Person: Guilty – Romans 1-3
1. The gentiles – Romans 1:18-32
2. The Jews – Romans 2
3. Everyone – Romans 3:1-20
B. Legal Status of Every Believer: Righteous – Romans 3-5
1. The righteousness from God – Romans 3:21-26 (picked up from Romans 1:17)
2. Self-righteous pride eliminated – Romans 3:27-30
3. Objection answered – Romans 3:31 (picked up from Romans 3:8 and fully developed in Romans 6)
4. Scripture Proof – Romans 4:1-8
a. Abraham – Romans 4:1-5
b. David – Romans 4:6-8
5. Corollary: God’s blessing is for both Jews and gentile – Romans 4:9-25
a. Argument from the time of Abraham’s circumcision – Romans 4:10-13
b. Argument from God’s promise to Abraham being based on faith, not law – Romans 4:14-22
c. God’s method of justification not just for Abraham but also for us – Romans 4:23-25
6. Results of our new legal status – Romans 5:1-11
7. More Scripture Proof of this method of justification – Romans 5:12-21
a. Three differences between Adam & Christ – Romans 5:15-17
b. One similarity between Adam & Christ – Romans 5:18-19
c. The purpose of the law – Romans 5:20-21 (picked up from Romans 5:12)
III. A New Character (or sanctification) – Romans 6-8
A. Our new relationship to sin – Romans 6 (picked up from Romans 3:8, 31)
B. Our new relationship to the law – Romans 7:1-13 (picked up from Romans 4:15; 5:20)
C. The struggle against our sin-nature – Romans 7:14-8
1. Paul’s personal experience of trying to fix his character by mere law-keeping – Romans 7:14-25 (in light of the truth of Romans 6)
2. Comfort & Support in the struggle against sin – Romans 8 (the answer to Romans 7:14-25)
a. Assumption 1: The law has no charge to bring against believers – Romans 8:1-4 (repeat of Romans 7:1-4)
b. Assumption 2: Being under the control of the flesh → death; under the control of the Holy Spirit → life – Romans 8:5-8
c. Assumption 3: Paul’s confidence in the Roman Christian’s status – Romans 8:9-11
d. First support: the ministry of the Holy Spirit – Romans 8:12-13 (picked up from Romans 7:6)
e. Second support: adoption into God’s family – Romans 8:14-17
i. Doubts of our sonship resolved by the Spirit’s testimony – Romans 8:16
f. Third support: the life of a believer is not one of present enjoyment but of future expectation – Romans 8:18-25
i. Creation itself is a picture of the life of a believer – Romans 8:19-23
g. Fourth support: the intercession of the Holy Spirit – Romans 8:26-27 (picked up from Romans 8:23)
h. Fifth support: the hope of a believer is grounded in the unchanging purpose of God – Romans 8:28-39
What is the reason that Paul shifts his focus to Israel in chapters 9-11?
Paul does not explicitly say why. There were undoubtedly Jews in the church at Rome, and the question of the Jewish religion, its practices and rituals, the relationship between Jewish-Christians and Gentile-Christians, and many other issues related to the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant was always a source of controversy amongst the early Christians. Perhaps Paul is also trying to ward off any kind of anti-Semitism which might be rising in the early church.
Why does Paul quote so much from the Old Testament in these chapters?
Because Paul is especially directing his teaching here to the Jewish-Christians. Paul labors hard to show them that his gospel is in continuity with what the Old Testament taught. This, of course, would be important to those Christians which came from a Jewish background. In addition, it would be important for the Gentile-Christians to know and understand this as well since they would have come to an understanding that this too was the very word of God.
What is the precise issue which Paul is addressing in these chapters?
The issue is this. Why is the nation of Israel in such a miserable state when God had given them such wonderful promises? The Old Testament Scriptures were full of God’s promises of all what He would do for His people Israel in the last days. What had become of these? Was God not true to His word? This was the question which burned in the minds of every devout Jew. They had begun to doubt the very faithfulness of God to His word. You can see this in several of Paul’s comments.
First, Paul begins this section by insisting that the word of God has not failed. (Romans 9:6)
Then, in Romans 11, he asks: “…has God rejected his own people, the nation of Israel? and the answer given is: “…for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” (Romans 11:29)
Pettingill writes:
Having, therefore, brought the entire race into one common condemnation as sinners, and opened the one and only salvation in the gospel, the question inevitably emerges, What, then, becomes of the Davidic covenant, confirmed by the oath of God and renewed to the mother of Jesus by the angel Gabriel? What becomes of the repeated, specific, and absolutely unconditional promises of the restoration of all Israel to the land of their fathers, and the establishment again of the monarchy in the person of a Messiah, Who should be Son and Heir of David? This section is the apostle’s answer. Simple Studies in Romans, 120–121.
Godet writes (p336):
A Jew might reason thus: Either the gospel is true and Jesus really is the Messiah,—but in this case the divine promises formerly made to this Jewish people who reject the Messiah and His salvation are nullified;—or Israel is and remains for ever, as should be the case in virtue of its election, the people of God, and in this case the gospel must be false and Jesus an impostor. Thus the dilemma seemed to be: Either to affirm God’s faithfulness to His own election and deny the gospel, or to affirm the gospel, but give the lie to the divine election and faithfulness.
What are these promises to which the Jewish people clung so earnestly?
There are many.
-
God promised Abraham that all the families of the earth would be blessed in him and that anyone who cursed him would be cursed and all who blessed him would be blessed. (Genesis 12:3)
-
God promised to give the throne of Israel to one of David’s sons, and David’s dynasty would continue on forever and ever (2 Samuel 7:13-16).
-
God promised Ezekiel that he would reunite the two divided sections of Israel (Ezekiel 37:20), bring them back to the land of Palestine (Ezekiel 37:21), and set David as their king forever (Ezekiel 37:24).
-
In Zechariah 2, God promises to rebuild the city of Jerusalem to a much larger city than it ever was before; and in Zechariah 8, to make the city a pleasant place where the elderly reminisce and children play happily in the streets.
There are so many more.
What is Paul’s attitude towards the Jews in these chapters?
It is clear from Paul’s letters that he was very irritated with the Judaizers. (Philippians 3:2) With the general mass of the Jewish people, however, Paul had great sorrow and even a broken heart. He longed for their conversion. This is clear in these chapters where Paul turns from exultation to lament. Note as well Paul’s statement in Romans 9: “For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh…” (Romans 9:3) Moule writes (p245):
Paul, just at this point of the Epistle, turns with a peculiar intensity of grief and yearning towards the Israel which he had once led, and now had left, because they would not come with him to Christ. His natural and his spiritual sympathies all alike go out to this self-afflicting people, so privileged, so divinely loved, and now so blind. Oh that he could offer any sacrifice that would bring them reconciled, humbled, happy, to the feet of the true Christ! Oh that they might see the fallacy of their own way of salvation, and submit to the way of Christ, taking His yoke, and finding rest to their souls! Why do they not do it? Why does not the light which convinced him shine on them? Why should not the whole Sanhedrin say, “Lord, what wouldst Thou have us to do?” Why does not the fair beauty of the Son of God make them too “count all things but loss” for Him? Why do not the voices of the Prophets prove to them, as they do now to Paul, absolutely convincing of the historical as well as spiritual claims of the Man of Calvary? Has the promise failed? Has God done with the race to which He guaranteed such a perpetuity of blessing? No, that cannot be.
What does Paul mean here by “accursed from Christ”?
Here Paul is giving vent to the terrible anguish that he felt for his own people, the Jews, and how earnestly he desired their salvation. (Romans 10:1) He declares himself willing to be cut off from Christ and thus from salvation if it would mean the salvation of his people. Morison writes (p30):
Why such sorrow? His compatriots were in danger of being anathemata from the Christ. A lurid spiritual doom was gloomily looming over their future. There was, in the apostle’s estimation, appalling peril. Hence the agony of his heart. The ploughshare of grief had been tearing up and drawing out into furrows all that was most sensitive in his spirit, till he self-sacrificingly felt that if it were possible for him to secure their eternal gain by means of his own eternal loss, he would willingly leap into the abysmal depth of perdition, taking his people’s place and suffering in their room. It is the acme of a mood of mind incomparably Christ-like.
We see similar anguish expressed by Moses (Exodus 32:32) and David (2 Samuel 18:33).
You listed all the promises that God had made to His people. How does Paul resolve the question about the fulfillment of these promises?
Paul resolves this by showing that the Jews had misunderstood the true identity of the people of God. They identified the people of God as ethnic Israel. God, however, identified His people differently. In Romans 9, Paul shows that the real Israel or the real people of God are those whom God has sovereignly chosen to save. In Romans 10, Paul identifies the people of God as those who have believed in their heart and confessed with their mouth that Jesus is Lord. These are the people of God who will receive the promised blessings, not ethnic Israel.
What about Romans 11? What does Paul teach in this chapter?
In this chapter, Paul shows that God still has blessings in store even for ethnic Israel. He has not forgotten His people or thrown them aside; there is a future for them as well.
Polity
In the introduction, you explained how the first Christians came to Rome. What can we say about the government of this church especially in light of Roman Catholic claims?
The Roman Catholics teach that the church at Rome was founded by Peter and that Peter served as its first bishop. That Peter did not found the church at Rome is now granted by nearly everyone. The more difficult question is whether the church in Rome ever had a bishop or an episcopal polity, sometimes called a monarchical episcopate. The standard opinion is that the Roman church was presbyterial or ruled by a body of elders and only later evolved into an episcopal polity with a bishop at the head. The difficulty is the scarcity of any historical records which can help us answer this question. Lightfoot writes (p217):
As we turn to Rome, we are confronted by a far more perplexing problem than any encountered hitherto. The attempt to decipher the early history of episcopacy here seems almost hopeless, where the evidence is at once scanty and conflicting. It has been often assumed that in the metropolis of the world, the seat of imperial rule, the spirit which dominated in the State must by natural predisposition and sympathy have infused itself into the Church also, so that a monarchical form of government would be developed more rapidly here than in other parts of Christendom. This supposition seems to overlook the fact that the influences which prevailed in the early church of the metropolis were more Greek than Roman and that therefore the tendency would be rather towards individual liberty than towards compact and rigorous government. But indeed such presumptions, however attractive and specious, are valueless against the slightest evidence of facts. And the most trustworthy sources of information which we possess do not countenance the idea.
Didache
What is the first historical record of the Roman church’s polity?
The first reference does not pertain directly to the church of Rome but still gives us an insight into the polity of the earliest churches after the apostles. The Didache, written around 80-100ad, gives this advice to churches (chapter 15, p72):
Elect therefore for yourselves Bishops and Deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful, and approved; for they too minister to you the ministry of the Prophets and Teachers.
Here we have the same polity as given us in the New Testament, elders and deacons. Davis suggests that the author is exhorting the church to give equal respect to “bishops and deacons” as they do to the “apostles, prophets, and teachers.” He writes that “the apostles, prophets, and teachers clearly hold the most prominent place in the church, while the writer pleads for the bishops and deacons as though they did not habitually receive such honor, and seems to imply that they are beginning to take the place of the prophets and teachers in the public services of the church.”
cf. Harnack (p347), Potter (p117), Bruce (p78), Allen (p57). Harnack writes (p264):
These words [quoted above] are notable. They closely associate bishops and deacons. Their functions are primarily concerned with public worship, are personal in character, and deal also with financial administration. Unlike Apostles, prophets, and teachers, they are appointed by the community. They show that speaking the Word does not belong naturally to their functions, but that this service in the lack of prophets and teachers is already in process of transference to them. A great distinction seems to prevail between prophets and teachers on the one side and bishops and deacons on the other, which the author says must be avoided, because the last class are now performing the services of the first.
Clement
What does Clement teach us?
Clement’s first letter to the church in Corinth was written around the year 95-97ad. In this letter, he makes references to elders and bishops which, for him, are interchangeable terms.
- In chapter 1 (p5), he speaks of those who were obedient to those who ruled and gave honor to the elders.
- In chapter 42 (p16), he speaks of bishops and deacons.
- In chapter 44 (p17), he pronounces those elders blessed who died in the Lord.
- In chapter 47 (p18), he rebukes those rebel against the elders. In chapter 54 (p19), he exhorts the church to live in peace with the elders who were set over them.
- In chapter 57 (p20), he commands the rebellious Corinthians to submit to the elders.
Harnack writes (p):
The First Epistle of Clement gives detailed references to the organization of the Church at the period it was composed. It is all the more valuable because it comes from Rome and because it can be certainly dated. The occasion of the letter was trouble in the Corinthian community, a revolt of the younger elements against the older. The facts are as follows: The community is divided into presbyters and the younger element; those who lead are taken from the presbyters, hegoumenoi, prohegoumenoi (1:3, 3:3, 21:6) under these leaders. The letter from chapter 40 on is specially directed to those who conduct worship. These the author calls three times bishops and deacons. Their office is called episkopē. They are appointed officials, admitted with the approval of the whole community. The function of the episkopē is primarily and essentially divine worship; to offer the gifts, to read the liturgies (40:2, 44:4). These officials also have the title of presbyter. Despite the significance of their position, the power belongs finally to the community (“to do whatever the majority commands,”). The author of the letter writes in the name of the Roman community. Those whom it sends to Corinth are not mentioned as clerical personages. From this it follows that the bishops and deacons, who are constantly named together and who have the common functions of the episkopē or liturgy, belong, probably as appointed presbyters, to those who are called “leaders.” It does not follow, however, that the ministers of public worship are alone the “leaders.”
Lightfoot (p216):
The earliest authentic document bearing on the subject is the Epistle from the Romans to the Corinthians, probably written in the last decade of the first century. I have already considered the bearing of this letter on episcopacy in the Church of Corinth, and it is now time to ask what light it throws on the same institution at Rome. Now we cannot hesitate to accept the universal testimony of antiquity that it was written by Clement, the reputed bishop of Rome: and it is therefore the more surprising that, if he held this high office, the writer should not only not distinguish himself in any way from the rest of the church (as Polycarp does for instance), but that even his name should be suppressed. It is still more important to observe that, though he has occasion to speak of the ministry as an institution of the Apostles, he mentions only two orders and is silent about the episcopal office. Moreover he still uses the word ‘bishop’ in the older sense in which it occurs in the apostolic writings, as a synonym for presbyter, and it may be argued that the recognition of the episcopate as a higher and distinct office would oblige the adoption of a special name and therefore must have synchronized roughly with the separation of meaning between ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter.’
We can lump together with Clement Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians which references the same polity but does not reference the city of Rome directly. Harnack writes (p264):
The letter of Polycarp is addressed to the community at Philippi. It appears that at Philippi there was no monarchical episcopate, but a collegial administration. First are mentioned men, then widows, then deacons, then the younger element, then virgins, then presbyters; presbyters and deacons are to be reverenced by the younger element as God and Christ. The title bishop is not found in the letter; directions and warnings as to administration and pastoral care are directed to the presbyters. Valens, an individual who seems to be entrusted with the economic administration of the community, is mentioned as a presbyter.
Shepherd of Hermas
What is the next historical record of the Roman church’s polity?
The Shepherd of Hermas was written around the year 140-155ad; see §168. In this book, we find the following record (p331):
Now a revelation was given to me, my brethren, while I slept, by a young man of comely appearance, who said to me, Who do you think that old woman is from whom you received the book? And I said, The Sibyl. You are in a mistake, says he; it is not the Sibyl. Who is it then? say I. And he said, It is the Church. And I said to him, Why then is she an old woman? Because, said he, she was created first of all. On this account is she old. And for her sake was the world made. After that I saw a vision in my house, and that old woman came and asked me, if I had yet given the book to the presbyters. And I said that I had not. And then she said, You have done well, for I have some words to add. But when I finish all the words, all the elect will then become acquainted with them through you. You will write therefore two books, and you will send the one to Clemens and the other to Grapte. And Clemens will send his to foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so. And Grapte will admonish the widows and the orphans. But you will read the words in this city, along with the presbyters who preside over the Church.
Here we have a mention of elders who preside over the Roman church but no mention of a bishop. Harnack writes (p263) that the use of the plural “presbyters” (or elders) here cannot cannot be made to harmonize with the idea that a single bishop presided over the Roman church.
Ignatius
What light does Ignatius shed on this question?
It is in this church father, that we first find clear reference to a distinction between a bishop and an elder. There would be a body of elders but only one bishop. Harnack writes (p84):
In subordination, yet next in order to him [the bishop], stands a college of presbyters (τὸ πρεσβυτήριον, οἱ πρεσβύτεροι) which acts as a council, with special seats of honor in the community. They seem to act, not as individuals but only as a council (but their powers are hardly touched upon at all), and they have no other name than “the presbyters” (their number is not stated).
Thus, Ignatius commands (chapter 2, p50) deacon Onesimus, Burrhus, Euplus, and Fronto to be subject to the bishop and the presbytery. Later, he speaks (chapter 4, p50) of the bishop and the body of elders as working together as the strings on one harp. He writes (p61) to the Magnesians that the bishop is in the place of God and the elders are in the place of the apostles.
Does Ignatius write a letter to the church at Rome?
He does but strangely enough, he does not mention the bishop of this church. Lightfoot writes (p216):
Again not many years after the date of Clement’s letter, St Ignatius on his way to martyrdom writes to the Romans. Though this saint is the recognized champion of episcopacy, though the remaining six of the Ignatian letters all contain direct injunctions of obedience to bishops, in this epistle alone there is no allusion to the episcopal office as existing among his correspondents.
Jerome
What light does Jerome shed on this question?
Jerome writes on Titus 1:5:
“For this reason, I left you in Crete, so that you would correct what was lacking.” It is the dignity of the apostolic Church to lay the foundation, which no one can lay except the architect. And the foundation is none other than Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:11). Those who are lesser artisans can build houses upon the foundation. Therefore, as a wise architect, Paul exerted himself in every labor, not to glory in what had already been prepared, but after he had softened the hard hearts of the Cretans to faith in Christ, and had subdued them by both word and signs, and had taught them to believe in God the Father and in Christ, not in their native Jupiter, he left Titus as his disciple in Crete, to confirm the rudiments of the nascent Church and to correct anything that might appear lacking, while he himself went to other nations, in order to lay again the foundation of Christ in them. But when he says, “so that you would correct what was lacking,” it shows that they had not yet attained to the full knowledge of the truth, and even though they had been corrected by the Apostle, they still needed further correction. However, everything that is corrected is imperfect. Moreover, in Greek, the addition of the preposition in the word ἐπιδιορθώσῃ, which means “correct,” does not mean exactly the same thing as διορθώσῃ, that is, “to correct,” but rather, to over-correct, so that the things that I have corrected, and which have not yet been brought to the full line of truth, may be corrected by you, and receive the rule of equality.
And (as) you should appoint presbyters through cities, just as I arranged for you. Bishops who have the power to appoint presbyters in individual cities should listen, under which law the order of Ecclesiastical constitution is maintained: nor should they think that the words of the apostles are their own, but Christ’s, who said to the disciples: He who despises you, despises me; but he who despises me, despises him who sent me (Luke 10:16). So whoever hears you, hears me; and whoever rejects me, rejects him who sent me. From this it is clear that those who wish to confer the Ecclesiastical grade on anyone without merit, but through grace, contrary to the law of the apostles, do so against Christ himself, who through his apostle carried out the appointment of presbyter in the Church. Moses, the friend of God, to whom God spoke face to face (Deut. 5 and 31), could certainly have made his sons his successors in the principality and bequeathed his dignity to his descendants; but Jesus, a stranger from another tribe, was elected so that we would know that the principality must not be conferred on bloodline, but on life. But now we see many doing this as a favor, so that they do not seek to elevate pillars in the Church who can benefit the Church more, but those whom they themselves love, or with whose services they are entangled: or for whom someone of their ancestors begged, and, to not speak of worse things, who obtained the office by gifts. Let us carefully attend to the words of the apostles, saying: That you appoint presbyters in cities, just as I arranged for you. The person speaking about who ought to be ordained as a presbyter says this: “If anyone is without blame, a one-woman man, etc., for it is necessary for the bishop to be blameless, as a dispenser of God.” Therefore, the presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before, by the instigation of the devil, competitions arose in religion and it was said among the people, “I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollo,” “I am of Cephas” (1 Cor. 1:12), the governance of the church was conducted by the joint counsel of the presbyterate. But when each person began to consider those whom he had baptised as his own rather than Christ’s, it was decided throughout the world that one chosen from among the presbyters should be placed in charge of the others and have care of the general well-being of the church, so that the seeds of schism might be rooted out. Someone may think that this is not the teaching of the scriptures but our own opinion, that a bishop and a presbyter are the same, that the difference lies only in the age of the office. That person should pay attention to the words of the Apostle to the Philippians, where he addresses his epistle to “Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons; grace to you and peace” (Phil. 1:1–2), and so on. Now, although the city of Philippi is one in Macedonia, it is impossible for there to be several bishops in one city. But because they used to call the same persons bishops then, whom they did “presbyters” also, for this reason he spoke without distinction of bishops and presbyters. Finally, lest this statement by confirmed only by one witness, let it be confirmed by another. In the Acts of the Apostles it is written, that when the Apostle came to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus and called the presbyters of the same Church, to whom afterwards among other things he spoke: ‘Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood’ (Acts 20:28). And here observe carefully how, calling the Ephesian presbyters to him, he afterwards called the same men bishops. If anyone desires to receive the Epistle which is written to the Hebrews under the name of Paul, and in which the care of the Churches is equally divided, it is read among many. For he writes to the people: ‘Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you’ (Hebrews 13:17). And Peter, who for the strengthening of the faith received the name of Firm, speaks in his epistle to the elders, saying: ‘The ancients therefore that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come: feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it not by constraint, but willingly according to God: not for filthy lucre’s sake, but voluntarily’ (1 Peter 5:1-2). This we have shown in order to demonstrate that in former times those same people were presbyters whom later on were called bishops; and gradually it was so arranged that the various obligations were entrusted to one person. Therefore just as the presbyters know that by the custom of the Church they are subject to him who has been placed over them as their head, so also let the bishops know that according to the custom of the Church they are greater than the presbyters and ought to regulate the whole church by common council, imitating Moses, who, when he alone had power over the people of Israel, chose seventy others with whom he might judge the people (Numbers 11).